18_07 Adopted Amendment to 19 TAC §97.1001
Commissioner's Rules
Adopted Amendment to 19 TAC Chapter 97, Planning and Accountability, Subchapter AA, Accountability and Performance Monitoring, §97.1001, Accountability Rating System
Attachments:
I. Statutory Citations (PDF)
II. Text of Adopted Amendment to 19 TAC Chapter 97, Planning and Accountability, Subchapter AA, Accountability and Performance Monitoring, §97.1001, Accountability Rating System (PDF)
III. Summary of Public Comments and Agency Responses
SUMMARY: The rule action presented in this item was filed as adopted with the Texas Register under the commissioner's rulemaking authority. This item adopts an amendment to 19 TAC Chapter 97, Planning and Accountability, Subchapter AA, Accountability and Performance Monitoring, §97.1001, Accountability Rating System. The amendment adopts applicable excerpts of the 2018 Accountability Manual. Earlier versions of the manual will remain in effect with respect to the school years for which they were developed.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Texas Education Code (TEC), §§39.052(a) and (b)(1)(A); 39.053; 39.054; 39.0541; 39.0548; 39.055; 39.151; 39.201; 39.2011; 39.202; 39.203, 29.081(e), (e-1), and (e-2); and 12.104(b)(2)(L).
TEC, §39.052(a) and (b)(1)(A), requires the commissioner to evaluate and consider the performance on achievement indicators described in TEC, §39.053(c), when determining the accreditation status of each school district and open-enrollment charter school.
TEC, §39.053, requires the commissioner to adopt a set of performance indicators related to the quality of learning and achievement in order to measure and evaluate school districts and campuses.
TEC, §39.054, requires the commissioner to adopt rules to evaluate school district and campus performance and to assign a performance rating.
TEC, §39.0541, allows the commissioner to adopt indicators and standards under TEC, Subchapter C, at any time during a school year before the evaluation of a school district or campus.
TEC, §39.0548, requires the commissioner to designate campuses that meet specific criteria as dropout recovery schools and to use specific indicators to evaluate them.
TEC, §39.055, prohibits the use of assessment results and other performance indicators of students in a residential facility in state accountability.
TEC, §39.151, provides a process for a school district or an open-enrollment charter school to challenge an academic or financial accountability rating.
TEC, §39.201, requires the commissioner to award distinction designations to a campus or district for outstanding performance.
TEC, §39.2011, makes open-enrollment charter schools and campuses that earn an acceptable rating eligible for distinction designations.
TEC, §39.202 and §39.203, authorize the commissioner to establish criteria for distinction designations for campuses and districts.
TEC, §29.081(e), (e-1), and (e-2), defines criteria for alternative education programs for students at risk of dropping out of school and subjects those campuses to the performance indicators and accountability standards adopted for alternative education programs.
TEC, §12.104(b)(2)(L), subjects open-enrollment charter schools to the rules adopted under public school accountability in TEC, Chapter 39.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 2018.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND JUSTIFICATION: The Texas Education Agency (TEA) has adopted its academic accountability manual in rule since 2000. The accountability system evolves from year to year, so the criteria and standards for rating and acknowledging schools in the most current year differ to some degree over those applied in the prior year. The intention is to update 19 TAC §97.1001 annually to refer to the most recently published accountability manual.
The amendment to 19 TAC §97.1001 adopts excerpts of the 2018 Accountability Manual into rule as a figure. The excerpts, Chapters 1-9 of the 2018 Accountability Manual, specify the indicators, standards, and procedures used by the commissioner of education to determine accountability ratings for districts, campuses, and open-enrollment charter schools. These chapters also specify indicators, standards, and procedures used to determine distinction designations on additional indicators for Texas public school campuses and districts. The TEA will issue accountability ratings and distinction designations under the procedures specified in the 2018 Accountability Manual by August 15, 2018. Ratings and distinction designations may be revised as a result of investigative activities by the commissioner as authorized under TEC, §39.056 and §39.057.
This year's manual is substantially different from previous manuals. While some parts of the manual are completely new, other parts remained largely the same but were moved to a different chapter; others remained largely the same and remain in the same chapter. The following is a chapter-by-chapter summarization of this year's manual.
Chapter 1 gives an overview of the entire accountability system. It combines parts of Chapter 1 (not adopted in rule in previous years) and Chapter 2 from the previous manual, reorders some of the material in Chapter 2, and removes language specific to the past accountability system. It adds information about State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR®) indicators, Texas Student Data System Public Education Information Management System (TSDS PEIMS) indicators, and other assessment indicators. Another substantial difference from the previous Chapter 2 is the description of the three new domains and the rating labels for school districts and open-enrollment charter schools. The three new domains are required by TEC, §39.053(c). The requirement to use the new rating labels is in TEC, §39.054(a).
Chapter 2 describes the Student Achievement domain and is entirely new. This domain evaluates the results of STAAR® assessments at the Approaches, Meets, and Masters Grade Level standards across all grade levels, graduation rates, and several college, career, and military readiness indicators. Evaluating Approaches and Meets Grade Level standards on STAAR® is required by TEC, §39.053(c)(1)(A)(i)(a) and (b). The inclusion of the Masters Grade Level standard is a policy choice. The objective is to reward success at all performance levels to encourage administrative focus on all students, rather than just those near the lowest passing standard.
The use of graduation rates, which are measured in the Graduation Rate Component, is required by TEC, §39.053(c)(1)(B)(ix). The college, career, and military readiness indicators are required by TEC, §39.053(c)(1)(B)(i)-(viii), (x), and (xi). How these indicators are used is a policy choice. The indicators and an explanation for how each one is used follows.
Indicator: Meet Texas Success Initiative (TSI) Criteria in ELA/Reading and Mathematics.
Explanation: A graduate meeting the TSI college readiness standards in both ELA/reading and mathematics; specifically, meeting the college-ready criteria on the TSI assessment (TSIA), SAT, ACT, or by successfully completing and earning credit for a college prep course as defined in TEC, §28.014, in both ELA and mathematics. Meeting the criteria in both reading and mathematics aligns with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board's (THECB's) expectations for college readiness.
Indicator: Meet Criteria on Advanced Placement (AP)/International Baccalaureate (IB) Examination.
Explanation: A graduate meeting the criterion score on an AP or IB examination in any subject area. Criterion score is 3 or more for AP and 4 or more for IB. Research shows a correlation between first-year persistence in higher education for students who meet the criteria on an AP/IB examination, consistent with the college-ready threshold for SAT/ACT/TSIA. Including any subject area is in response to stakeholder feedback.
Indicator: Earn Dual Course Credits.
Explanation: A graduate completing and earning credit for at least three credit hours in ELA or mathematics or at least nine credit hours in any subject. This requirement was decreased from the 12 hours required by House Bill (HB) 2804, 84th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2015. Research shows a correlation between first-year persistence in higher education for students who complete three hours of credit in ELA or mathematics. Including nine hours in any subject is in response to stakeholder feedback.
Indicator: Enlist in the Armed Forces.
Explanation: A graduate enlisting in the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, or Marines. Enlistment standard encompasses academic readiness (ASVAB), physical fitness, and character screening.
Indicator: Earn an Industry-Based Certification.
Explanation: A graduate earning an industry-based certification under 19 TAC §74.1003, Industry-Based Certifications for Public School Accountability. Completion of at least one of the 73 industry-based certifications adopted under 19 TAC §74.1003 is a strong indicator of meaningful post-graduate employment. List validated via tri-agency stakeholder feedback (TEA, THECB, Texas Workforce Commission) and, where available, employment data.
Indicator: Earn an Associate's Degree.
Explanation: A graduate earning an associate's degree while in high school. Automatically met by students meeting dual-credit threshold but highlighted distinctly to showcase postsecondary completion.
Indicator: Graduate with Completed IEP and Workforce Readiness.
Explanation: A graduate receiving a graduation type code of 04, 05, 54, or 55, which indicates the student has completed his/her individualized education program (IEP) and has either demonstrated self-employment with self-help skills to maintain employment or has demonstrated mastery of specific employability and self-help skills that do not require public school services. Crediting school districts, open-enrollment charter schools, and campuses for annual special education graduates who complete workforce or work-skill programs while in high school meets the intent of the statute.
Indicator: CTE Coherent Sequence Coursework Aligned with Industry-Based Certifications.
Explanation: A career and technical education (CTE) coherent sequence graduate who has completed and received credit for at least one CTE course aligned with an industry-based certification. This indicator will award one-half point only for graduates who have met no other College, Career, and Military Readiness (CCMR) indicator. These graduates will receive one-half point credit for coursework completed toward an industry-based certification. Giving partial credit to school districts, open-enrollment charter schools, and campuses for CTE coherent sequence students who complete and earn credit for coursework aligned with the approved list of industry-based certifications is in response to stakeholder feedback. Also, phasing out CTE coherent sequence allows school districts, open-enrollment charter schools, and campuses to receive credit for efforts already in progress.
In relation to this indicator, the following is an overview of the current transition plan from CTE coherent sequence to industry-based certification. For 2018 and 2019, CTE coherent sequence graduates who complete and receive credit for at least one industry-based certification aligned CTE course earn one-half point. For 2020 and 2021, CTE coherent sequence graduates who complete and receive credit for a pathway of courses toward an industry-based certification earn one-half point. For 2022 and beyond, only graduates who earn an industry-based certification earn one point.
Chapter 3 describes the School Progress domain and is entirely new. This domain has two parts. The first part, Academic Growth, uses academic growth on the STAAR® assessment. The requirement for using growth on STAAR® is in TEC, §39.053(c)(2)(A). How growth is measured and how school districts, open-enrollment charter schools, and campuses are awarded for different levels of growth is a policy choice. The first part of the domain awards points depending on the amount of growth and the maintenance of proficiency. The rationale is to provide opportunities for school districts, open-enrollment charter schools, and campuses to receive credit for STAAR® results that either maintain proficiency or meet the student-level criteria for progress. This decision was also influenced by stakeholder feedback.
The second part, Relative Performance, uses the performance of school districts, open-enrollment charter schools, and campuses relative to similar school districts, open-enrollment charter schools, and campuses. The requirement for using relative performance is in TEC, §39.053(c)(2)(B). The determination of how to measure relative performance is based on available research. The second part of the domain compares academic performance to the percentage of students who are economically disadvantaged. The second part of the domain is based on research that has shown that a student's socioeconomic status is one of the most accurate predictors of achievement. Highlighting campuses that are the most successful in educating students who are economically disadvantaged can help identify best practices.
Chapter 4 describes the Closing the Gaps domain and is entirely new. This domain evaluates academic differences among student groups. The requirement to look at these differences is in TEC, §39.053(c)(3). This domain was designed to meet the federal requirements of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). ESSA requires five different indicators; the law prescribes four indicators and leaves the fifth indicator to the states' discretion (subject to approval of the U.S. Department of Education (USDE)). The construction of this domain is based on the need to align to the language of ESSA and in response to comments from USDE.
Chapter 5 describes how the overall ratings are calculated and is entirely new. The overall ratings are a combination of two of the three domains. How to combine the ratings and the weight of each domain are required by TEC, §39.054(a-1).
Chapter 6 describes distinction designations; it was Chapter 5 in the previous manual. The only substantial change to this chapter is the explanation that districts that earn an A, B, C, or D are eligible for distinction designations. The eligibility of these districts for distinction designations is established in TEC, §39.054(a) and §39.201(b).
Chapter 7 describes the pairing process and the alternative education accountability provisions; it was Chapter 6 in the previous manual. There were no substantial changes from the previous manual.
Chapter 8 describes the process for appealing ratings; it was Chapter 7 in the previous manual. There were no substantial changes from the previous manual.
Chapter 8 from the previous manual has been removed completely.
Chapter 9 describes the responsibilities of TEA, the responsibilities of school districts and open-enrollment charter schools, and the consequences to school districts and open-enrollment charter schools related to accountability and interventions; it was Chapter 9 in the previous manual. There are no substantial changes from the previous manual.
In 2018, campuses and districts will be evaluated using three domains of indicators, which were developed based on extensive feedback from educators, school board members, business and community representatives, professional organizations, and legislative representatives from across the state. The three domains include performance on the STAAR® assessments for Grades 3-8 and end-of-course; CCMR indicators; and longitudinal graduation rates/annual dropout rates. The domains incorporate the various criteria mandated by statute as set out in the description of statutory authority under which the manual is adopted.
The Student Achievement domain evaluates performance across all subjects for all students on general and alternate assessments, CCMR, and graduation rates. The School Progress domain measures district and campus outcomes in two parts: (1) the number of students that grew at least one year academically (or are on track) as measured by STAAR® results, and (2) the achievement of students on STAAR® or a combination of STAAR® and CCMR relative to similar districts or campuses. The Closing the Gaps domain measures achievement differentials among students, including differentials among students from different racial and ethnic groups and socioeconomic backgrounds and other factors, including students formerly receiving special education services, continuously enrolled students, and students who are mobile. The better outcome of the Student Achievement domain and the School Progress domain is weighted at 70 percent of the overall rating. The Closing the Gaps domain is weighted at 30 percent. The combined total weighted outcomes of the two domains is the overall score.
The 2018 cut points for districts and campuses reflect high expectations for student achievement, school progress, and reducing achievement gaps among students of different racial and ethnic backgrounds and different socioeconomic statuses. The cut points for an A equate high performance consistent with meeting statewide goals for students. For example, achieving a raw score of 60 in Student Achievement is consistent with the 60x30TX plan and is used to designate an A (or a 90 out of 100 scaled score) in that domain. Performance in a domain that was precisely average for campuses in the 2016-2017 school year is used to determine C cut points (specifically, 78 out of 100 for a slightly high C). Exact cut score levels are informed based on performance achieved in the 2016-2017 school year. To the extent possible, cut scores will remain static over five-year intervals so that as campuses improve statewide, campus ratings also improve. This allows for easier year-over-year performance comparisons and ensures it remains mathematically possible for all campuses to achieve an A, even in the first year of implementation. A performance rating of A reflects exemplary performance, B reflects recognized performance, C reflects acceptable performance, D reflects performance that needs improvement, and F reflects unacceptable performance. In 2018, A, B, C, D, or F ratings are assigned to districts for overall performance and for performance in each domain. Campuses are assigned Met Standard, Met Alternative Standard, or Improvement Required ratings for overall performance and for performance in each domain.
There are substantive changes to the accountability system for 2018. HB 22, 85th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2017, revised the accountability system from four indices to three domains. Additionally, HB 22 updated the performance indicators evaluated in the three domains. The 2018 Accountability Manual incorporates these changes and includes the following: STAAR Component, which evaluates STAAR® at Approaches Grade Level, STAAR® at Meets Grade Level, and STAAR® at Masters Grade Level; CCMR Component, which includes the following indicators: Meet TSI Criteria in ELA/Reading and Mathematics, Meet Criteria on AP/IB Examination, Earn Dual Course Credits, Enlist in the Armed Forces, Earn an Industry-Based Certification, Earn an Associate's Degree, Graduate with Completed IEP and Workforce Readiness, and CTE Coherent Sequence Coursework Aligned with Industry-Based Certifications; Graduation Rate Component, which evaluates the four-year, five-year, or six-year longitudinal graduation rates; Academic Growth, which measures the percentage of students who met the standard for improvement; Relative Performance, which measures overall student performance compared to similar districts and campuses; and student achievement differentials among students, including differentials among students from different racial and ethnic groups and socioeconomic backgrounds and other factors, including students formerly receiving special education services, continuously enrolled students, and students who are mobile in Academic Achievement; Academic Growth Status; Federal Graduation Status; English Language Proficiency Component; Student Achievement Domain Score: STAAR® Component Only; CCMR Component Performance.
In 2018, the distinction designations system will award seven distinctions to eligible campuses that receive a Met Standard rating: Academic Achievement in English Language Arts/Reading; Academic Achievement in Mathematics; Academic Achievement in Science; Academic Achievement in Social Studies; Top 25 Percent: Comparative Academic Growth; Top 25 Percent: Comparative Closing the Gaps; and Postsecondary Readiness. Districts that receive an A, B, C, or D will be eligible for a distinction designation for Postsecondary Readiness.
The amendment to 19 TAC §97.1001 also updates cross references to statute in subsections (a) and (c).
Changes were made to the manual since published as proposed. The adopted manual includes the following changes either to provide clarification or in response to public comment.
Chapter 1 was revised to specify that, in calculating STAAR® retester performance, the best result is found for performance and progress, considered separately.
Chapter 2 was revised to include a modified methodology for small numbers analysis applied to the CCMR component. Language was added to clarify how English learners (ELs) who are in their second year in U.S. schools will be included in 2018 accountability calculations if the Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) waiver submitted to the U.S. Department of Education is denied. In addition, a technical edit was made to the URL link pointing to the list of 73 industry-based certifications found in 19 TAC §74.1003.
Chapter 3 was updated to reflect three changes. Language was added to clarify how ELs who are in their second year in U.S. schools will be included in 2018 accountability calculations if the TELPAS waiver submitted to the U.S. Department of Education is denied. Language was revised to specify that Academic Growth evaluates STAAR® assessment results for Grades 4-8, English II, and Algebra I end of course. Language was also updated to specify that the y-axis value for School Progress, Part B: Relative Performance is either the raw STAAR® component score or the average of the raw STAAR® and CCMR component scores.
Chapter 4 was updated to reflect multiple changes. Language was added to clarify how ELs who are in their second year in U.S. schools will be included in 2018 accountability calculations if the TELPAS waiver submitted to the U.S. Department of Education is denied. Language was revised to clarify that the Academic Achievement component evaluates STAAR® results at the Meets Grade Level standard or above. Language was revised to clarify the data sources for former special education identification. Language was modified to clarify the minimum size criteria for the Academic Achievement component of the Closing the Gaps domain. Language was added, as a technical correction, to clarify the methodology for the English Language Proficiency component if the TELPAS waiver submitted to the U.S. Department of Education is denied. The Student Achievement Domain Score: STAAR® Component Only minimum size criteria and small numbers analysis section was updated to remove subject area references as this component does not disaggregate by subject area. The CCMR component was revised to include a modified methodology for small numbers analysis. The targets for elementary and middle schools were rearranged to be presented before the targets for high schools, K-12s, and districts. The Federal Graduation Status targets for former special education, continuously enrolled, and non-continuously enrolled students were removed as these student groups are not evaluated in the graduation component of the Closing the Gaps domain.
Chapter 5 was updated to correct scaling formulas for F and scaled scores 30-59. Additionally, Chapter 5 was updated to include language clarifying overall district, open-enrollment charter school, and campus overall rating calculations. For districts and open-enrollment charter schools, if three of the four areas (Student Achievement; School Progress, Part A: Academic Growth; School Progress, Part B: Relative Performance; or Closing the Gaps) result in F ratings, the highest scaled score a district or open-enrollment charter school can receive for the overall rating is a 59. Likewise, if a campus receives an Improvement Required rating in three of the four areas (Student Achievement; School Progress, Part A: Academic Growth; School Progress, Part B: Relative Performance; or Closing the Gaps), the highest scaled score a campus can receive for the overall rating is a 59. In order for this provision to be applied, the district, open-enrollment charter school, or campus must be evaluated on all four areas.
In addition, the page numbers were updated to reflect the changes made throughout the manual.
FISCAL IMPACT: The TEA has determined that there are no additional costs to persons or entities required to comply with the amendment. In addition, there is no direct adverse economic impact for small businesses, microbusinesses, and rural communities; therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis, specified in Texas Government Code, §2006.002, is required. There is no effect on local economy; therefore, no local employment impact statement is required under Texas Government Code, §2001.022. The amendment does not impose a cost on regulated persons, another state agency, a special district, or a local government and, therefore, is not subject to Texas Government Code, §2001.0045.
GOVERNMENT GROWTH IMPACT: TEA staff prepared a Government Growth Impact Statement assessment for this rulemaking. During the first five years the rulemaking would be in effect, it does not create or eliminate a government program; does not require the creation of new employee positions or elimination of existing employee positions; does not require an increase or decrease in future legislative appropriations to the agency; does not require an increase or decrease in fees paid to the agency; does not create a new regulation; does not expand, limit, or repeal an existing regulation; does not increase or decrease the number of individuals subject to its applicability; and does not positively or adversely affect the state's economy.
PUBLIC AND STUDENT BENEFIT: The amendment continues to inform the public of the existence of annual manuals specifying rating procedures for the public schools by including this rule in the Texas Administrative Code.
PROCEDURAL AND REPORTING IMPLICATIONS: The amendment places the specific procedures contained in Chapters 1-9 of the 2018 Accountability Manual for annually rating school districts and campuses in the Texas Administrative Code. Applicable procedures will be adopted each year as annual versions of the accountability manual are published.
LOCALLY MAINTAINED PAPERWORK REQUIREMENTS: The amendment has no locally maintained paperwork requirements.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: The public comment period on the proposal began May 18, 2018, and ended June 18, 2018. A public hearing on the proposed amendment was held on June 1, 2018. Attachment III reflects a summary of the public comments received and the corresponding agency responses.
ALTERNATIVES: None.
OTHER COMMENTS AND RELATED ISSUES: None.
Staff Members Responsible:
Penny Schwinn, Chief Deputy Commissioner, Academics
Jamie Crowe, Executive Director, Performance Reporting