president september 5, 2018 president elect …

PRESIDENT Alief ISD Mr. HD Chambers PRESIDENT‐ELECT Hurst‐Euless‐Bedford ISD Mr. Steve Chapman VICE PRESIDENT Northside ISD Dr. Brian Woods SECRETARY Corpus Christi ISD Dr. Roland Hernandez TREASURER Katy ISD Dr. Lance Hindt PAST PRESIDENT Aldine ISD Dr. LaTonya Goffney

MEMBER DISTRICTS Abilene Aldine* Alief* Amarillo* Arlington Austin Corpus Christi* Cypress‐Fairbanks* Dallas Ector County El Paso Fort Bend Fort Worth Garland Harlingen Houston Humble* Hurst‐Euless‐Bedford* Irving* Katy* Killeen* Lubbock McAllen Mesquite* Midland North East Northside* Pharr‐San Juan‐Alamo Richardson Round Rock San Angelo* San Antonio Socorro Spring Branch* Tyler* United Waco *TSA Board Members

September 5, 2018

Superintendent and LEAD Staff Agenda Doubletree Guest Suites, Austin

10:30 – 10:40 a.m. Executive Session

10:40 – 10:45 a.m. Welcome and Introductions HD Chambers, President

10:45 – 11:20 a.m. SB 1882 Panel/Discussion Participating TSA Members

11:20 – 11:25 a.m. ACTION: Approve Officers, Board of Directors and Dues Structure for 2018-2019 Participating TSA Members

11:25 – 12:40 p.m. LUNCH & Commissioner Morath’s Presentation

12:40 – 12:50 p.m. Organizational Issues HD Chambers, President

12:50– 1:20 p.m. Texas School Finance Update Texas School Finance Commission

Lynn Moak, Daniel Casey and Catherine Knepp, Moak, Casey & Associates

1:20 – 1:50 p.m. Accountability and Assessment Update 2018 Accountability Ratings Review Potential Legislative Priorities

HD Chambers, President and Dee Carney, Moak, Casey & Associates

1:50 – 2:20 p.m. Legislative Update Todd Webster, HillCo Partners

2:20 – 2:25 p.m. Federal Report Thompson & Horton

2:25 – 2:30 p.m. Wrap-up HD Chambers, President

1

9/4/2018

1

TSA: Superintendent and LEAD Staff

September 5, 2018

© Moak, Casey and Associates 1

Agenda Welcome and Introduction

SB 1882 Panel/Discussion

ACTION: Approve Officers, Board of Directors, and Dues Structure for 2018-19

Lunch and Commissioner Presentation

Organizational Issues

Texas School Finance Update

Accountability and Assessment Update

Legislative Update

Federal Report

Wrap-up


2

9/4/2018

2

Reminder

Texas School Alliance Website

URL:http://texasschoolalliance.org/

Resources for members and non-members

Log-In to Access Members Only under TSA Documents Tab

Password: TSA_18


State Revenue Performance FY 18

4© Moak, Casey and Associates

Biennial Revenue Estimate Projected

Growth*

Actual Growth to

Date

Sales Tax 5.50% 10.01%

Motor Vehicle Tax 10.27% 9.04%

Natural Gas Tax ‐9.53% 45.25%

Oil Production Tax 9.85% 56.87%

Alcoholic Beverage Tax 4.63% 6.09%

Cigarette and Tobacco ‐7.72% ‐6.93%

Motor Fuels Taxes 1.61% 4.01%

* Certification Revenue Estimate, October 2017

3

9/4/2018

3

Revenue Estimate

July 11 Revised Certification Revenue Estimate $110.17 billion in General Revenue-Related

(GR-R) funds available for the 2018-19 bienniumProjected fiscal 2019 ending balance of $2.67

billion before any reduction for supplemental appropriations


The Budget Hole Challenges

Cause of Structural Gap 2018‐19 Originally 2018‐19 Currently

Delayed August 2019 Sales Tax Transfer

($3.6) ($0.25)

One‐time Measures (1.2) (1.2)

Sales Tax Dedication Increase

(0.3) 0

Motor Vehicle Tax Dedication

(0.8) (0.8)

Medicaid Funding Shortfall

(2.0) (2.0)

Total ($7.9) ($4.25)


4

9/4/2018

4

Summary of Agency Budget Requests for the 2020-21 Biennium


Texas Education Agency

Exceptional Items 1. Safe and Healthy Schools Initiative ($54 million for the biennium)2. Special Education Supports ($50.5 million for the biennium)3. Windham School District funding Improvements ($7.1 million for the biennium)

Department of State Health ServicesExceptional Items of $138 million on top of $1.6 billion all funds budget

Summary of Agency Budget Requests for the 2020-21 Biennium


Health and Human Services Commission

$2.8 billion in exceptional items from GR and $6.5 billion in all funds

$1.5 billion of this amount is for Medicaid entitlement growth

Department of Transportation$1.3 billion in exceptional items from GR Underlying base budget will increase from $28.2 billion to $32.7 billion with new revenue transfers

5

9/4/2018

5


Outcomes Group Recommendations

4 Incentives aimed at “specific goals at critical ‘gates’” along a student’s educational career

1) Incentive 1: 3rd Grade Reading Achievement

• Weight for K-3 low-income or ELL students • Adequate enough to fund full day Pre-K to all eligible students• Monies must be directed toward meeting HB 4 quality standards

and schools must use a common Kindergarten readiness indicator/assessment

• Districts must track where students have attended Pre-K and disaggregate Kindergarten readiness results by where students attended Pre-K and report findings to TEA

• Incremental funding above the basic allotment for 3rd grade students at state’s Meets Standard


2) Incentive 2: 8th Grade Algebra Achievement Districts receive additional recognition in accountability and

incentive pay for every 8th grader achieving reading and/or Algebra 1 proficiency at state’s Meet’s standard

3) Incentive 3: College, Career and Military Readiness Districts receive additional recognition in accountability and

incentive pay for every high school grad that does not require remediation in higher-ed

and either a) an industry-accepted certification within top in-demand jobs or b) enrolls in post-secondary institution or the military

© Moak, Casey and Associates



10

6

9/4/2018

6

4) Incentive 4: Optional Funding Via Weights for Teacher Pay• Money pay for higher salaries, especially those associated

with ACE-like efforts• Required signing bonuses for new hires with intensive

teacher prep education• Required Mentor/Coach Role for High Achieving

Teachers• All districts accepting funds must develop and use their

own multiple measure teacher evaluation system




11

Outcomes Group Recommendations:

Formula weights and incentive pay for student achievement

Multi-method teacher evaluation systems similar to DISD’s TEI program

No solution presented yet at the Commission but references to the Governor’s Property Tax Plan have been made by Paul Bettencourt, chair of Revenue Working Group

Governor’s Letter to the Commission:

“Redesign a system” that prioritizes “spending that is proven to improve student outcomes”

“Create a system that fosters innovation” learn from successful schools and “replicate their success statewide”

“Explore alternatives to the burdensome and inefficient property tax”



Alignment of Recommendations with

Governor’s Goals

7

9/4/2018

7



Expenditures Group Considerations

Summary of August Hearing:

Five Committee Members: State Board of Education member Keven Ellis, Senator Larry Taylor, Chairman Dan Huberty, Senator Royce West and Chairman Scott Brister

40-page document full of recommendations from school organizations and experts

Chairman Huberty estimated that official recommendations would not be made until September or early October

13




Recommendations Discussed by the Working Group:

Repealing certain allotments and channeling their funding into the basic allotment. High School Allotment 1992-93 Chapter 41 Hold Harmless Non-Professional Staff Allotment Gifted and Talented Allotment Public Education Grant Allotment Transportation allotment.

Eliminating the early agreement discount for those districts paying recapture

Discontinuing the use of the CEI

14

8

9/4/2018

8




Transitioning away from the use of prior year property values in the funding formulas (a $264 increase in the basic allotment)

Using enrollment instead of ADA

Moving to a single-tier funding system

Priorities highlighted in the meeting: Pre-kindergarten

Dual language (instead of bilingual) programming

Teacher compensation system for high-achieving teachers, especially those on high-needs campuses.

Compensatory education

15



Revenue Group Considerations

TBD?

16

9

9/4/2018

9



Calendar of Potential Meetings

17

September 13 Possible Expenditures Committee Meeting

October date target for Final Expenditures Recommendations Offered to Full Commission

Revenue Committee??

Must Finish Full Committee Meeting by End of the Year

Gov. Abbott Commits To Asking Lawmakers For More Money To Fund Public Schools

Abbott makes a statement at roundtable in Dallas discussing the need for additional school funding



Governor Abbott Commits to Asking

Lawmakers for More Money for Public

Schools

18

10

9/4/2018

10

• Dr. Hinojosa said, “That’s the first time I’ve heard the leadership of the state say that it’s time to put more resources in it, and a lot of us were skeptical of the finance hearings – oh, here we go again. But now, they’re getting some legs and specificity.”

Senator West said, “We have a solid commitment from the Governor that he will ask the legislature for additional money for education. It’s going to come from the state and not the local school districts, so I look forward to working with the Governor.”



Governor Abbott Commits to Asking

Lawmakers for More Money for Public

Schools

19



District Spending Transparency

20

New ESSA Financial Reporting Requirements, According to EdWeek:

• “ESSA requires districts to publish per-pupil allocations for actual personnel and non-personnel expenditures by each funding source (federal, state, and local funds), for each district, and school on their annual report cards.”

• “Superintendents and principals will need to get on the same page about current district allocation policies and practices, why some schools appear to get more resources than others, and how this all aligns with the stated vision and mission of the district.”

11

9/4/2018

11




21

TEA’s Financial Information Tool (FIT)

• Not a replacement to FIRST• Provides ability to benchmark against other districts, including financial

data for campuses

• Phase One Launch: August 2018 (part of texasschools.org)• Phase Two Launch: October 2018




22

TXschools.org

Finance Tab for AliefISD

12

9/4/2018

12



Security

23

Statewide Function 52 Operational Expenses • $452,432,181 Total in 2016-17

• $309,758,214 on Personnel; $108,914,717 on Contracted Services; $28,856,848 on Supplies $4,902,402 on Miscellaneous in 2016-17

• Urban and Large districts and districts with higher concentrations of economically disadvantaged students spend more than rural and smaller districts and those with fewer economically disadvantaged students

Source: PEIMS 2016-17 Actual Financial Information



Security

24

In 2016-17, TSA districts spent an average of $104 on Function 52 (Security and Monitoring Services)

How much are TSA districts spending on school safety this year?

Source: PEIMS 2016-17 Actual Financial Information

13

DallasMorningNewsArticleonSchoolFunding:FactSheet

On August 29, 2018, the Dallas Morning News published an article by Governor Abbott regarding school funding. In the article, Governor Abbott says that we need to “prioritize spending on our students and teachers, as well as technology and mentoring.” He then goes on to enumerate figures that outline how classroom dollars are being spent. “For example, the school finance system spends nearly $250,000 per year for a 22‐student classroom, but average teacher pay is just under $54,000. To put that in perspective, per‐classroom spending has increased by $56,000 since 2006—enough money to double the average teacher salaries. Texas should provide districts with financial incentives to put more money into the classroom. This strategy will also increase both the equity and efficiency of our system.” This discussion uses figures that are like those presented by James Quintero of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, as published in the Austin American‐Statesman on March 30, 2018. Here are relevant points and counterpoints to his claims (The Quintero comments are shown in italics): “Austin’s education lobby is pushing the narrative that public schools are underfunded and the state is to blame.” “To begin, public schools have sufficient funding. In the 2015‐16 school year alone, Texas school districts spent a total of $64.8 billion on 5.3 million schoolchildren. That level of expenditure has grown by more than $20 billion over the last 10 years despite only a modest increase in student enrollment.” 2015‐16 Data • $64,767,380,510 in Total Expenditures • 5,281,243 enrolled students • Is a 17.2% increase in students “slight”? • Can the state absorb 776,600 students with no additional funding? That’s the combined enrollment of Houston, Dallas, Cy‐Fair, Northside, Fort Worth, and Austin, or more than the smallest 930 school districts combined • After excluding capital outlay, debt service, and food service, expenditures per enrolled student have increased only 2.2% per year 2005‐06 Data • $43,375,742,026 in Total Expenditures • 4,504,627 enrolled students

18

www.moakcasey.com Page2

“On a per pupil basis, there’s enough money in the system to spend $12,250 on every student. For the average classroom of 20 students, that yields almost $250,000 for every nine‐month school year. Yet, most of us recognize that much of that money isn’t reaching the classroom.” $12,264 per student • $2,822 of that for capital outlay and debt service, and cannot be legally spent on instruction • $529 of that for food service, and cannot be legally spent on instruction • $929 of that for plant maintenance and operations – that is the classroom • The $250,000 per supposed classroom reduces to $178,240 after excluding funds that cannot legally be spent on instruction • The actual student to teacher ratio is 15.26 to 1, so “per classroom” spending is $135,997 Of the $135,997 “per classroom” • $14,165 is for plant maintenance, including utilities, custodial services, grounds maintenance, etc. • $4,065 is for transportation to get students to school each day • $5,099 is for guidance and counseling services • $1,725 is for librarians • $2,765 is for data processing • $1,282 is for security • $8,296 is for campus administration, including principals and related staff, attendance clerks, etc. • $81,137 (60%) is for instruction, including teachers, aides, and instructional materials and equipment “Consider that during the 2015‐16 school year, school districts spent $7.3 billion on debt service, costing educators 11 cents out of every dollar.” “If you think that all these debts were issued out of necessity, remember that Texas is home to several of the nation’s most‐expensive high school stadiums, including: Cy‐Fair ISD’s Berry Center ($84 million); Katy ISD’s Legacy Stadium ($70.3 million); McKinney ISD’s as‐yet‐unnamed stadium ($69.9 million) and its literal down‐the‐road neighbor, Allen ISD’s Eagle Stadium ($60 million).” The “11 cents of every dollar” cannot be legally spent on teachers • Debt service funds are separately authorized, and do not “cost” teachers anything • Those “most‐expensive high school stadiums” total to $284 million, and were constructed over 11 years • Total capital outlay over those 11 years has been $78.363 billion; those stadiums account for 0.36% of the total • The vast majority of capital outlay is funded with locally‐approved voter authorized debt “Administrative bloat is also a big problem. From 1993 to 2015, Texas’ student population grew by 48 percent while the number of teachers grew by 56 percent. In contrast, the number of nonteaching staff positions increased by 66 percent and many of those jobs cost taxpayers a pretty penny.”

19

www.moakcasey.com Page3

The “administrative bloat” apparently includes, librarians, nurses, counselors, and others with direct student contact, along with professional administrators and non‐professional staff. • Professional support staff counts are 1 for every 5.18 teachers • Professional administrative roles in PEIMS totaled 26,801 in 2014‐15, or 1 for every 12.77 teachers • Non‐teaching salaries are on average 69% of the average teacher salary

20

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2018/08/21/gov‐abbott‐lawmakers‐money‐public‐schools/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Gov.AbbottCommitsToAskingLawmakersForMoreMoneyToFundPublicSchoolsAugust21,2018

DALLAS(CBSDFW.COM)–TexasGovernorGregAbbottsayshewillbeaskinglawmakerstospendmorestatemoneyforpublicschools.

HisstatementcameduringaneducationroundtableTuesdayafternoonattheDallasISDSolarPreparatorySchoolForGirlsinDallas,wherehespokewithavarietyofteachers,SuperintendentDr.MichaelHinojosa,TEACommissionerandformerDallasISDTrusteeMikeMorath,DemocraticStateSenatorRoyceWestofDallas,andRepublicanStateRepresentativeMorganMeyerofDallas.

TheGovernor’sroundtableisaimedatdiscussingschoolfinancereformandboostingteacherpay.

Gov.GregAbbott(CBS11)

ThestateisoftencriticizedforincreasinglyrelyingonlocalpropertytaxestofundpublicK‐12schools.

Duringanewsconferencefollowingthediscussion,IaskedGovernorAbbottifhewillnotonlyaskthelegislaturetospendmorestatemoneyforpublicschools,butreallypushthelegislatureforit.

Hesaid,“Yes.”

Whenaskedifitwasthatsimple,theGovernorsaid,“Yes,thatsimple.”

ThestatelegislativesessionbeginsthisJanuary,andwhenaskedhowhewouldconvincelawmakerstogoalongwithhim,GovernorAbbottsaid,“TheonlywayI

21

canconvincethelegislaturetodothatistoshowthemaproductthatreallywillachieveresults.WehappentobeinadistrictrightnowwheretheyhaveshownthoseresultsandwhatwehavetodoistaketheproductthatexistsinDISDandmakeitapplicableelsewheresoIcansellitasastatewideproduct.”

TheGovernortoldDallasISDteachersandothereducationandpoliticalleadersthathedoesn’twanttothrowmoremoneyatanoldsystemthatdoesn’tproduceresultsandthathe’sfocusedoninnovativeprogramsthatwork.

SomeattheroundtablewelcomedtheGovernor’scommitmenttopushingformorestatemoneyforschools.

Dr.Hinojosasaid,“That’sthefirsttimeI’veheardtheleadershipofthestatesaythatit’stimetoputmoreresourcesinit,andalotofuswereskepticalofthefinancehearings–oh,herewegoagain.Butnow,they’regettingsomelegsandspecificity.”

Aftertheroundtable,GovernorAbbotttoldDr.Hinojosahe’sgoingtorelyonhimtogotoAustinandtestifybeforethelegislatureaboutschoolfunding.

SenatorWestsaid,“WehaveasolidcommitmentfromtheGovernorthathewillaskthelegislatureforadditionalmoneyforeducation.It’sgoingtocomefromthestateandnotthelocalschooldistricts,soIlookforwardtoworkingwiththeGovernor.”

ThediscussionabouteducationfundingcomesasGovernorAbbottrunsforre‐election,butaspokesmansaystheroundtableisnotacampaignevent.

InNovember,astatetaskforcewillreleaseitsrecommendationsonhowtoreformschoolfinance.

Inthemeantime,DallasISDresidentswillvoteinNovemberonwhethertoraisetheirpropertytaxratestoboostdistrictfunding—evenasDallasISDissetthisyearforthefirsttimetogivethestatebacknearly$66milliontohelppoorerschooldistricts.

It’sapracticecalledrecaptureorRobinHood,andit’simpactedpropertywealthyschooldistrictsacrossthestateforyears.

22

DallasISDTrusteeMiguelSolis,whosupportstheGovernor’sDemocraticchallenger,formerDallasCountySheriffLupeValdez,saysRobinHoodisnotright,andthathe’sheardstateleaderstalkaboutschoolfinancereformbeforewithoutseeingresults.“Theonlytruesolutiontosolvingourproblemsiscomprehensiveschoolfinancereformandanincreaseinstatefundingtopublicschools.”

TheGovernoralsowantstoboostmeritpay,sothatteachersareeligibletoearnsix‐figuresalaries.

DuringaspecialsessiontheGovernorcalledlastyear,heproposedboostingteacherpay,butdidn’taskthelegislaturetoprovidethemoneytopayforit.

OnTuesday,GovernorAbbottsaidhewouldpushthelegislaturetoallocatestatemoneyformeritraises.“Wecanpayourteachersmore.Wewanttoattracttheverybestteachersandkeeptheverybestteachers.”

DallasISDhasasystemtopaygoodteachersmoremoney,butDr.Hinojosasaidaftertheroundtablediscussion,“Moreteachersmayhaveearnedit,buttheydidn’tallgetitbecausewedidn’thaveenoughmoney.”

HinojosasaidteachersmadeitverycleartotheGovernortheyweren’thappyaboutthat.“Theywereveryvocalaboutit.”

23

TEXAS COMMISSION ON PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE

Texas Commission on Public School FinanceExpenditures Workgroup

August 9, 2018

24

2

Table of ContentsFoundation School Program Overview 3

Recommendations for Consideration 4

Property Values 5

Funding Basics 6

Equalized Wealth Level 7

Recapture 9

Basic Allotment 11

Adjusted Allotment & Charter Schools 14

Cost of Education Allotment 16

District Size Allotments 20

Weights 22

Special Education 23

Career and Technology Education 26

Compensatory Education 28

Bilingual 30

Facilities 32

Repeals 35

Cost Studies 37

Staffing 38

Other Recommendations 40

25

3

Foundation School Program Overview (FSP)

Maintenance and Operations Funding Facilities Funding

Tier I – Formula Funding Tier II – Enrichment Funding Facilities Funding

Series of allotments, with local share determined by tax base and fixed tax rate

Equalized enrichment of Maintenance and Operations (M&O) Tax Effort

Equalized enrichment of Interest and Sinking (I&S) tax effort

• Regular program allotment• Special education allotment• Compensatory Education Allotment• Bilingual Education Allotment• Career and Technology Education

Allotment• Gifted and Talented Allotment• Transportation Allotment• New Instructional Facility Allotment• High School Allotment

• Golden Pennies• Copper Pennies

• Instructional Facilities Allotment• Existing Debt Allotment

The FSP establishes how much state funding school districts and charter schools are entitled to receive. Formulas are set in statute (Chapters 41, 42, and 46), and they consider both student and district characteristics including the number and type of students enrolled, district size and geographic factors, and local taxable property values and tax rates.

Information from the Texas Education Agency, School Finance 101.Graph from the Legislative Budget Board ID: 3756, Foundation School Program Overview, February 2017. 26

TEXAS COMMISSION ON PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE

Recommendations For Consideration

27

5

Property Values Expert Recommendations

Recommendation Notes Cost Estimate BA EffectUse CURRENT year property values in FSP calculations1

FY20 – (1.9B)FY21 – (1.9B)

$256$264

Use PRIOR year property values in FSP calculations2

Currently in use. none

Property values are currently used to calculate the FSP allocations. Prior year property values are currently used in this portion of the formula. Advocates suggest that current year values would be more indicative of the rising property value growth across the state and provide a more accurate picture of the needs of Texas schools.

1. Equity Center, Senator West2. Dan Casey 28

6

Funding BasicsExpert Recommendations

Recommendation Notes Cost EstimateFund pre-K at 100% ADA1 TEC 42.005(a)(4): pre-K

enrollment is currently funded at ½ enrollment for ½ day pre-K

FY20 – 808MFY21 – 808M

Fund high quality pre-K programs at 100% ADA2

About 75% of students are in high quality programs

FY20 – 603MFY21 – 603M

Change basis of funding from ADA to enrollment3

FY20 – 1.9B FY21 – 2.0B

Apply full ASF distribution to each district’s FSP amount4

ASF would be the first dollars to count towards the entitlement

FY20 – (158M)FY21 – (335M)

Set minimum % for state contribution level5

Currently no minimum is in place.

FY20 – 2.8BFY21 – 3.6B

Experts recommended several changes to the formula that should be considered in tandem with the consideration of the General Appropriations Act and the mechanisms that surround it.

1. Nicole Conley-Johnson, CPPP2. Texans Care for Children, Raise Your Hand Texas3. Nicole Conley-Johnson, EdBuild 4. Equity Center, Senator West5. Irving ISD 29

7

Equalized Wealth Level (EWL)

• The first EWL is equal to the maximum school district property wealth per WADA provided by the basic allotment. This level applies to the tax effort up to a school district’s compressed tax rate (CTR) and is currently $514,000, which is tied to the basic allotment ($5,140, which is set in the General Appropriations Act (GAA)).

• The second EWL is determined by the funding provided to Chapter 42 school districts for their tax effort that exceeds the CTR, up to six golden pennies (on which there is no recapture) that are used in Tier II. This EWL is tied to the Austin ISD yield per WADA per penny ($99.41 in FY18, also set in the GAA).

• The third EWL is set in TEC 41.002(a)(3) at $319,500 per WADA, and it applies to any tax effort that exceeds the “CTR plus six cents” and is tied to the copper pennies that are also used in Tier II.

Information from the Texas Education Agency, School Finance 101 30

8

Equalized Wealth Level (EWL)Expert Recommendations

Recommendation Notes Cost Estimate

BAEffect

Transition to single tier system1

All pennies of tax effort would have the same yield

FY20 – (1.0B)FY21 – (1.3B)

($116)($146)

Increase the yield and EWL Tier II copper pennies to match Tier I yield and EWL2

FY20 – 514MFY21 – 522M

Consolidate 1st and 3rd EWLs and index to reflect property value growth3

Cost estimate reflects only the reduction in recapture revenue, NOT the cost of raising the guaranteed yield

FY20 – 71M FY21 – 77M

Increase yield and EWL for Tier II copper pennies to match the BA and compress Tier II tax rates in proportion4

Decrease from 11 copper pennies to 6.8Some loss of local revenue for districts with wealth per WADA under $319,500 and taxing at $1.17

FY20 – 44MFY21 – 48M

Replace existing Tier II with allotment with guaranteed yield equal to Tier I5

Golden pennies kept intact until BA is increased to adequate level

FY20 – 509MFY21 – 517M

1. Equity Center, Senator West2. Texas School Coalition3. Nicole Conley-Johnson4. Paul Colbert5. Lynn Moak 31

9

Recapture

• Certain districts are required to reduce their EWL if its property wealth per student exceeds the levels mentioned on the previous slide.

• Recapture is a measure to ensure that constitutional equity requirements are met.

• Districts subject to recapture are referred to as Chapter 41 Districts

– Provisions outlining the EWL reduction process are found in the TEC Ch. 41

• A district has five options available to reduce its property wealth per WADA:

1. Consolidation with another district (TEC, §41.031)2. Detachment and annexation of property (TEC, §41.061)3. Purchase attendance credits from the state (TEC, §41.091) 4. Education of nonresident students from a partner district (TEC, §41.121)5. Tax base consolidation with another district (TEC, §41.151)

• Many taxpayers complain about their tax dollar being diverted through this process, but it should be noted that 100% of districts choose option 3, leaving other options on the table.


10

RecaptureExpert Recommendations


BA Effect

Increase from 6 golden pennies to 81

All pennies of tax effort would have the same yieldCost estimate does not include costs due to increased tax rates

FY20 – 431MFY21 – 472M

Freeze recapture at current levels2

Golden pennies kept intact until BA is increased to adequate level

FY20 – 545MFY21 – 1.2B

$74$163

Allow for Ch. 41 districts to use transportation allotment as a credit against recapture3

FY20 – 80MFY21 – 80M

1. Texas School Coalition2. Nicole Conley-Johnson3. Texas School Coalition, Nicole Conley-Johnson 33

11

Basic Allotment• The Basic Allotment (BA) is $5,140 per student for the FY18-19 biennium and

set in the GAA.

• The $5,140 BA per student is increased for school characteristics: – Increased for the school districts’ cost of education index

– Increased if the school district qualified as a small or mid-size district

• Once the BA has been increased for school characteristics, it is used in a series of formulas that take into account student characteristics and then.


12

Basic Allotment (BA)Expert Recommendations


BAEffect

Increase the BA to adjust for inflation, and create process by which BA is adjusted annually1

CPPP – CPA can manageMoak – Account for inflation enrollment growth, and accountability changes

FY20 – 857M FY21 – 1.7B

(assumes 2.2% inflation)

Align BA increases to property tax value increases2

Assumes 6.77% value growth

FY20 – 2.8B FY21 – 4.6B

Increase the BA by reinvesting revenue from property growth into the FSP3

Holds state percentage atFY19 level (46%)

FY20 – 771M FY21 – 1.5B

$105$200

1. CPPP, EdBuild, Lynn Moak, Nicole Conley-Johnson2. Raise Your Hand Texas, Nicole Conley-Johnson3. TASBO 35

13

Basic Allotment (BA)Expert Recommendations

Recommendation Notes Cost Estimate BA EffectIndex the BA based on the increase of statewide property value per student1

Includes discount for student growth of 1.6%

FY20 – 1.6B FY21 – 3.2B

$260$533

Increase the BA by an amount equivalent to statewide property value growth and the increase in recapture revenue2

Includes discount for student growth of 1.6%

FY20 – 1.6B FY21 – 3.2B

$260$533

Use any increase in recapture revenue to increase the BA3

Conley-Johnson -Alternatively, apply this increase to Comp Ed

FY20 – 491M FY21 – 1.1B

$67$156

Increase BA with FY18-19 one-time expenditures4

Hardship grants and rapid property value decline

FY20 – 188MFY21 – 188M

$25$25

1. TASA2. Texas School Coalition3. Texas School Coalition, Nicole Conley-Johnson4. Equity Center, Senator West 36

14

Adjusted Allotment (AA) & Charter Schools

• The AA is the amount of funding, per student, that a school district receives based on individual characteristics.

• Charter schools’ Tier I allotments are calculated using the state average adjusted allotment of $6,522

– This average allotment is higher than that of many school districts because the small and mid-size district funding increases are already factored in when the average is computed.


15

Adjusted Allotment (AA) & Charter SchoolsExpert Recommendations

Recommendation Notes Cost Estimate BA EffectMove district based adjustments to same level as student based adjustments1

FY20 – (1.3B)FY21 – (1.4B)

$183$189

Calculate AA for charters & ISDs in an identical manner2

200M overall decrease to charter schools

FY20 – (197M)FY21 – (202M)

Change charter funding to be based on:

1. Neighboring district’s ADA; OR

2. State student average

(instead of district average)3

Charter schools could be allocated additional I&S revenue to match the $1,300/ADA that districts receive mostly from local tax revenues for 350M, which would make this proposal almost cost neutral

FY20 – (346M)FY21 – (360M)

1. EdBuild2. Lynn Moak3. Raise Your Hand Texas, Nicole Conley-Johnson

38

16

Cost of Education Index (CEI)

• The CEI:– created as the Price Differential Index (PDI) in 1984– updated (PDI CEI) in 1991

• The CEI is assigned to each district to adjust for the cost of educating students in the district’s particular region of the state.

• The CEI is based upon the principle that it is more expensive to provide education in some school districts than others.

• Each school district was assigned a unique CEI value in 1991. These values have not changed since 1991.

• CEI values range from a low of 1.02 to a high of 1.20. The average CEI value is 1.12.

• The average funding increase produced is $620 for each student in ADA in each district, and the total formula amount produced for all school districts by the CEI is estimated to be $2.7B for FY18.


17

Cost of Education Index (CEI)Expert Recommendations - Elimination

Recommendation Notes Cost Estimate BA EffectEliminate the CEI1 Includes both FSP

reduction and recapture increase

FY20 – (2.9B)FY21 – (2.9B)

Eliminate the CEI and apply the funds to increase the BA2

Includes both FSP reduction and recapture increase

FY20 – (2.9B)FY21 – (2.9B)

$400$400

1. EdBuild2. Todd Williams 40

18

Cost of Education Index (CEI)Expert Recommendations - Replacement

Recommendation Notes Cost EstimateCreate Tier II funding component that allows for local funding of regional cost differentials (entitlement and recapture credit) 1

17 districts provide social security to all employees, another 30 just for auxiliary staff

FY20 – 150-300MFY21 – 150-300M

Create Tier II funding component that allows for local funding of social security (entitlement and recapture credit) 2

FY20 – 83MFY21 – 83M

Create alternative index (COLA) or regional parity factor that is multiplied against AA3

All recent updates have resulted in much larger spreads in index values with significant costs

FY20 – billionsFY21 – billions

Utilize Dr. Lori Taylor’s teacher compensation index (TCI) or something similar4

All recent updates have resulted in much larger spreads in index values with significant costs


1. Nicole Conley-Johnson2. Nicole Conley-Johnson3. Nicole Conley-Johnson4. Dan Casey 41

19

Cost of Education Index (CEI)Expert Recommendations - Updates

Recommendation Notes Cost EstimateApply 100% of CEI in the calculation of WADA1

Short term solution(60% of benefit goesto Ch. 41 districts)

FY20 – 528MFY21 – 584M

Apply CEI to 80% of the BA2 Short term solution(60% of benefit goesto Ch. 41 districts)

FY20 – 324MFY21 – 358M

Update CEI to reflect current regional market differences3

TSC – Also establish a methodology to keep the CEI up to date


Redistribute districts along lines representing the factors that make up the current CEI(salaries, ADA, poverty), based on each district’s average values for the factors over last 3 years4


1. Dan Casey, Lynn Moak, Nicole Conley-Johnson2. Dan Casey3. Texas School Coalition, Nicole Conley-Johnson4. Paul Colbert 42

20

District Size Adjustments

• The small size adjustment (SDA):– Created in 1984– Updated in 2017 (six year phase in, HB 21)

• The mid-size adjustment (MDA) was: – Created in 1984– Updated in 1997

• The SDA and MDA provide for additional funding for some school districts.

• The SDA applies to districts with less than 1,600 students and has two formulas that provide differing levels of funding:

– For districts < 300 square miles:

𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 1 + 1600 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 × 0.00025 × 𝑆𝑆𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑆𝑆𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴

– For districts > 300 square miles:

𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 1 + 1600 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 × 0.00040 × 𝑆𝑆𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑆𝑆𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴

• The MDA applies to districts with less than 5,000 students.𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 1 + 5000 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 × 0.00025 × 𝑆𝑆𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑆𝑆𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴


21

District Size AdjustmentsExpert Recommendations

Recommendation Notes Cost Estimate BA EffectEliminate the SDA/MDA and density adjustment in the TA; use funds to increase the BA and provide an expanded sparsity adjustment1

Assumes 100M increase tosparsity adjustment

FY20 – (750M)FY21 – (750M)

$102$102

Update size adjustments to reflect actual costs of diseconomies of scale2

Total cost of the SDA/MDA is 850M

Unable to determine if current adjustments do not cover actual costs

1. EdBuild2. Texas School Coalition 44

22

Weights

Information from the Texas Education Agency, School Finance 101

• The “weights” in the school finance formula additional, student-level adjustments to the AA that an LEA receives per student.

• The graph above shows the FY18 Tier 1 broken down by weight– The Total Tier I funding = $37B

45

23

Special Education (SPED)

• The SPED allotment:– Created in 1984– Updated in 1993

• The SPED Allotment comprises 8.1% of Tier 1 funding – $3B out of $37B

• Funding is based on the amount of time that students with disabilities are served in their instructional arrangements.

• Students with disabilities assigned to the mainstream instructional arrangement also generate funding based on ADA.

• SPED student population ADA, contact hours and full-time equivalents (FTEs) are used along with the AA and a multiplier range depending on the instructional arrangement to calculate the SPED allotment.

Information from the Texas Education Agency, SPED Funding Weights Presentation, presented to Expenditures WG on May 4, 2018. 46

24

Special Education (SPED)

Instructional Arrangement Instructional Arrangement Wts. Contact Hr. Multipliers

Homebound 5.0 1.000

Hospital Class 3.0 4.500

Speech Therapy 5.0 0.250

Resource Room 3.0 2.859

Self-Contained Mild & Moderate 3.0 2.859

Off Home Campus 2.7 4.250

Nonpublic Day School 1.7 n/a

Vocational Adjustments Class 2.3 5.500

Residential Care and Treatment 4.0 5.500

State Schools 2.8 5.500

Mainstream (ADA, not FTE) 1.1 n/a

𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨 = 𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝑑𝑑𝐴𝐴 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴 ℎ𝑝𝑝.𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴.𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝑑𝑑𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝑡𝑡ℎ𝐴𝐴 × 𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝑑𝑑 𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴 ℎ𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴.

𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴 𝐵𝐵𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝑡𝑡𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑤𝑤𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝑡𝑡ℎ𝐴𝐴

𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹 𝑺𝑺𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨 𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨 = 𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝑑𝑑𝐴𝐴 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝑑𝑑𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝑡𝑡ℎ𝐴𝐴

−𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝑑𝑑𝐴𝐴 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴 ℎ𝑝𝑝.𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴.𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝑑𝑑𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝑡𝑡ℎ𝐴𝐴 × 𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝑑𝑑 𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴 ℎ𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴.

𝑻𝑻𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨 𝑭𝑭𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑨𝑨𝑹𝑹 𝟏𝟏 𝑺𝑺𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑻𝑻𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨 = 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨 + 𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹 𝑺𝑺𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨 𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨

Information from the Texas Education Agency, SPED Funding Weights Presentation, presented to Expenditures WG on May 4, 2018. 47

25

Special Education (SPED)Expert Recommendations

Recommendation Notes Cost EstimateRevamp SPED Funding to be based on level of need or disability and use simple enrollment (remove contact hour multiplier)1

TCASE/DRT - include 504 studentsEstimate does not subtract SPED hours from regular program ADA

FY20 – 1.9BFY21 – 1.9B

Add separate weight for dyslexia2 504 studentsAssumes 0.1 weight for 145,000 students

FY20 – 122MFY21 – 125M

1. TCASE, Disability Rights Texas, EdBuild2. Nicole Conley-Johnson 48

26

Career and Technology Education (CTE)

• The CTE allotment: – Created in 1984– Updated in 2003

• The CTE allotment comprises 6.0% of Tier 1 funding

– approx. $2B out of $37B

• CTE is funded on an FTE basis, similar to SPED

– The contact hour multiplier is directly correlated to hours per day (on a scale of 1-6hrs)

Information from the Texas Education Agency, FSP Weights and Allotments Presentation, presented to Expenditures WG on June 6, 2018.

𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹 𝑺𝑺𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨 𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨 = 𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝑑𝑑𝐴𝐴 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝑑𝑑𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝑡𝑡ℎ𝐴𝐴

−𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝑑𝑑𝐴𝐴 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴 ℎ𝑝𝑝.𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴.𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝑑𝑑𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝑡𝑡ℎ𝐴𝐴 × 𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝑑𝑑 𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴 ℎ𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴.

𝑻𝑻𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨 𝑭𝑭𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑨𝑨𝑹𝑹 𝟏𝟏 𝑺𝑺𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑻𝑻𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨 = 𝑪𝑪𝑻𝑻𝑺𝑺 𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨+ 𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹 𝑺𝑺𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨 𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨

𝑪𝑪𝑻𝑻𝑺𝑺 𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨 = 𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝑑𝑑𝐴𝐴 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴 ℎ𝑝𝑝.𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴.𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝑑𝑑𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝑡𝑡ℎ𝐴𝐴 × 𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝑑𝑑 𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴 ℎ𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴.

1.35 + $50𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝑑𝑑𝐴𝐴 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴 ℎ𝑝𝑝.𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴.𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝑑𝑑𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝑡𝑡ℎ𝐴𝐴 × 𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝑑𝑑 𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴 ℎ𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴.

Instructional Arrangement

Contact Hr. Multipliers

Regular CTE 1.35

Advanced CTE $50/class (when a student is enrolled in 2 or more advanced CTE classes)

49

27

Career and Technology Education (CTE)Expert Recommendations

Recommendation Notes Cost EstimateExpand CTE funding to include 8th grade1

Assumes 10% participation 1st year, then increasing 2.5%/yr

FY20 – 16.7MFY21 – 20.9M

Expand CTE funding to include 6th-8th grade2

Assumes 10% participation 1st year, then increasing 2.5%/yr

FY20 – 50.3MFY21 – 62.8M

Expand use of CTE funds to include:

1. Middle grade courses that generate HS credits; AND/OR

2. Career counselors3

None

Realign CTE Funding to support only those courses that lead to skills & credentials that align with regional workforce needs4

None

1. Arlington ISD2. Nicole Conley-Johnson3. TASBO4. Todd Williams 50

28

Compensatory Education (Comp Ed)

• The Comp Ed allotment: – Created in 1984– Updated in 1989

• The Comp Ed allotment comprises 10.4% of Tier 1 funding

– around $4B out of $37B• The primary calculation for Comp Ed

funding involves student eligibility for the Free and Reduced Price Lunch program, administered by the Texas Department of Agriculture.

• Examples of allowable uses of funds: – Supplemental cost for equipment and other

supplies– supplemental staff expenses to reduce class

size of provide individualized instruction for at-risk students

– Supplemental Stipends and extra-duty pay

Information from the Texas Education Agency, Weighted Student Funding Trends under the Foundation School Program Presentation, presented to School Finance Commission on May 3, 2018.


Funding Weight

EconomicallyDisadvantaged 0.2

PregnancyRelated Services 2.41

51

29

Compensatory Education (Comp Ed)Expert Recommendations

Recommendation Notes Cost EstimateChange basis of Comp Ed funding from F/R Lunch to alternative poverty factors1

ATPE – take severity of need into accountEdBuild – use safety net enrollment

None; to be cost neutral, weights would possibly need to be adjusted

Increase Comp Ed Weight from 0.2 to 0.252

FY20 – 1.2BFY21 – 1.2B

Create a new weight for districts in which the % economically disadvantaged students exceeds a certain threshold3

FY20 – 1.4BFY21 – 1.4B

Include a concentration factor, ranging from 0.225 to 0.275, based on the % economically disadvantaged students3

FY20 – 1.3BFY21 – 1.3B

Expand definition of “at-risk” to increase number of student eligible for Comp Ed services4

To ensure more students get preventative services

none

Expand uses of Comp Ed funding5 none

1. ATPE, EdBuild, Nicole Conley-Johnson2. Teach Plus3. EdBuild4. Lynn Moak5. TASBO, Nicole Conley-Johnson6. TASBO 52

30

Bilingual Education (BE)

• The BE allotment: – Created in 1984– Updated in 1984

• The BE allotment comprises 1.4% of Tier 1 funding

– around $500M out of $37B• BE is funded on an ADA Basis• Examples of allowable uses of funds:

– Bilingual thesauruses and dictionaries.– Salary supplements for certified bilingual and ESL teachers such as

stipends, and one time hiring bonuses, extra duty pay that are approved in employment contracts and local policy.

Information from the Texas Education Agency, Weighted Student Funding Trends under the Foundation School Program Presentation, presented to School Finance Commission on May 3, 2018.


Funding Weight

Bilingual Education 0.1

𝑩𝑩𝑻𝑻𝑨𝑨𝑻𝑻𝑨𝑨𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨 𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨 = 𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝑑𝑑𝐴𝐴 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝑑𝑑𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴𝐵𝐵𝐴𝐴𝑡𝑡ℎ𝐴𝐴

0.1

𝑻𝑻𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨 𝑭𝑭𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑨𝑨𝑹𝑹 𝟏𝟏 𝑺𝑺𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑻𝑻𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨 = 𝑩𝑩𝑻𝑻𝑨𝑨𝑻𝑻𝑨𝑨𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨 𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨+ 𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹 𝑺𝑺𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑨𝑨 𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨

53

31

Bilingual Education (BE)Expert Recommendations

Recommendation Notes Cost EstimateIncrease BE weight from 0.1 to 0.251 EdBuild – did not

specify an amountFY20 – 977MFY21 – 1.1B

Fund BE using a graduated weight based on % of ELL students in the district (0.15 to 0.25)2

over 20% = 0.15over 30% = 0.2Over 40% = 0.25

FY20 – 526.7BFY21 – 536.1B

Fund BE using a graduated weight based on number of years students spend in the program3

none

Only fund BE programs that are proven to be successful4

Ex. transitional BE taught through academic content

none

Encourage use of dual language programs in districts with the capacity to do them5

FY20 – 157MFY21 – 157M

Remove BE expenditure restrictions that prohibit districts from paying teacher salaries in order to reduce class sizes.6

none

1. EdBuild, Teach Plus2. Lynn Moak3. Elvira Reyna4. Elvira Reyna5. Elvira Reyna6. TASBO, Nicole Conley-Johnson 54

32

Facilities• Comprised of the:

– Existing Debt Allotment (EDA),– Instructional Facilities Allotment (IFA), and – New Instructional Facility Allotment (NIFA)

• EDA: – created in 1999– updated in 2017– lesser of $40 per ADA per penny on interest and sinking fund (I&S) taxes

levied by school districts to pay the principal of and interest on eligible bonds, or an amount that would result in a $60 million increase in state aid from the previous yield of $35.

• currently limited to $0.29 cents of tax effort. – The yield for the 2018-19 school year is estimated to be less than $37.– not limited to the construction of instructional facilities– Charter Schools:

• Beginning in FY19, certain charter schools will be eligible to receive an EDA allotment calculated using the state average debt service tax rate for districts (estimated at 19.9 cents) or a rate which will deliver $60 million in additional funding (6.9 cents) multiplied by the estimated EDA guaranteed yield (~$37) multiplied by the charter school’s ADA.

Information from the Texas Education Agency, FSP Weights and Allotments Presentation, presented to Expenditures WG on June 6, 2018. 55

33

Facilities

• IFA: – created in 1997– updated in 1997– provides assistance to districts in making debt service payments on

qualifying bonds• only for the construction of instructional facilities

– requires application on the part of the district– guaranteed yield of $35 per student in ADA per penny of tax effort

Information from the Texas Education Agency, FSP Weights and Allotments Presentation, presented to Expenditures WG on June 6, 2018.Graph from the Legislative Budget Board ID: 3756, Foundation School Program Overview, February 2017.

• NIFA: – created in 1999– updated in 2017

• increased max funding from $250/student to $1000/student (for FY18, allocations are $235)

– makes up less than 0.5% of Tier 1 allotment

– rule currently being created for eligibility

56

34

FacilitiesExpert Recommendations

Recommendation Notes Cost EstimateConsolidate IFA and EDA into new SFA, with a higher yield indexed to property wealth assumptions in the GAA1

- Increases the max tax rateeligible from 0.29 to 0.40- Increases the yield to $37 (FY20) and $40 (FY21)

FY20 – 18MFY21 – 92M

Increase IFA & EDA yields to the same as BA2

- Compress I&S tax rates and remove 29 cent cap on EDA- ASAHE funding is reduced from 80M to 40M as a result

FY20 – 545MFY21 – 482M

Increase per ADA allocation of NIFA to $500 by increasing biennial appropriation to 200M3

FY20 – 76MFY21 – 76M

Increase per ADA allocation of NIFA to $500 by making this 0.1 weight in the FSP formula4

FY20 – 36MFY21 – 36M

1. Dan Casey2. Paul Colbert3. Fast Growth School Coalition4. Fast Growth School Coalition 57

35

General RepealsExpert Recommendations


BA Effect

Repeal high school allotment1 Funds to BA FY20 – (403M)FY21 – (410M)

$55$56

Repeal 1992-93 hold harmless2 Funds to BA FY20 – (32M)FY21 – (30M)

$4$4

Repeal staff allotment3 Funds to BA FY20 – (145M)FY21 – (145M)

$20$20

Repeal gifted and talented allotment4 Funds to BA; retain requirements to provide programs

FY20 – (168M) FY21 – (170M)

$23$23

Repeal public education grant allotment5

Funds to BA FY20 – (3M)FY21 – (3M)

$0.44$0.44

1. Lynn Moak, Equity Center, Senator West2. Equity Center, Senator West3. Equity Center, Senator West4. Equity Center, Senator West5. Equity Center, Senator West 58

36

General RepealsExpert Recommendations


BAEffect

Repeal transportation allotment1 Funds to BA FY20 – (386M)FY21 – (390M)

$53$53

Repeal ½ cost of local option homestead exemption (LOHE) to Ch. 41 districts2

Funds to BA FY20 – (101M)FY21 – (105M)

$14$14

Repeal recapture discount3 Funds to BA FY20 – (51M)FY21 – (62M)

$7$8

Use amounts gained from repeals to increase other weights4

Comp Ed, SPED, Bilingual

none

1. Lynn Moak2. Equity Center, Senator West3. Equity Center, Senator West4. TCSA 59

37

Cost StudiesExpert Recommendations

Recommendation Notes Cost EstimateUpdate funding weights to reflect the true cost differential necessary to meet student needs1

400K

Conduct a “cost of education” study to set funding weights according to current costs and expected student outcomes2

400K

Study FSP funding elements each biennium to ensure that they reflect the actual/current cost of providing services3

Could focus on just one or two per biennium

400K

1. Texas School Coalition2. Nicole Conley-Johnson3. TASBO 60

38

StaffingExpert Recommendations

1. ATPE2. Teach Plus3. Melissa Martin4. Teach Plus

Recommendation Notes Cost EstimateStudy, formulate and fund a comprehensive teacher compensation system designed to recruit and retain a high quality workforce1

*study only FY20 – 400K*FY21 – 0

Competitively compensate effective teachers, prioritizing those that work in high need areas or with special populations. (ex. Dallas ISD’s TEI)2

Estimate based on $1,300/ADA cost of ACE.

FY20 – 1.0BFY21 – 1.0B

Make children of teachers eligible for free pre-K3

FY20 – 50MFY21 – 50M

Increase BA to provide funding to improvemental health services by: 1. Hiring more counselors, social workers,

LSSPs; AND2. Providing teachers with trauma

informed training4

Suggested increase to BA = $100

FY20 – 735MFY21 – 735M

61

39

StaffingExpert Recommendations

1. Senator West2. Nicole Conley-Johnson3. Nicole Conley-Johnson

Recommendation Notes Cost EstimateIncrease state contribution from:

1. From 75 to 150/month; AND2. Continue increases until

state/local combined fully covers employee-only coverage (beyond FY20-21)1

To ensure that individual coverage is provided at no cost to the employee (like ERS)

FY20 – 641MFY21 – 651M

Provide equity in TRS contributions from all LEAs by not charging districts for TRS costs for salaries above minimum schedule2

FY20 – 302MFY21 – 302M

Provide equity in TRS contributions from LEAs by charging charters the same as districts (use CEI of the district in which the charter is located)3

FY20 – (16M)FY21 – (16M)

62

40

OtherExpert Recommendations

1. Representative Huberty2. TASBO3. Todd Williams4. TCSA, Lynn Moak

5. Senator West6. TASBO7. TASBO

Recommendation Notes Cost EstimateCreate a funding incentive for districts to offer more instructional days, by providing optional half day funding for every day from 181-210 for students in grades PK-5.1

FY20 – noneFY21 – up to 180M

Remove 10% limitation on hazardous route funding in the transportation allotment2

FY20 – 9MFY21 – 11M

Place certain student weights on a spectrum that better allocates resources according to student need.3

Could be designed to be cost-neutral

None

Eliminate expenditure restrictions on allotment funding (ex. Comp Ed, CTE, etc)4

none

Require disclosure of property sale prices5 For reference, 1% increase in property value would increase local tax collections by $227 million and save the state $213 million

Unknown

Remove requirement for districts to use state bidding rules when purchases exceed 50K “in the aggregate”6

Only require for single purchases exceeding 50K

none

Increase review of legislation to better understand local costs7

none

63

WHITE PAPER Outcomes Working Group

Current Educational Outcomes in Texas and Their Impact on the Texas Economy

Recent testimony to the State Commission on Public School Finance (the “Commission”) indicates that Texas is falling far short of its goal, announced by Governor Abbott and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board in 2015, of having 60% of adults ages 25-34 attain a post-secondary degree by the year 2030 (“60x30 Goal”). Based on current growth trends and ignoring anticipated future demographic changes that are only likely to create additional headwinds, Texas will miss that critical goal by over two decades1 .

Texas’ current status of roughly 40% post-secondary achievement statewide is a blend of (i) educated talent that migrates to the state from outside its boundaries and (ii) what we produce with our own education/workforce pipeline. While Texas has been very successful in importing educated talent given our broad and robust job growth (per testimony, roughly half of our annual population growth comes from in-migration2), over the last several years our state’s own education pipeline has been reflecting stagnant results, with only 21% of our most recent 8th grade cohort graduating with any type of post-secondary education ten years later (i.e. six years following their scheduled high school graduation)3. This troubling completion rate falls to just 12% when looking solely at economically disadvantaged students…a population which represented 79% of the state’s PreK-12 enrollment growth over the last decade. Low income students today now currently comprise a substantial 6 in 10 public school students in Texas.

Based on these current outcomes, we simply cannot import enough talent to meet our state’s 60x30 Goal. Per a recent report issued by the Dallas Fed, today’s unemployment rates of sub-4% are at historic lows, yet labor participation rates are not increasing because skills needed by unfilled jobs do not match the skillsets reflected within our current unemployed adult population. Recent Fed surveys indicate that tight labor markets are now the No. 1 concern of business, with 70% of business executives reporting difficulty finding and hiring qualified workers. This shortage is increasing overall labor costs, with 62% of firms surveyed reporting having to increase wages and benefits in order to recruit and retain employees, up from 53 percent in early 2018.4

The roughly 4 in 5 Texas students that we are annually failing to sufficiently educate to achieve a living wage credential represents both a poor return on the ~$150,000 we invest in each student’s PK-12 education AND a substantial missed opportunity to capture the tremendous unrealized potential of our Texas youth. The annual starting salary difference for post-secondary credential holders vs. high school graduates can now easily exceed $20,000, and every year Texas high schools collectively graduate roughly 200,000 seniors who, six years later, have still not attained a post-secondary degree. If each high school graduate could instead obtain an industry certificate or a two/four-year degree in the same ratio as our current post-secondary graduates, they would collectively realize roughly $200 billion more in future lifetime earnings (an amount equal to roughly 1/8th of our current $1.6 trillion Texas economy) with each and every graduating class.

Not only is the current opportunity cost for our state’s economy tremendous, the resulting costs to our state of an undereducated workforce is also substantial and growing. Our state’s uninsured medical costs for patients without employee-provided health benefits now exceed $6 billion annually. In addition, the costs of incarcerating young men and women in Texas (who far too often are uneducated – national research indicates that 75% of state prison inmates did not complete high school or can be classified as low literate5) now exceeds $5.7 billion annually6. Our state prisons house roughly 147,000 inmates at an annual cost of ~$38,000/inmate, equal to more than 3x what we spend annually per student on K-12 education7 .

1 Presentation to Outcomes Working Group of Public School Finance Commission, Commit Partnership, 4/18/2018 2 “Student Population in Texas”, Texas Demographic Center, 1/23/18 3 THECB presentation to Public School Finance Commission, 1/23/2018 “K-12 Efforts Support 60x30 TX Success” 4 “DFW’s Continued Breakneck Growth Depends on a Cascade of New Workers”, Dallas Fed, 6/16/18 5 The Relationship Between Incarceration and Low Literacy, March 2016. 6 State and Local Spending on Corrections and Education, U.S. Dept. of Education Brief, July 2016. 7 Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 2016.

64

https://tea.texas.gov/schoolfinancecommission/



https://tea.texas.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=51539619827

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2018/06/15/d-fws-continued-breakneckgrowth-depends-on-a-cascade-of-new-workers

https://literacymidsouth.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/incarceration-and-low-literacy/

https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/expenditures-corrections-education/brief.pdf

Despite both the urgency and the opportunity represented by these statistics, it is also clear from numerous testimonies to the Commission that:

• simply investing more dollars per student represents some risk of “more of the same” without a high degree of confidence regarding an appropriate return on our already significant $56 billion annual investment in PK-12 education;

• however, investing more dollars in specific strategies that are currently showing strong results within our state represents the potential to substantially accelerate Texas educational outcomes and provide a real, substantive chance to reach our state’s 60x30 Goal while providing more equitable outcomes for all Texas students.

What Should Our Outcomes Goal Be?

It is clear that Texas’ changing demographic data, coupled with the continued increasing importance of a post-secondary education, requires a different and much more strategic approach to school finance…one that is focused on targeted investments at critical junctures along our education pipeline where our own data indicates the highest return on investment.

We believe that in arriving at a biennium budget each legislative session, we as a state should review our progress against a set of established, targeted goals for PK-12 education and then invest as efficiently and as effectively as possible to meet those goals based on what TEA and THECB data shows is currently having the most positive impact on collective educational success. In keeping in alignment with the state’s ultimate 60x30 Goal, we would suggest interim goals of at least 60% proficiency at TEA’s college/career ready standard at three key “checkpoints” (3rd grade, 8th grade, and 12th

grade) along the state’s public PK-12 educational continuum, and the state’s accountability system should also bealtered to reinforce their importance in campus and district grades. Each year, TEA and THECB would collectively report to the Legislature on the State’s combined progress in achieving both 60% proficiency rates and 60% post-secondary completion rates solely for our own education pipeline.

It is also clear (in looking at that same 60% goal) where our collective efforts and investments in PK-12 should be primarily focused – students who are low income and English language learners. Per Table 1, across all grades and subjects assessed by STAAR, students who are not low income are already collectively meeting our suggested 60% goal statewide at TEA’s “Meets” standard (with some districts as high as 80%+ proficiency for their non-low-income students). However, achievement for our low-income and English language learner students at the “Meets” standard is not only materially lower, but it also reflects broad disparities among districts and within districts. This indicates both a high need for focused investment on this subset AND the potential for great progress once resources are increased, incentives are put in place, and strategies are altered to reflect best practices already occurring in pockets across the state.

Table 1 Student Achievement by Demographic Using 2017 STAAR Assessments Across All Subjects

Various Populations

Pct. Of Texas’ K-12

Students

Proficiency at “Meets” Std.

Across State of Texas


For Highest Performing ISD/Network


For Lowest Performing ISD/Network

Proficiency Gap

Between Highest/ Lowest ISD

or Network

Total Students 100% 44% 87% 25% 62%

Non-Low-Income Students Only 41% 60% 87%8 28% 59% Low-Income Students Only 59% 33% 52%9 21% 31%

English Language Learners Only 19% 22% 40%10 5% 35%

8 Highest performing district is Southlake Carroll ISD (1% economically disadvantaged) 9 Among districts greater than 5,000 students with at least 25% economic disadvantage. Highest performing districts in 2017 included Sharyland ISD (52% proficiency for low-income students), IDEA (50% proficiency), Los Fresnos ISD (50%) and Wylie ISD (46%).10 Among districts greater than 5,000 students with at least a 10% ELL population. Highest performing districts included IDEA (38% proficiency for ELL students), Roma ISD (37% proficiency), and Sharyland ISD (35% proficiency).

65

When and Where Should We Invest to Achieve Our Desired Outcomes?

Given our state’s relatively high poverty rate (15th highest in the U.S.)11, the increasing levels of both economic disadvantage and English language learners within Texas’ K-12 public school system, and our economy’s continued technological displacement of historical living wage jobs, it is a critical that our state begin now to make the additional needed investments that strategically address key areas of weakness within our public educational/workforcepipeline. Successful execution will help ensure that ALL Texas students (93% of which attend a public school) have a realistic chance at a quality educational outcome, culminating in a post-secondary credential, that prepares them for success in a rapidly evolving 21st century economy.

In arriving at our recommendations on how and when more dollars invested wisely could dramatically accelerate student outcomes, substantial hours of Commission testimony have centered around the following four common themes:

1. Early Intervention is Critical – We should ensure the option for every child to be ready for school when theyarrive in Kindergarten and that they can read by 3rd grade, after which they must read to learn. With ~225,000 of our students (56%) failing in 2017 to reach the state’s “Meets” standard in 3rd grade reading (and subsequent STAAR and college readiness achievement not materially exceeding 3rd grade reading proficiency), this is clearly where our education pipeline is first so severely impacted that it cannot sufficiently recover to help meet our state’s 60x30 Goal;

2. Emphasize Teacher Quality and Their Strategic Placement – Policy and funding streams should make certain that every child is taught by a well-prepared and effective educator, with specific systemic incentives to ensure that:

o our top college graduates increasingly view teaching as an attractive and impactful profession; o every new teacher candidate is incented to seek high quality educator preparation programs; o effective teachers are paid well enough to stay in the profession and in the classroom if they desire; o a sufficient number of our better teachers are (i) placed in front of our students facing the most

challenges and (ii) are in front of them as early as possible in their educational journey. The results of the Accelerating Campus Excellence Program, or “ACE”, pioneered in Dallas ISD and now in place at several other North Texas ISD’s, have shown the tremendous potential of this strategy, with up to 40% to 60% proficiency gains at schools previously rated “Improvement Required” by TEA (equivalent to the bottom ~5% of all schools statewide) for multiple years12;

3. Post-Secondary Achievement is Fundamental – Smart policy, more flexible graduation requirements, and public funding streams should collectively ensure that every student believes that some type of education beyond high school (whether it be an industry certificate, on-the-job training, the military, or a two or four-year degree) is not only expected, but that it is also viewed as achievable, affordable, and supported during the critical high school to higher education/career handoff. Per Georgetown University’s 2017 study, over 95% of jobs created during the post-2008 recovery have gone to college educated workers, with those reflecting at least some college education capturing 11.5 million of the 11.6 million jobs created during the recovery.13 As just one additional example of our own current substantial skills gap challenge, recent Texas Workforce Commission data in Fall 2017 indicated that there were over 300,000 unfilled posted jobs in Texas despite having over 543,000 unemployed Texans. We simply cannot continue to allow ~200,000 Texas students to graduate annually from our ~1,800 high schools statewide without doing substantially more to help ensure that they earn a living wage credential aligned with current Texas work force needs.

4. Systemic Incentives Matter – Commission testimony has continually reinforced that our current educational system and its stakeholders respond to incentives, some of which unfortunately encourage actions to the

11 Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016, United States Census. 12 https://commitpartnership.org/blog/equity-works-ace-results 13 THECB presentation to Public School Finance Commission, 1/23/2018 “K-12 Efforts Support 60x30 TX Success”

66

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2017/demo/p60-259.html

https://commitpartnership.org/blog/equity-works-ace-results


https://tea.texas.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=51539619827

detriment of student achievement and post-secondary success. A broader list of these incentives can be found in Exhibit 1, with specific examples including:

o Despite the demonstrated critical importance of an early educational foundation, far too often strong K-2nd

grade educators are placed by principals in the later STAAR tested grades because that is where current state accountability focuses;

o Beginning teachers are not paid more if they attend a higher quality preparation program that requires substantial pre-service training, and better preparation (and resulting teaching effectiveness) are also not rewarded via higher salaries in subsequent years given the fixed annual pay steps found within traditional seniority-based salary systems. In the absence of these rewards, too often the incentive for a new teacher is to instead obtain a teaching certificate as quickly and cheaply as possible regardless of its quality;

o High school principals tend to focus more on STAAR End of Course testing (“EOC’s”) and high school graduation (based on current state accountability) vs. the more important factors of (i) whether or not their students are sufficiently prepared that they will not be required to take remediation classes in higher ed should they pursue that route and (ii) whether or not their students successfully accessed either a living wage career certificate or a post-secondary education which are so critical in today’s economy.

As a result, the Outcomes working group strongly feels that: o state formula funding changes should contain select, strategic financial incentives that very consciously

seek to intentionally alter systemic focus and actions toward improving the three overarchingoutcome themes noted above;

o incentives should be equitably determined in recognition that students with more challenges will need more resources (i.e. incentives rewarding low income student achievement should be materially higher than incentives rewarding non-low-income student achievement);

o once financial incentives are in place, current policies should also be altered to provide districts and campuses with significantly more flexibility in how Title 1 and instructional allotment dollars are spent in order to allow them to meet these important incentives.

Recommendations of the Outcomes Working Group

1. It is the first recommendation of the Outcomes working group that any school finance legislation recommended by the Commission include sufficient incremental dollars (above and beyond current funding levels) that:

• are dedicated to investing in strategies supporting three specific, overarching goals that are all proven by data as highly impactful in substantially improving PK-12 results and creating an educated work force outcome that ultimately meets the State’s 60x 30 Goal:

o Outcome No. 1 (“Ready to Learn”) - improving 3rd grade reading achievement; o Outcome No. 2 (“Ready to Teach”) - increasing the quality, retention and equitable/impactful

placement of our public school teaching force; o Outcome No. 3 (“Ready to Earn”) - improving career and post-secondary readiness and access.

• are ultimately funded long term through an adjusted school finance formula (vs. grants) to convince educators and school boards to invest the dollars needed based on confidence that they will have sufficient time and consistency of funding to implement the strategies that can help them meet the intended goals;

• are in part funded via specific incentives within the formula funding, tied to specific goals at critical “gates” within a Texas’ student’s educational journey that represent our current largest areas of student academic “melt”. Recognizing that educating students who are in poverty and/or who are English language learners require more resources vs. their more affluent, native English peers, incentive amounts should be notably differentiated in reflection of the much higher challenges and resources required over the multi-year period leading up to that “gate” (i.e. 3rd grade, 8th grade, and 12th grade). For example, the incentive amount for a low-income student could be 3 to 4 times the incentive amount per student for a non-low-income student to reflect the current disparities in achievement between the two populations.

67

Incentive payments should be (i) fiscally appropriate but also large enough that their potential receipt alters district and campus principal behavior and (ii) should be calculated in such a way as to minimize the high stakes nature of any one assessment (perhaps by rewarding proficiency on a multi-year trailing average of measured outcomes). This would also have the benefit of lessening the volatility of any school’s funding stream.

Suggested incentives are as follows:

o Incentive No. 1 – given the critical nature of being able to “read to learn” across all subjects after 3rd

grade, the working group recommends that each district or charter network annually receive incremental funding above the basic allotment for every 3rd grader achieving reading proficiency at the state’s “Meets” standard. As proficiency increases (or decreases) in the future, incentive amounts would grow or decline.

Why This Incentive is So Important: In 2016-17, only 44% of all 3rd grade students met this standard (preliminary STAAR data indicates that 3rd grade proficiency fell another 3% in 2018 to 41%). TEA data indicates that 3rd grade students who met the state’s “Meets” reading standard in 2011-12 (vs. those who didn’t) were:

2.8x more likely to achieve the state’s “Meets” standard in 8th grade reading five years later; 2.0x more likely to either achieve the state’s “Meets” standard in 8th grade math or, more

importantly, take the more difficult Algebra 1 course in 8th grade;

Need for Additional 3rd Grade Reading Investment: With only 6 in 10 children statewide currently coming to school assessed as Kindergarten ready (and only 33%/23% of low income/ELL students meeting the state’s 3rd grade reading standard), it is critical that the state invest now in our earliest years (beyond this proposed outcome incentive) to materially improve current 3rd grade reading results. Therefore, in addition to Incentive No. 1, we would propose that districts also receive an additional weight for every K-3rd grade student who is either low income and/or an English language learner such that total monies received would be sufficient for a district or charter network to providefull-day Pre-K to all eligible students. Districts and charter networks receiving this specific weight would agree to overall systemic changes (as outlined below) to meet the state’s required goals, with these specified parameters, coupled with the proposed Incentive No. 1 funding, collectively ensuring that this significant investment to improve 3rd grade reading outcomes is wisely stewarded.

At each district’s discretion, dollars from this 3rd grade reading investment would be sufficient enough to be used to fund:

• full day Pre-K (testimony showed that students who were Kinder ready were more than 3x more likely to meet the state standard for 3rd grade reading vs. those students who weren’t);

• tutoring interventions; • expanded dual language programming; • specialized multi-year early childhood professional development, likely including literacy

coaching and just-in-time support; • a longer school year to reduce the negative impact of “summer slide”; • personalized learning pilots

Every district/network receiving this additional weight would commit to the following to enhance continuous improvement efforts in the early childhood education years:

a. Districts would agree to use a common state-designated Kindergarten readiness indicator in order to benchmark the efficacy of their Pre-K efforts vs. similar districts. This assessment would also be shared with parents within 60 days following assessment to better inform their future decisions, not only for their Kindergartner but also for their student’s younger siblings;

b. If monies are to be directed toward improving/increasing Pre-K efforts, offerings must meet all of the quality standards as outlined in HB 4, including student/teacher ratios;

c. To support continuous improvement effort, each district/network will also track where students attended Pre-K before (if at all) and will report annually to TEA the following:

68

i. the Kindergarten readiness of both eligible and ineligible students who (i) attended their public Pre-K; (ii) who attended Pre-K elsewhere; (iii) did not attend Pre-K.

ii. the number and percent of eligible Pre-K students served by the district in public Pre-K, delineated between direct district offerings vs. partnerships with private providers;

iii. the number and percent of students (both Pre-K eligible and non-PreK eligible) meeting the State’s Meets standard in 3rd grade reading and math who also attended the district in Kindergarten and who:

1. were assessed as K ready four years earlier vs. those who were not; 2. attended district Pre-K vs. those who did not

o Incentive No. 2 - each district or charter network would receive additional recognition in the accountability system and receive an incentive amount (again meaningfully differentiated in size between low-income and non-low-income students) for every 8th grader achieving reading and/or Algebra 1 proficiency at the state’s “Meets” standard. These incentives would help ensure substantially more students are both ready for high school and are taking the higher-level math courses critical to STEM skills and post-secondary attainment (today only one in four 8th graders in 2017 statewide took Algebra 1 in 8th grade, despite its long-term correlation to students successfully taking higher math classes and enrolling in post-secondary education).

Why This Incentive is So Important: TEA data indicates that students who met the state’s “Meets” 8th grade reading and math standards in 2011-12 (vs. those who didn’t) were:

80% less likely to drop out during their high school years; 10% to 20% more likely to graduate high school within five years;

Dollars from this incentive would likely be invested by middle schools to fund critical remediation efforts, increase early CTE offerings aligned with high demand fields in middle school to grow student engagement, fund additional counseling staff to support HB5-related student decisions on endorsements/career pathways, launch/add to personalized learning pilots, etc.

o Incentive No. 3 - each district or charter network would receive additional recognition in the accountability system and receive an incentive amount (highly differentiated between low income and non-low-income recipients) for every graduating high school senior who is assessed in high school as not requiring remediation in higher ed (per SAT, ACT, or TSI) and either (i) successfully achieves an industry-accepted certificate associated with a living wage career within top in-demand jobs determined regionally by its local work force commission or (ii) successfully enrolls in post-secondary education or the military. By providing the resources and incentives to increase a high school’s focus on ensuring each and every student does not require remediation post high school and subsequently accesses a career, the military or enrolls in a post-secondary institution (vs. just high school graduation), the following systemic benefits should occur:

Significantly Better Alignment Between Graduation Rates and Readiness Rates – today roughly 90% of Texas high school students graduate in four years, but less than 40% reflect post-secondary readiness as evidenced by a SAT, ACT or TSI assessment. As a result, far too many seniors who believe (through the granting of a high school diploma) that they are ready for the next level of education are instead told by higher education once they arrive that they are not, requiring them to take remedial classes for no college credit at their expense (post-secondary completion rates for those students required to take remediation in higher ed is very often less than 10%). By financially incenting districts to focus on eliminating the need for development education classes post high school, remediation efforts can instead be pushed into grades 9-12 where they belong and can preserve critical student loan and Pell grant dollars for credit-bearing classes toward a student’s post-secondary degree or industry-certification.

Substantial Access of Federal Dollars to Benefit Texas Students and Economy - only 40% of the Texas’ 240,000 low income 8th graders enroll in college four years later; the other 60%

69

(at an average Pell grant award of $3,700 per student/year) represents over $525 million per year per cohort of untapped federal resources available for their post-secondary education. Through this proposed incentive, high schools will now have the counseling and student support resources to adequately assist FAFSA completion to access these untapped federal dollars.

Increased High School Graduation Rates and Alignment of Curriculum to Post-Secondary Pathways Meeting Workforce Needs - Current workforce needs, associated salaries and required credentials/pathways are not adequately disseminated to middle school and high school students due to overloaded and often undertrained counselors/advisors, helping create significant mismatches between what students pursue and what the regional work force needs/requires. In addition, the lack of student flexibility to take a coherent sequence of CTE courses, coupled with the lack of transparency on the applicability of high school course work to a career, too often leads to low income students failing to complete their high school degree (33% of economically disadvantaged 8th graders don’t graduate high school four years later) as courses too often feel irrelevant and without purpose.

Greater Knowledge and Ownership Within High School Staff of Each Student’s Post-Secondary or Career Success - Public high schools are currently neither held fully accountable nor financially incentivized to (i) maximize the number of students accessing and completing a post-secondary education or (ii) minimize the number of students requiring remediation in college. While the data is publicly available, high school transparency into the post-secondary outcomes of their graduates is typically not common given its difficulty in collection and creates a real disconnect that precludes continuous improvement efforts.

Funds from this proposed incentive would likely be used to: reduce high school counselor loads (which currently approach 1 per 500 students), perhaps by

(i) hiring college access counselors with higher ed admission experience to support FAFSA completion and post-secondary applications and (ii) training CTE teachers to assist with advising on high in-demand jobs and certifications required, provide FAFSA completion support, etc.;

support funding critical remediation efforts in high school; increase early college and P-Tech offerings which can substantially reduce the student cost of

post-secondary attainment; implement/expand JROTC programs, which allow those who ultimately enlist to receive

paygrade advancement and also helps those enrolling in post-secondary to qualify for ROTC scholarships.

o Incentive No. 4 - we would recommend providing optional funding via weights in the school finance formula to provide districts with the substantial and necessary funds to pay meaningfully higher salaries, including stipends for ACE-like efforts, to their most effective teachers and campus leaders should they elect to implement a multiple measure evaluation system to determine who those effective teachers are. In the spirit of using compensation to incent better preparation and ongoing coaching of new teachers, we would suggest (i) a portion of dollars received would also be required to be used by districts to pay signing bonuses to the portion of their beginning teachers that choose to attend preparation programs featuring more rigorous clinical residency requirements (i.e. 500 hours or more of practice teaching) and (ii) teachers receiving the highest salaries under each district’s evaluation system would also be expected to serve as a mentor/coach to both student teachers and beginning teachers new to the district..

School districts who opt into this evaluation and pay incentive would individually (or in collaboration with surrounding other districts due to cost efficiencies) submit their own differentiated evaluation system to TEA for approval. The ultimate goal would be that a district’s better teachers would be able to earn 10% to 20% more than they do today under seniority-based compensations systems, and that teachers willing to teach in much harder-to-staff low income (75% economically disadvantaged or greater) or rural schools be able to earn up to twice those amounts.

70

Multiple evaluation measures, developed by local districts in partnership with all stakeholders including teachers, would include, but would not be limited to, campus leader observations, teacher peer review, student surveys, and student achievement growth. Due to overall costs, we would suggest that this incentive be phased-in over 10 years by approving district evaluation systems (as they are constructed and approved by local districts and approved by TEA) covering no more than 10% of the state’s teachers on a cumulative basis per year (i.e. after three years no more than 30% of the state’s teachers would be covered, after five years no more than 50% of the state’s teachers would be covered, etc.). Should the number of districts submitting evaluation systems exceed this cap in any one year, preference should be given by TEA toward those districts serving greater percentages of low-income students.

We believe this step is an incredibly critical one for school finance legislation in that it would:

Attract more of our best and brightest to the teaching profession given that teachers are consistently cited as THE most important in-school factor in student outcomes14. Per a 2010 study by McKinsey15, only 1 in 4 new U.S. teachers come from the top third of their college graduating class, and compensation was the primary differentiating factor cited by top-third graduates who declined a career in education in favor of their chosen industry. Per a 2017 report by ACT, only 1 in 5 students who declared their intention to major in education met ACT college ready benchmarks16;

Incent prospective teachers to complete more rigorous (and more expensive) education preparation programs reflecting substantially higher levels of (i) clinical residency experience (500 to 1500 hours vs. the current state minimum of only 15 hours) and/or (ii) ongoing coaching support. Under current seniority-based pay systems (where starting salaries are not adjusted to reflect the rigor of each beginning teacher’s preparation program, and subsequent raises are generally fixed lockstep increases not tied to a teacher’s effectiveness), there is little financial incentive for prospective teachers to seek preparation through more rigorous programs. Because the large majority of new alternatively certified teachers receive the minimal clinical residency experience required by the state, and more often than not are hired into districts reflecting poverty greater than the state average, this current systemic challenge only exacerbates our state’s current opportunity and achievement gaps.

One reflection of this systemic challenge is that in the 2016-17 school year, TEA reported that 745, or 4% of beginning teachers statewide who were prepared by alternative certification programs (which typically require the minimal clinical residency experience) left public school districts and their estimated 63,600 students during their initial probationary period as the lead teacher ofrecord before their first school year was completed17, very often requiring the use of a substitute teacher for the rest of the year for those students. Some smaller ACP providers saw 15% to 20% of their teachers leave during their first year.

Multi-measure evaluation systems would help ensure that districts know whether their more effective educators are being equitably distributed across the district, allowing them to make adjustments and create financial incentives to provide critical equity where needed;

These systems would also help ensure retention of better teachers through higher pay earned earlier in their career while also reducing the systemic incentive for our best teachers to want to leave the classroom for higher paying administrative roles in order to adequately provide for their families;

14 Rand Education, Teachers Matter: Understanding Teacher Impact on Student Achievement 15 Closing the Teaching Talent Gap, McKinsey & Co., 2010 16 The Condition of College and Career Readiness 2017, National ACT 17 Assumes equal distribution across grades, with teachers in Grades K-4 educating 22 students on average and teachers in Grades 5-12 educating 125 students.

71

https://www.rand.org/education/projects/measuring-teacher-effectiveness/teachers-matter.html

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/social-sector/our-insights/closing-the-teaching-talent-gap

http://www.act.org/content/act/en/research/condition-of-college-and-career-readiness-2017.html

Finally, robust evaluations would allow districts to: (i) systemically assign student teachers to be trained by their better teachers, enhancing their preparation; and (ii) provide robust feedback to education preparation programs on the preparation of new teachers, which today is woefully non-existent and would create a critical continuous improvement loop to help teaching programs get better.

All applying districts/charter networks would track and provide to TEA the number, percentage and annual retention of teachers reaching each of their respective distinction levels within the district and the certifying entity for each teacher at each distinction level so that (i) overall feedback statewide to each educator preparation program could be given on the specific teachers they trained and (ii) TEA and the legislature would have a better sense on the efficacy of this proposed statewide incentive.

Additional Recommendations

2. Adjust compensatory education funding (currently $3.9 billion annually) in recognition that “free and reduced lunch” percentages are a very simplistic measure and do not adequately reflect the varying levels of poverty that exist throughout the state. Instead, compensatory funding would be allocated based on the census tract for each student, with weights increasing as poverty intensity increases, similar to the census block schedules used by Dallas ISD and San Antonio ISD. Compensatory education funding would not be increased by this proposed adjustment but instead would be better allocated to appropriately reflect varying levels of student challenges associated with the variations in median household income, home ownership, parental status, and educational attainment associated with each student.

3. Strongly consider eliminating the five end-of-course (“EOC”) STAAR assessments and replacing with either SAT, ACT, or TSI assessments that can measure growth based on a pre-SAT/ACT or TSI assessment givenin 9th grade vs. a SAT/ACT or TSI assessment given in the 11th grade. This level of growth, while not impacting a student’s ability to graduate, would be combined with other important metrics historically viewed as critical in achieving a post-secondary credential (such as dual credit attainment and FAFSA completion) to factor into overall high school accountability. Eliminating the cost of EOC’s (estimated by TEA at roughly $27 million) would (i) provide the funding for a statewide SAT/ACT criterion-based assessment; (ii) would result in a metric (SAT/ACT) that is much more understood and used outside of the K-12 system by higher ed and industry than EOC’s; and (iii) would, most importantly, narrow high school campus leadership’s focus to fewer metrics that matter. Replacing state end-of-course exams with universal SAT/ACT assessments has already occurred in several U.S. states, including Michigan and Indiana, for the reasons outlined above. Before the Commission makes a final recommendation on this point, we would suggest inviting additional testimony from current Texas high school principals and from other states that have pursued this route.

4. For districts choosing to implement a full day Pre-K program, consider crediting the appropriate full-day attendance for purposes of funding within the Foundation School Program. If school districts opt to provide full-day Pre-K for some or all of their students, their WADA calculation would reflect a full day allotment more reflective of their program expenditures. This consideration (for participating districts) would provide a certain level of additional funding for Chapter 42 school districts while simultaneously reducing potential recapture payments for Chapter 41 school districts.

5. English language learners represent 1.0 million students, or roughly 1 in 5 Texas students. While 120 different languages are spoken in our schools, 90% of our ELL students speak Spanish. Given compelling data on the long-term effectiveness of dual language strategies and the ineffectiveness of ELL pullout strategies, it is our suggestion that (i) TEA financially incent dual language strategies and (ii) disallow ELL pullout strategies as an accepted approach toward ELL instruction for larger districts exceeding 5,000 students (this subset of districts educates roughly 80% of all Texas students).

6. Align the current CTE weight of 1.35 (equivalent to $2.2 billion annually) toward CTE programs of study that are vigorously tied to the attainment of living wage credentials aligned with current workforce need and/or which provide students with critical financial literacy skills. Programs that do not produce career-ready certificates aligned with regional workforce needs (as determined by regional industry/workforce commission

72

coalitions) should be phased out from eligible funding. In addition, we would suggest considering (i) allowing courses covering technical applications and computer science to qualify as CTE courses to incent districts to encourage students toward STEM and computer science pathways; (ii) change high school graduation requirements to allow a CTE course to substitute for a student’s fine arts requirement to allow students to have a more coherent sequence and pathway towards an industry certification should they desire to go that route; (iii) allow CTE weights to be applied to 8th grade students taking high school CTE courses to further their interest in a CTE path and allow for a more coherent sequence/pathway.

7. Amend legislation to allow school reconstitution for failing ISD elementary and middle school campuses with an ACE-like school turnaround plan (where better educators have been purposely placed at the struggling campus) with the state providing matching funds to reduce district costs. Early learning is critical to a child’s success, and the negative impact to a student of being within a highly challenged school for five straight years will very likely never be overcome. The ACE program has shown tremendous success in allowing elementary and middle schools to get off the state’s Improvement Required list after being on it multiple straight years (for example, preliminary data indicates that all 13 ACE elementary campuses across Dallas ISD and Ft. Worth ISD met standard in their first year), and we believe that the state should act with much more urgency on behalf of our younger learners if districts are not taking the necessary steps quickly to reconstitute highly challenged schools with better veteran educators.

8. To reduce prison recidivism and its associated costs to the state, TEA should amend the accountability system to not penalize school districts in helping formerly incarcerated individuals receive their high school diploma or GED.

9. State funding should target professional development training towards schools/districts willing to launch blended learning and personalized learning pilots that help students matriculate faster than their peers if they desire, providing net savings in the long run to the state due to paying for less seat time.

10. Schools should be incentivized with additional state funding if the high school achieves the post-secondary readiness academic distinction. In addition, additional state funding should be awarded if the high school achieves the post-secondary readiness academic distinction.

11. Allow 3 and 4-year old children of Texas public school educators to be eligible for free public full-day Pre-K funding to (i) increase the attraction and retention of working in public education in Texas and (ii) increase the diversity of public school Pre-K classrooms, which today are principally limited to economically disadvantaged and English language learner students.

Concluding Remarks and Providing a Perspective on Potential Costs of Recommendations

In closing, it is important for all of us as Texans to remember that achieving our 60x30 Goal is long dated work requiring immediate action…students who will graduate high school in 2030 will be in 1st grade this coming fall. For us to succeed requires very substantive, immediate action on the part of the state – we simply cannot “tweak” our K-12 system to meet this critical objective. Only by making strategic, impactful investments above current levels in the key areas noted, and implementing the innovative structural formula changes that are necessary, can we ensure Texas remains a thriving economy that all of its citizens can participate in.

We fully recognize that what is recommended herein will likely require significant investment which could initially approach $1.0 billion annually ($2.0 billion per biennium), likely growing steadily to $2.5+ billion annually by 2030 if all stretch goals are achieved and all highly effective teachers statewide are receiving additional pay due to universal opt-in of school districts. However, to put investments of this size in perspective, the following is worth noting:

An initial $1.0 billion annual increase would equate to ~$200 per Texas student. This would represent only a 4% increase in the current basic allotment of $5,140 and would still place Texas K-12 funding per student (inflation adjusted) below the 2008 levels funded a decade ago even after the increase.

73

An ultimate $2.5 billion annual increase would equate to ~$450 per Texas student and would only be achieved if (i) all school districts have opted into multi-measure evaluation systems that allow them to pay and retain their effective teachers more and (ii) Texas has 378,000 more 3rd, 8th, and 12th graders meeting stretch goals including post-secondary readiness and college/career enrollment/placement. This level of proposed increase would still place Texas in the lowest quartile nationally of spending per student, albeit with much higher results than today.

The suggested investments outlined herein also have the potential to pay for themselves several times over given that a more educated work force can:

• create up to $4 billion in incremental potential yearly earnings (equal to 0.25% of current state GDP) based on the potential $20,000+ annual salary differential between a post-secondary credential aligned with work force and a high school degree) and up to $250 million in additional state sales taxes for each yearly graduating cohort. Per Exhibit 3, every student who completes a post-secondary credential vs. just a high school degree will generate ~$15,000 in additional sales taxes for the state of Texas on a net present value basis (equating to over $1,000/per year/per grade) which is a multiple of the potential investment levels suggested herein.

success can also reduce the growth in the approximate $12 billion currently spent annually by Texas taxpayers for (i) uninsured medical costs associated with undereducated adults unable to obtain living wage jobs with employer-provided benefits and (i) the incarceration of poorly educated adults in our state prisons and county jails.

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to share our thoughts on this incredibly important subjecting affecting the future of our state.

Respectfully submitted,

Rep. Diego Bernal Melissa Martin Dr. Doug Killian Sen. Larry Taylor Todd Williams San Antonio Educator Supt., Pflugerville ISD Friendswood Commit Partnership Vice Chairman Galena Park ISD Chairman Dallas, TX House Public Ed. Senate Public Committee Ed. Committee

74

Exhibit 1 Examples of Systemic Challenges in K-12 That School Finance Proposal Should Seek to Positively Address

Early Childhood

o Despite abundant data that shows the longitudinal benefit of full-day Pre-K on future 3rd grade reading outcomes, the state of Texas only funds half day Pre-K and only for students judged “at risk” due to income, limited English proficiency, etc.

o With only 40% of eligible 3 and 4-year-old students attending public Pre-K statewide, roughly 140,000 eligible students are not attending primarily due to:

parental awareness on its importance/availability; lack of full day state funding for working parents; lack of available classroom seats where students are located.18

o No common Kindergarten readiness assessment is required to benchmark Pre-K quality across school districts and campuses statewide to assist districts in their continuous improvement efforts;

o State accountability system too often incents the placement by principals of their better teachers away from the foundational grades of Pre-K thru 2nd to the standardized tested grades of 3rd grade and above, and far too often, less effective teachers are concurrently placed by principals in these critical but non-tested grades (vs. being professionally developed or coached out of the profession). This practice can have a material effect;

o Despite the critical importance of early foundational grades (particularly for low income students and English language learners), it is standard practice in most districts to financially incent (thru salary increases) higher performing elementary school principals to relocate to larger middle and high schools.

Educator Recruitment, Quality and Retention

o Certified teachers prepared by Texas schools of higher education have declined roughly 15% since 2012, while demand for beginning teachers has increased by 83% due to both population growth, teacher retirements, and the “churn” associated with less prepared teachers “burning out” and leaving the profession early. This has created an annual gap of over 18,000+ teachers in 2017 (more than 4X the gap compared to 2012) that must be filled primarily by alternative certification programs.

o Unfortunately, the large majority of alternative certification programs do not require meaningful clinical student teaching experience prior to certification issuance (the state required minimum is only 15 hours) and too often provide little coaching support in the first year of teaching. Beginning teachers are not paid more if they attend a higher quality preparation program that requires substantial pre-service training or provides ongoing coaching, and better preparation (and resulting teaching effectiveness) do not result in higher salaries in subsequent years given the fixed pay found within a seniority salary system. As a result, too often the incentive is to obtain a teaching certificate as quickly and cheaply as possible regardless of its quality.

o The majority of teachers trained by higher education typically begin their career in lower poverty suburban campuses, while the majority of beginning teachers prepared by alternative certification begin their career in higher poverty urban campuses. Beginning teachers in low income schools (as a percentage of the campus teaching force) typically comprise a percentage that is 2.5x higher than that found in their more affluent counterparts.

o Only 10% of statewide teacher certifications are in STEM fields.

18 Texas Education Agency Texas Public Education Information Resource: http://www.texaseducationinfo.org/

75

http://www.texaseducationinfo.org/

o Seniority-based compensation systems (which pay the same amount regardless of student challenge assumed) too often result in better, more experienced teachers gravitating over time toward lower poverty schools with greater parental involvement, exacerbating the opportunity gap for low income children and hindering student achievement for students who need our better teachers the most. This is clearly demonstrated in Texas’ own achievement data; low income students educated within affluent districts (<20% economically disadvantaged) have a 9% higher proficiency on STAAR assessments across all subjects/grades than low income students in high poverty (>80% economically disadvantaged) districts.

o Principal certification is not rigorous, and per national research, only 15% of those serving as principals were viewed by staff as the most qualified to serve in that position19. Principal mobility is high, which inhibits creating a consistent campus culture, due in part to salary incentives which encourage school leaders to move to larger campuses serving higher grades even though data consistently shows that subsequent academic achievement in later grades never materially exceeds that seen in elementary schools.

o Underfunded school districts lack the systems to robustly evaluate their principals/teachers and don’t systemically understand through data (i) who their better teachers are; or (ii) where they were trained, significantly hindering their success in using their collective hiring ability to substantially influence the continuous improvement of their educator preparation pipelines.

Post-Secondary Access and Completion

o Public high schools are neither held fully accountable nor incentivized to (i) maximize the number of students accessing and completing a post-secondary education or (ii) minimize the number of students requiring remediation in college. High school transparency into the post-secondary outcomes of their graduates is not common; accountability generally ends with high school graduation.

o As a result, Texas today reflects a collective 90% high school graduation rate, but only 16% of graduates reflect a college ready SAT/ACT (increasing to ~35% when TSI included) because readiness assessments and remediation efforts tend to be deferred until college (where the student is financially responsible) vs. in high school where they belong20.

o Resources within constrained public school budgets mirror system incentivizes. The large majority of area public high schools staff their college access counselors at roughly 400:1 (equivalent to 5 minutes per student per week), which is inadequate for schools comprised primarily of low income, largely first-generation students.

o Texas’ average community college tuition rate is the third lowest in the country (<$2,000/year) and is roughly half of the average U.S. Pell grant. However, per THECB longitudinal data, only 40% of the Texas’ 240,000 low income 8th graders enroll in college four years later; the other 60% (at an average Pell grant award of $3,750 per student/year) represents over $525 million per year per cohort of untapped federal resources available for their post-secondary education21. Said differently, low income Texas students who are U.S. citizens and thus Pell eligible have been able to go to community college for free for well over a decade but have failed to do so primarily due to the lack of sufficient support provided by high schools struggling with inadequate funding and misaligned accountability incentives.

o Current workforce needs, associated salaries and required credentials/pathways are not adequately disseminated by industry to students via advisors in either high school or college, creating significant mismatches between what students pursue and what the regional work force requires.

19 Bain School Leadership Study 2013, based on survey of 7 urban districts and CMOs, n=4200. 20 College ready is defined as percentage of test takers who score a 24 on the ACT and/or 1110 on SAT. Sourced from the Texas Education Agency: https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/perfreport/tapr/2017/state.pdf 21 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board: http://www.txhighereddata.org/index.cfm?objectId=F2CBE4A0-C90B-11E5-8D610050560100A9

76

https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/perfreport/tapr/2017/state.pdf

http://www.txhighereddata.org/index.cfm?objectId=F2CBE4A0-C90B-11E5-8D610050560100A9

http://www.txhighereddata.org/index.cfm?objectId=F2CBE4A0-C90B-11E5-8D610050560100A9

NPV of Additional State Sales Tax Revenue

As...nptians Sales Tax Rate 6.25%

Percent of Income Spent on Sales Taxable Items 33"

Discount Rate {30 YearT-Note) 3.111%

Annual

PrajKtm Mori!: - nnaseDue Metian Annual ntial5alary 1D Te&S

M-n lnuneE....,paf: Salary Perllaur E,..lrien<2 Sa-HS Diploma s 22,IXII s 1058 1.1)'11, s 27,534 Source: USCen"1s - Factfinder for 21116 (ACS)

~iates Degree s 33,IXII s 15.87 21)'11, s 35,270 Source: USCen"1s - Factfinder for 21116 (ACS)

Bachelors Degree s 47,IXII s 22.60 31)'11, s 52.134 Source: USCen"1s- Factfinder for 21116(ACS)

Number of Years Worked 40 Annual Inflation 21)'11,

Annual Likelihood of Outbound Migration 1.50%

Projected Pct. of P .S. Degrees that a re B.A.'s 35%

Projectod Salary Projecte d Salary and Salas Tax Collection Dlfferentlal ......... -....1a1 -· Salas Ta•

Retaiinod Annual Annual Sales wai:i- i,,. - Assadat:as SalasT.m m1 Taa:m1 B.A.and.AA.

Outbu- High5dmol - Ba-ars vs.HS ......... Bamelan .... ......... -v-• Mipatim, DiFbna 0...- lll!p9e DiFbna -- H5Diplama -- Prt.

1 98511% s 22,IXIO s 33,IXII s 47,CIXI s 11,IXII s 223 s 25,CIXI s 508 s 323

2 97.02% s 22,660 s 34,3211 s 49,350 s 11,660 s 233 s 26,6!10 s 534 s 339

3 95.57% s 23,340 s 35,6'B s 51,818 s 12,353 s 243 s 28,478 s 561 s 355

4 94.13% s 24,040 s 37,121 s 54,408 s 13.()81 s 254 s 30,368 s 590 s 371

5 92.72% s 24,761 s 38,605 s 57,129 s 13,844 s 265 s 32.368 s 619 s 389

6 91.33% s 25,504 s 40,150 s 59,985 s 14,646 s 276 s 34,481 s 650 s 407

7 89.96% s 26,269 s 41.756 s 62.984 s 15,486 s 287 s 36,715 s 681 s 425

8 88.61% s 27JJ57 s 43,426 s 66,134 s 16,36!1 s 299 s 39,CJ76 s 714 s 444

9 87.28% s 27,869 s 45,lfil s 69,440 s 17.294 s 311 s 41,571 s 748 s 464 10 85.97% s 28,705 s 46,96!1 s 72.912 s 18,264 s 324 s 44,2117 s 784 s 485

11 84.68% s 29,566 s 48,848 s 76,558 s 19,282 s 337 s 46,992 s 821 s 506

12 83.41% s 30,453 s 50,802 s 80,386 s 211,349 s 350 s 49,933 s 859 s 528

13 82.16" s 31,367 s 52)134 s 84,405 s 21,467 s 364 s 53,CB9 s 899 s 551

14 80.93% s 32.308 s 54,947 s 88,626 s 22,640 s 378 s 56,318 s 940 s 575

15 79.72% s 33,277 s 57,145 s 93,(157 s 23,868 s 392 s 59,780 s 983 s 599

16 78.52% s 34,275 s 59,431 s 97.710 s 25,156 s 407 s 63,434 s 1JJ27 s 624

17 77.34% s 35,304 s 61,8111 s 102,595 s 26,5(15 s 423 s 67,292 s 1JJ73 s 651

18 76.18% s 36,363 s 64,281 s 1CJ7,725 s 27,918 s 439 s 71,362 s 1.121 s 678

19 75.04% s 37,454 s 66,852 s 113.111 s 29,398 s 455 s 75,658 s 1,171 s 706

20 73.91% s 38,577 s 6!1,526 s 118,767 s 30,949 s 472 s 80,190 s 1.222 s 735

21 72.8()'11, s 39,734 s 72,3CJ7 s 124,7(15 s 32,573 s 489 s 84,971 s 1,276 s 764

22 71.71% s 40,926 s 75,199 s 130,940 s 34,273 s 507 s 90.014 s 1,331 s 795

23 70.64% s 42.154 s 78,2CJ7 s 137,487 s 36JJS3 s 525 s 95,333 s 1,389 s 828

24 69.58% s 43,419 s 81,336 s 144,362 s 37,917 s 544 s 100,943 s 1,449 s 861

25 68.53% s 44,721 s 84,589 s 151,580 s 39,868 s 564 s 106,858 s 1,510 s 895

26 67.51% s 46,063 s l'J,973 s 159,159 s 41,909 s 584 s 113.l)'l6 s 1,575 s 930

27 66.49% s 47,445 s 91,492 s 167.117 s 44JJ46 s 604 s 119,672 s 1,641 s 967

28 65.50% s 48,868 s 95,151 s 175,472 s 46,283 s 625 s 126,604 s 1,710 s 1,1115

29 64.51% s 50,334 s 98,957 s 184.246 s 48,623 s 647 s 133,912 s 1.782 s 1,044

30 63.55% s 51,844 s 102.915 s 193,458 s 51JJ71 s 669 s 141,614 s 1,856 s 1,1115

31 62.59% s 53,400 s 107,CB2 s 2CB,131 s 53,632 s 6!12 s 149,732 s 1,933 s 1,127

32 61.65% s 55JJ02 s 111,313 s 213.288 s 56,312 s 716 s 158,286 s 2JJ13 s 1,170

33 60.73% s 56,652 s 115,766 s 223,952 s 59,114 s 740 s 167,3111 s 2JJ95 s 1,215

34 59.82% s 58,351 s 120,397 s 235.150 s 62JJ45 s 765 s 176,798 s 2,181 s 1,261

35 58.92% s 60,102 s 125.212 s 246,9CJ7 s 65,111 s 7!ll s 186,805 s 2,270 s 1,309

36 58.04% s 61,905 s 130,221 s 259,253 s 68,316 s 818 s 197,348 s 2,362 s 1,358

37 57.17" s 63,762 s 135,430 s 272.215 s 71,668 s 845 s 208,453 s 2,458 s 1,409

38 56.31% s 65,675 s 140,847 s 285,826 s 75,172 s l'J3 s 220,151 s 2,557 s 1,462

39 55.46% s 67,645 s 146,481 s 3111.117 s 78,836 s 902 s 232,472 s 2,659 s 1,517

40 54.fil'lf, s 69,675 s 152.340 s 315,123 s 82,665 s 931 s 245,449 s 2,766 s 1,573

Tatals $1.lil58,82ll $ '\135,.842 $ 5.li77.589 $1.477.014 $ 211.566 $ 4,018.762 $ 5S.320 $ 32,.730

NPV $840.912 $1,.530,.8113 $2.673,.525 $6119,.931 $1Q.162 $1.1132.613 $26.639 $15,929

Exhibit 2

77

School Year 2016‐17 2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20 2020‐21

State Fiscal Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Exp Est Bud BL BL

Enrollment

Students in Average Daily Attendance (Total) 4,974,711 5,075,941 5,166,298 5,249,131 5,334,917

% Change 2.03% 1.78% 1.60% 1.63%

Regular School ADA 4,722,794 4,788,015 4,836,307 4,917,942 4,990,633

% Change 1.38% 1.01% 1.69% 1.48%

Regular School % of Total 94.94% 94.33% 93.61% 93.69% 93.55%

Charter School ADA 251,917 287,926 329,991 331,189 344,284

% Change 14.29% 14.61% 0.36% 3.95%

Charter School % of Total 5.06% 5.67% 6.39% 6.31% 6.45%

Compensatory Education Student Count 3,315,128 3,356,615 3,404,842 3,483,577 3,536,724

% of Total ADA 66.64% 66.13% 65.90% 66.36% 66.29%

No. of Students Receiving Comp. Ed. Services 2,689,018 2,742,798 2,797,654 2,740,071 2,786,738

Special Education FTEs 121,819 121,756 123,292 125,126 126,906

Career and Technical Education FTEs 273,768 285,271 295,437 318,919 336,064

Bilingual Education/English as 2nd Language ADA 877,098 901,548 929,712 988,723 1,023,542

Financial Summary

Projected State Property Value Growth* 4.32% 4.96% 7.19% 6.77% 6.77%

*2016‐17, 2017‐18 and 2018‐19 based on prior‐year state values.

State General‐Revenue‐Related Program Funds (In Millions) $18,627.6 $19,267.7 $17,493.5 $17,666.1 $15,303.0

Biennial Amounts $36,761.2 $32,969.1

Biennial Difference ‐$3,792.1

State Facilities Funding (in Millions and Included Above) $570.9 $636.0 $695.0 $545.3 $504.0


Biennial Difference ‐$281.7

Recapture (In Millions) $1,729.0 $2,084.5 $2,521.0 $3,140.5 $3,796.6


Biennial Difference $2,331.6

Key Assumptions Underlying Texas Education Agency Appropriations

Request, 2020‐21 State Biennium

87

PRESIDENTArlington ISDDr. Marcelo Cavazos

PRESIDENT-ELECTAldine ISDDr. Wanda Bamberg

VICE PRESIDENTAlief ISDMr. HD Chambers

SECRETARYHurst-Euless-Bedford ISDMr. Steve Chapman

TREASURERKaty ISDDr. Lance Hindt

PAST PRESIDENTMidland ISDMr. Rod Schroder

MEMBER DISTRICTSAbilene*AldineAliefAmarilloArlingtonAustin*Corpus ChristiCypress- Fairbanks*Dallas*Ector CountyEl PasoFort BendFort WorthGarlandHarlingenHouston*HumbleHurst-Euless- Bedford

IrvingKatyKilleenLubbock*McAllenMesquiteMidlandNorth East*NorthsidePharr-San Juan- Alamo*RichardsonRound RockSan AngeloSan AntonioSocorroSpring Branch*Tyler*UnitedWaco

* Members of TSA Board of Directors

TexasSchoolAlliance.org

ISSUES & POSITIONS for the 85TH TEXAS LEGISLATURE

Accountability & AssessmentThe Texas School Alliance comprises 37 of Texas’ largest school districts, serving 40 percent of the state’s total pupil enrollment. Our students represent 44 percent of the state’s economically

disadvantaged student population, 52 percent of its English Language Learners, and 45 percent of all at-risk students in the state. The organization works on issues that will improve educational

quality for Texas students, particularly those in large and urban districts. TSA has adopted the following positions for the 85th Texas Legislature.

The Texas School Alliance (TSA) believes that the public education accountability system needs improvement, not abandonment. The system must be predicated upon a clear statement of its purpose. The system should be designed in a way that satisfies federal requirements as it moves all students towards postsecondary readiness. The system must align supports, interventions and sanctions — in that order — to restore credibility and renew general acceptance of accountability. The system also must maintain or improve its fairness, transparency, and utility via improved reporting of results, without the use of letter grades as ratings. The member districts of the Texas School Alliance seek to restore a positive focus on student learning by mitigating overreliance on state assessments and by promoting students’ access to higher education.

Define the purpose(s) of the state accountability system in law.

TSA believes that the purposes of public education accountability are to provide actionable information to improve all students’ postsecondary readiness, close gaps in postsecondary readiness among student groups, and sustain continuous system improvement.

§ The purpose of the current state accountability system is unknown and/or unclear. Is it to improve teaching and learning? Comply with federal accountability? Identify the lowest performing schools? Verify if public education is adding value? To determine if Texas is among the top 10 states in the nation, in terms of college readiness?

§ The federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) has a clear purpose and accountability is understood as informing that purpose: “The purpose of Title 1 of the ESEA is to provide all children significant opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high quality education, and to close educational achievement gaps.”

Align the state and federal assessment and accountability systems.

TSA is not alone in this recommendation; see also Recommendation #6 in the final report of the Texas Commission on Next Generation Assessments and Accountability, and Goal #2 of the Texas Education Agency’s Strategic Plan.

(continued on reverse)

1

2

88

CONTINUED: Align the state and federal assessment and accountability systems.

Reduce state academic assessments to those required in ESSA: Reading/ELA and Mathematics annually in grades 3-8 and at least once in grades 9-12; and Science annually in the specified grade spans. Include the following features:

§ Eliminate “double-testing” of students enrolled in middle schools

while completing courses for high school credit;

§ Allow districts to substitute ‘nationally recognized’ tests for state-

developed assessments and consistently give credit in each of

the indices / domains for substitute scores; and

§ Determine if changes are needed to provisions in SB 149 given

changes in the testing program.

Align supports, interventions and sanctions — in that order — to restore credibility, promote shared responsibility for outcomes and renew acceptance of the accountability system.

§ Provide aligned support and training to public school educators, including professional development, access to instructional resources, and a reduction in the number of TEKS.

§ Streamline sanctions, reduce overdependence on state assessment data and provide aligned, targeted supports and interventions for struggling students and campuses, including all of the following:

• Make the provisions for individual graduation

committees (IGCs) in SB 149 permanent until such time

as graduation examination requirements may change;

extend similar provisions to TAKS graduates, per

Recommendation #9 of the Texas Commission on Next

Generation Assessments and Accountability.

• Include explicit reference to community schools as a

turnaround option.

• Synchronize release of final academic and financial

ratings.

• Require state oversight for a school rated as

unacceptable only for the school year following that

unacceptable rating.

Maintain current ratings labels of Met Standard and Improvement Required*, and improve state data reporting to ensure fairness, transparency and especially the utility of accountability system results.

Include weighted demographic / contextual data in campus and district accountability evaluations.

§ Redefine the “non-mobile” subset based on individual

students’ continuous enrollment and weight results

accordingly.

§ Employ the use of a Campus Performance Needs

Index (CPNI) as a better measure of student need and

educational disadvantage, beyond the usual metric of

free and reduced-price meals. The CPNI could be used to

weight the individual domain scores or the total score.

* TSA member districts oppose the use of single-letter grades as ratings, but understand that a summary rating of some kind may be required by regulations under ESSA. In that case, TSA supports the more balanced approach of reporting ratings separately for each domain, in addition to the summary rating.

• Limit the state’s assignment of boards of managers to

districts with egregious accountability issues.

• Eliminate high stakes testing for students in grades five

and eight; continue to require delivery of accelerated

instruction for any students who need it.

• Eliminate requirements for costly, external professional

service providers (PSPs) as leaders of school

intervention teams; districts should have both control

over and accountability for the supports given to

struggling schools.

34

TexasSchoolAlliance.org

89

FOR INITIAL DISCUSSION ONLY

POSSIBLE 2019 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES:

1. Repeal A-F and replace with more descriptive labels (i.e. Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, Exceed Growth, Limited Growth, etc.)

2. Eliminate the Overall Rating 3. Eliminate the Forced Failure Rule (new Step 10). Or cap at a D rather than a F. 4. Eliminate PEG 5. Eliminate SSI 6. Limit STAAR to no more that 50% in any domain calculation 7. Weight STAAR, CCMRs, Graduation Rates equally 8. Include non-test based indicators for Elementary and Middle Schools 9. Include performance of Prior Year Failers (or EOC re-testers) in HS growth measures 10. Include a School Climate Domain (e.g. House version of HB 22 from 85th session) 11. Reduce testing to what is federally required (R & M annually in grades 3-8, Science in

grades 5 and 8 and English II, Biology, and Algebra I for High School.) 12. Require state to pay for SAT/ACT that is required in ESSA for students taking Algebra I

EOC in 8th grade. 13. Award CCMR credit for any 1 dual credit course 14. Award Challenge Points / Bonus Points / Weights to each domain based on the extent

to which educationally disadvantaged student groups make significant progress towards or meet performance targets

15. Include a “selective enrollment school” indicator in PEIMS 16. Permanently extend IGCs 17. Limit the state’s assignment of boards of managers to districts with more than 10% of

schools identified as Unacceptable. (“Having only one IR 5-year campus should NOT trigger a state takeover.”)

18. Closing the Gaps domain targets for AEA campuses need to be addressed – specifically the 4-year graduation rate requirement of 67% that triggers CS&I

19. Closing the Gaps domain targets for comprehensive HS and AEA need to be addressed because targets for each student group are not differentiated by level the way that cut scores are in the other two domains.

20. Publish the accountability manual by Sept. 30 of the current school year 21. Administer the ASVAB to seniors & establish cut scores for military ready identification

(similar to how TSI scores are used) 22. Is STAAR a valid assessment? i.e. readability issues, lawsuit continues

TSA discussion only – September 2018

90

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/08/29/texas-teachers-unions-sue-education-agency-over-charter-partnership-la/

Texas teachers unions sue education agency over charter partnership law In a lawsuit filed Wednesday, two teacher groups argue Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath exceeded his authority and weakened protections for public school employees.

BY ALIYYA SWABY AUG. 29, 2018UPDATED: AUG. 30, 2018

Two teacher associations sued Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath and the Texas Education Agency on Wednesday, arguing they rolled out a law incentivizing partnerships with school districts and charter schools in a way that weakened protections for public school employees.

The lawsuit, filed in Travis County District Court, centers on Senate Bill 1882, which lets traditional school districts partner with outside organizations — including charter schools and nonprofit organizations — to turn around low-performing schools and receive a temporary reprieve from harsh state penalties and gain additional state funding.

The Texas State Teachers Association and the Texas chapter of the American Federation of Teachers, a national teachers union, argue in the suit that Morath exceeded his authority in releasing schools seeking partnerships from existing state regulations — harming teachers who benefit from those rights.

"Contrary to legislative intent ... the Commissioner's rules challenged in this lawsuit reduces the number and type of charter operators that must abide by the rules that were put in place to protect public school employees in SB 1882 charter schools and relaxes the requirements that the school district and charter operator need to satisfy before they can qualify for the benefits available under the law," the lawsuit reads.

The lawsuit is part of a larger Texas debate about whether the state’s increasingly tough accountability measures will successfully get schools to meet higher educational standards.

Educator groups also have consistently criticized Morath for prioritizing the growth of Texas charter schools — privately-managed public schools with fewer state regulations — to the detriment of traditional public schools.

Morath “is an unabashed cheerleader for charter schools,” said Texas AFT president Louis Malfaro at a news conference Thursday morning.

The groups are asking the court to find Morath’s rules invalid. The TEA declined to comment on the lawsuit Thursday, referring inquiries to the Texas attorney general.

SB 1882 was intended to serve as a lifelinefor school districts that needed more resources and more time to get students in chronically failing schools performing better on standardized tests and meeting state standards. Under this law, districts turn over management of their low-performing schools to their partner organizations, which could be universities, nonprofits or charters.

91



https://www.texastribune.org/about/staff/aliyya-swaby/

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/01/texas-schools-state-takeover/

PRESIDENT Aldine ISD Dr. Wanda Bamberg

PRESIDENT-ELECT Alief ISD Mr. HD Chambers

VICE PRESIDENT Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD Mr. Steve Chapman

SECRETARY Northside ISD Dr. Brian Woods

TREASURER Katy ISD Dr. Lance Hindt

PAST PRESIDENT Arlington ISD Dr. Marcelo Cavazos

MEMBER DISTRICTS Abilene Aldine Alief Amarillo* Arlington Austin* Corpus Christi* Cypress-Fairbanks* Dallas* Ector County El Paso Fort Bend Fort Worth Garland Harlingen Houston Humble Hurst-Euless-Bedford Irving Katy Killeen* Lubbock* McAllen Mesquite Midland North East Northside Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Richardson Round Rock San Angelo* San Antonio Socorro Spring Branch* Tyler* United Waco

*TSA Board Members

June 1, 2018

Mike Morath, Commissioner Texas Education Agency 1701 N. Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78701

Re: Adoption of 2018 State Accountability Manual into Rule

Dear Commissioner Morath:

The Texas School Alliance (TSA) comprises 37 of Texas’ largest school districts, serving over 2 million students or nearly 40 percent of the state’s total pupil enrollment. Our students represent 44 percent of the state’s economically disadvantaged student population, 52 percent of its English Language Learners, and 45 percent of all at-risk students in the state. The organization works on issues that will improve educational quality for Texas students, particularly those in large and urban districts.

TSA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the state’s plan to implement the 2018 State Accountability Manual. Attached to this letter (please see Attachment) are the member district’s feedback and recommendations relative to the proposed manual.

We want to thank you, Penny Schwinn, and Jaime Crowe for your commitment to continuous improvement and feedback regarding the development of the 2018 accountability system over the past nine months. We appreciate the guidance, patience, and quick replies to our questions. The Scaling Tool is helpful and the Performance Reporting Newsletter is a value-add that has improved and clarified communication between experts in the field and the agency.

Finally, because TSA member districts are committed to a strong, and fair, system of accountability to support continuous academic improvement, we welcome continued opportunities for dialogue and are happy to serve as resources in the current development and future refinement of the state accountability system. As always, if you have any questions or wish to discuss our recommendations, including the specific details in the attachment, please let me know.

Sincerely,

HD Chambers, President, Texas School Alliance Superintendent, Alief Independent School District

Attachment. TSA Recommended Revisions to the 2018 Accountability Manual

92

2 of 4

Recommended Revisions to the 2018 Accountability Manual

Student Achievement Domain

1. Use raw scores (rather than scaled scores) for the graduation rate component shown in Table 5.2 (page 46) and Table 5.6 (page 48) to comply with the statutory provision in House Bill 22 (HB 22) which states, “The commissioner shall ensure that the method used to evaluate performance is implemented in a manner that provides the mathematical possibility that all districts and campuses receive an A rating.” When a) the scale tops out at a 95 rather than a 100; and b) when a graduation rate of 92 scales to a 70, and a graduation rate of 91 scales to a 65; and c) when there is no scale score difference between a 50 and a 69.9 or a 70 and an 85.9, it appears to conflict with the statutory provision regarding “no forced distribution.” It’s also inconsistent with the rationale for assigning A-F ratings in the first place: to align with the general public’s understanding of grades, such that a 92 = A, not a scaled score of 70.

a. Recommended revision: Use raw scores (rather than scaled scores) for the Graduation Rate component so the calculation will comply with HB 22 and allow the possibility that all districts and campuses receive an A rating, and align with the general public’s understanding of grades.

2. Give greater weight to graduation rates for High Schools, Districts, and K-12. When Commissioner Morath addressed the Texas Public School Finance Commission in January, he asked “What do we want our education system to produce?” and then he answered his question by saying: “We want graduates | Who are prepared to be engaged citizens | Who are prepared to be productive.”

a. The first step in the journey to becoming productive, engaged citizens is that student graduate from high school. Recommended revision: Use equal weighting for the three components of the student achievement domain: STAAR – 34%, CCMR – 33% and graduation rates – 33%.

3. Specify which graduation rate that will be used in the Student Achievement Domain. Page 30 clearly defines that Federal Graduation Rate will be used in the Closing the Gaps Domain; yet page 14 does not have that same level of clarity for the Student Achievement Domain.

a. Recommended revision: Specify that the State Graduation Rate (and methodology) will be used for the Student Achievement Domain.

4. Include substitute assessments at the Masters Grade Level standard. Districts and campuses will be penalized when high-achieving students take a substitute assessment and their scores count at Meets Grade Level, rather than at the Masters Grade Level.

a. Recommended revision: Include substitute assessments at the Masters Grade Level standard.

School Progress Domain, Part A: Academic Growth

5. Adjust the Part A: Academic Growth cut points shown in Table 5.3 (page 46) and scaled scores shown in Table 5.7 (page 48) to comply with statutory provision in House Bill 22 (HB 22) which states, “The commissioner shall ensure that the method used to evaluate performance is implemented in a manner that provides the mathematical possibility that all districts and campuses receive an A rating.” Current cut points show that a non-AEA district that has 62% of its students meeting or exceeding annual growth expectations would receive an “F” rating. Similarly, an elementary campus that has 63% of its students meeting or exceeding annual growth expectations would receive an “F” rating. As noted previously, this appears to conflict with the statutory provision regarding “no forced distribution,” and it’s also inconsistent with the rationale for assigning A-F ratings in the first place: to align with the general public’s understanding of grades, such that a 62 or a 63 = D, not an F.

a. Recommended revision: Adjust the cut points for the Part A: Academic Growth components that will comply with HB 22 and allow the possibility that all district and campuses receive an A rating, and align with the public’s understanding of grades.

94

3 of 4

6. Include the Spanish to English transition proxy calculation for students who take the STAAR reading Spanish version in 2017, transition in 2018 to the STAAR reading English version and score at least at the Approaches Grade Level. Elementary students should be given credit and recognition for successfully transitioning from Spanish to English on STAAR.

a. Recommended revision: Include the Spanish to English transition proxy for elementary students who successfully transition from Spanish to English on STAAR reading. If this calculation lowers a district or campus score (as TEA’s model has shown), then a hold harmless provision should be applied.

7. Award one full point for students who “skip” a STAAR grade level and score at either Meets or Masters Grade Level As an example: If a student is in accelerated math in grade 6, he/she takes the Grade 6 STAAR and scores at the Masters or Meets grade level standard. If the following year, the student then moves to accelerated math class in grade 7, and takes the Grade 8 STAAR test, and scores at the Meets grade level standard, he/she would receive 0 points for a growth score, even though the student demonstrated considerable growth by skipping an entire grade level in the subject. TSA members feel that if a student scores at either Meets or Masters grade level after skipping an entire grade level, 1 point for growth should be awarded automatically.

a. Recommended revision: Award a full point for students who “skip” a STAAR grade level and score at either Meets or Masters Grade Level.

8. Award growth points for students who test in English II for the first time and are retaking the English I test. Currently, a growth measure is calculated only if the student tests in English II for the first time and is not retesting in English I. TSA agrees that it would be inappropriate to compute a progress measure using English I retest scores, however, that does not mean English I first-time scores from the prior year should be ignored. If a student tests in English II for the first time and they demonstrate growth from the first-time English I test in the prior year, they should receive a growth score. Since high schools are already limited in the number of growth scores available in Part A, the inability to count these students further reduces the number of possible growth scores.

a. Recommended revision: Award growth points for students who test in English II for the first time regardless of their English I testing status.

School Progress Domain, Part B: Relative Performance

9. Clarification is requested regarding the methodology for combining the STAAR and CCMR rates. Page 25 states, “For high schools, K–12 campuses, and districts, School Progress, Part B evaluates the average of the Student Achievement STAAR component and the College, Career, and Military Readiness (CCMR) component…” (emphasis added) It appears that raw scores for both components are being used in the calculation, rather than the scaled scores. Is this true? If so, then it seems that the scaled scores should be used for both components to produce more of an “apples to apples” conversion.

a. Recommended revision: Anywhere in the manual where the term “score” is used should be preceded by either the term “raw” or “scaled” for clarity.

Closing the Gaps Domain

10. Apply a consistent methodology for calculating the CCMR component. Page 33 defines the CCMR denominator as including the number of 2017 “annual graduates plus students in grade 12 who did not graduate.” This calculation differs substantially from the CCMR component in the Student Achievement Domain as described on page 14. Students who do not graduate that year for whatever reason would be counted against the campus each year until they graduate. This seems unfair and especially punitive to ‘include the grade 12 students who did not graduate’ for a variety of reasons: 1) districts who enroll new students who consider themselves 12th graders would be encouraged NOT to enroll them as 12th graders, 2) campuses who enroll a lot of newcomers, particularly refugees and/or asylees would be repeatedly

95

4 of 4

penalized, and/or 3) students may have a valid reason for not graduating such as returning to their home country or even death.

a. Recommended revision: Apply the same methodology for both CCMR component calculations, or use leaver codes as normally done for other calculations, or an even more elegant solution would be to simply use the cohort numbers for the graduating class. This number is already calculated and is known to the districts and campuses long before the end of the year since they already receive these cohort reports.

11. Apply a cap to Federal Graduation rates. According to page 30, the long-term statewide goal for the four-year graduation rate is 94%; and student groups that are at or above the interim or long-term targets are “required to exceed that rate in the following year(s).” TSA members propose that instead of requiring a tenth of a point increase each year for student groups that are at or above the long-term graduation goal of 94%, apply a reasonable cap on the graduation rates so that once a student group reaches that final standard, small fluctuations do not cause the campus and/or district to miss a performance target.

a. Recommended revision: Apply a reasonable cap on the federal graduation rates so that once a student group reaches a final standard, small fluctuations in the results do not cause the campus and/or district to miss a performance target.

12. Clarification is requested regarding calculating the Closing the Gaps Domain Score. The top of page 37 includes a table that displays the Closing the Gaps Component Weights. However, if USDE grants the TELPAS waiver, how will that change the weights for each component? If a federal graduation rate is not available, how will that change the weights and/or components used in the score calculation? If CCMRs are not available, how will that change the weights and/or components used in the score calculation? Additional tables are requested to clarify calculating the domain score.

a. Recommended revision: Include additional tables that show how the various waiver and/or missing components will be weighted.

13. Clarification is requested regarding scaling tables, scaled scores, cut scores, and lookup tables (Chapter 5). Commissioner Morath has repeatedly said (and has shown in the Texas ESSA Plan) that he will keep the targets the same for 5 years. TSA appreciates that statement of consistency, and wants to ensure that the values in the scaling tables, scaled scores, cut scores, and lookup tables found in Chapter 5 will also remain the same for 5 years.

a. Recommended revision: Maintain the values in the scaling tables, scaled scores, cut scores, and lookup tables found in Chapter 5 for 5 years.

14. Appeals. According to the text on page 74, “Appeals of the Closing the Gaps domain will not affect identification for the comprehensive, targeted, or additional targeted interventions as this identification is based on August 2018 accountability data.” This implies that a campus or district can be identified for the most intrusive sanctions, and yet, if the identification was due to a contractor data error, an online testing issue, or other unforeseen circumstances and if an appeal is granted, then the sanctions remain. It makes no instructional sense for students, to force interventions on a school in which students are, in fact, meeting targets. This is both unreasonable and unfair.

a. Recommended revision: If an appeal of the Closing the Gaps domain is granted, then any applicable sanctions are removed.

96

PRESIDENT Aldine ISD Dr. Wanda Bamberg PRESIDENT-ELECT Alief ISD Mr. HD Chambers VICE PRESIDENT Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD Mr. Steve Chapman SECRETARY Northside ISD Dr. Brian Woods TREASURER Katy ISD Dr. Lance Hindt PAST PRESIDENT Arlington ISD Dr. Marcelo Cavazos

MEMBER DISTRICTS Abilene Aldine Alief Amarillo* Arlington Austin* Corpus Christi* Cypress-Fairbanks* Dallas* Ector County El Paso Fort Bend Fort Worth Garland Harlingen Houston Humble Hurst-Euless-Bedford Irving Katy Killeen* Lubbock* McAllen Mesquite Midland North East Northside Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Richardson Round Rock San Angelo* San Antonio Socorro Spring Branch* Tyler* United Waco *TSA Board Members

June 29, 2018 Mike Morath, Commissioner Texas Education Agency 1701 N. Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78701

Re: Adoption of Hurricane Harvey Accountability Provision into Rule

Dear Commissioner Morath:

The Texas School Alliance (TSA) comprises 37 of Texas’ largest school districts, serving over 2 million students or nearly 40 percent of the state’s total pupil enrollment. Our students represent 44 percent of the state’s economically disadvantaged student population, 52 percent of its English Language Learners, and 45 percent of all at-risk students in the state. The organization works on issues that will improve educational quality for Texas students, particularly those in large and urban districts. TSA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the state’s plan to include the Hurricane Harvey provision into the 2018 Accountability Manual. Listed below are the member districts’ feedback and recommendations relative to the proposed provision. • TSA districts that were heavily impacted by the hurricane continue to

strongly oppose using relatively arbitrary criteria (such as being closed 10 or more instructional days, 10% of students and teachers in crisis, etc.) to identify which campuses and districts are excluded from the state accountability system. Instead, TSA recommends that school districts, open-enrollment charter schools, and all campuses in the forty-seven counties identified by the Presidential Disaster Declaration, receive a Not Rated label due to the widespread damage and trauma caused by Hurricane Harvey.

• Eventhough we oppose the use of arbitrary criteria, if TEA requires

additional measures (other than being located in one of the forty-seven counties designated as a disaster area) to determine exclusion from the accountability system, then TSA agrees with the specific criteria outlined in the proposed rules that school districts, open-enrollment charter schools, and campuses must meet in order to receive a Not Rated label due to the effects of Hurricane Harvey.

97

2 of 2

• TSA agrees that the accountability ratings for a campus or a district that meets at least one of

the specific criteria may not accurately reflect school and/or district performance; • TSA agrees that for purposes of counting consecutive years of ratings, 2017 and 2019 will be

considered consecutive for school districts, open-enrollment charter schools, and campuses receiving a Not Rated label in 2018 due to hurricane-related issues; and finally,

• TSA agrees that campuses receiving a Not Rated label due to Hurricane Harvey provisions

should be excluded from the list of 2019-20 PEG campuses.

However, what appears to be missing from the Hurricane Harvey provision, is how school districts, open-enrollment charter schools, and campuses in the forty-seven counties identified by a Presidential Disaster Declaration, will be evaluated under the new federal accountability system (ESSA). The proposed Hurricane Harvey provision is unlike the provisions used in 2006 and 2009 for Hurricanes Rita and Ike, whereby districts and campuses that were evaluated under Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) as required under the federal accountability provisions of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act were also eligible for special consideration under the Hurricane Rita or Ike provisions. Since the proposed Hurricane Harvey provision does not specifically address federal accountability, it appears that a campus could be labeled Not Rated for 2018 state accountability and excluded from the 2019-20 PEG list, yet possibly be identified for comprehensive or targeted interventions in 2019. Applying federal sanctions and interventions based on data that “may not accurately reflect school performance” is both unreasonable and unfair. TSA recommends that if a campus receives a Not Rated label in the state accountability system because the impact of Hurricane Harvey led to results that may not accurately reflect school performance, then the campus should be given special consideration and receive a Not Rated label in the federal accountability system, too. Finally, because TSA member districts are committed to a strong, and fair, system of accountability to support continuous academic improvement, we welcome continued opportunities for dialogue and are happy to serve as resources in the current development and future refinement of the state and federal accountability systems. As always, if you have any questions or wish to discuss our recommendations, please let me know.

Sincerely,


98

The Rest of the Story: What the Texas A-F Letter Grades Do Not Tell You

The 85th Texas Legislature passed a law that requires the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to give A-F letter grades to every public school district in the state beginning in 2018. This is the first time in Texas’ 24-year history of rating schools and districts that A-F letter grades will be given, and the change hasgenerated controversy.

Proponents of grading and ranking schools argue that the grades are a simple, transparent, concise way to inform parents and a community about how effective schools are. Critics say that a single letter grade cannot accurately reflect either the full array of programs and services provided by schools, or the uneven challenges of educating student bodies with diverse needs. Critics further argue that A-F letter grades: 1) increase the pressure to pay attention to state tests; 2) ignore most non-test-based school quality factors; 3) demoralize teachers, students and parents; 4) do not explain the underlying causes of either “good” or “bad” ratings; and, 5) are assigned as single-character ratings to schools and districtsafter an entire school year has ended.

Recently, TEA launched a full-scale media campaign to support the start of the letter grade rating system. The agency created a new A-F Resources webpage to help “provide answers to questions you may have on the A-F system1” that includes videos, a podcast, a blog, infographics and presentations. TEA also unveiled a separate website, TXschools.org, that breaks down the calculations used to assign each rating to both schools and districts. Districts received A-F ratings and campuses received a rating of ‘met standard’ or ‘improvement required’. Campuses also received a numeric grade, which allows “the public to deduce which letter grade the campus would have received.” 2

So, if this new grading system is “easy to understand, is accurate, is actionable, and can be used to improve student results,3” as claimed, then why are so many explanatory resources necessary? Why does it take over 100 pages in the 2018 Accountability Manual to explain the differences between a “B” and a “C”? The supposed simplicity of letter grade ratings seems to evaporate when the explanations and interpretations require this much marketing. Perhaps there is important information that the letter grades, by themselves, do not tell you.

You Don’t Know What You Don’t Know

• The grade calculations are complex. As the WFAA TV anchor in this videosuccinctly stated, “It’s complicated.” Just because the system can be displayedon a one-page infographic, does not mean it’s easy to understand. There areclose to 12,000 different data points (most of which are simply STAAR dataincorporated in various ways) used to calculate and assign the A-F letter grades.And yes, a raw score of 60 scales to an “A” – not what most people wouldanticipate.

1 Texas Education Agency, A-F Resources, https://tea.texas.gov/A-F/ 2 Austin-American Statesman, School ratings under new Texas system to be released next week, August 7, 2018. 3 Texas’ New A-F Academic Accountability System, Legislative Briefing, August 14, 2018

“PROPONENTS SAY THE [A-F LETTER GRADE] FORMAT MAKES IT EASIER FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND WHERE SCHOOLS STAND ACADEMICALLY. CRITICS SAY THE LETTER GRADES OVERSIMPLIFY THE PICTURE OF STUDENT SUCCESS AND SCHOOL QUALITY.”

SOURCE: EDUCATION COMMISSION OF THE STATES

Moak, Casey & Associates, August 2018 1 99

https://tea.texas.gov/A-F/

https://txschools.org/

https://tea.texas.gov/2018accountabilitymanual.aspx

https://www.wfaa.com/amp/article?section=news&headline=your-school-district-is-about-to-get-an-a-f-rating-heres-what-it-means&contentId=287-581816566

https://tea.texas.gov/A-F/

https://www.statesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/school-ratings-under-new-texas-system-released-next-week/O0vf0wiGrLr0xRBztepQWM/

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/texas-new-a-f-academic-accountability-system-tickets-48282058938

https://mobile.edweek.org/c.jsp;jsessionid=FD5D3B56331B6CE5C7BE11C2583D27E3.rocco2?rssid=25919811&bcid=25919821&item=http%3a%2f%2fapi.edweek.org%2fv1%2few%2f%3fuuid%3d94D57B60-0053-11E7-82C0-B298B3743667&cid=25919821&intc=mob-topnav

https://mobile.edweek.org/c.jsp;jsessionid=FD5D3B56331B6CE5C7BE11C2583D27E3.rocco2?rssid=25919811&bcid=25919821&item=http%3a%2f%2fapi.edweek.org%2fv1%2few%2f%3fuuid%3d94D57B60-0053-11E7-82C0-B298B3743667&cid=25919821&intc=mob-topnav

• The grades correspond with poverty. This infographic shows the 17 states that currently have policies in place to grade and rank their schools. Texas went with letter grades despite ample evidence from these other states, which shows that A-F grades generally work against schools or districts that have high percentages of students who are from low-income families, who qualify for special education programs, or are English learners. Commissioner Morath told reporters that “it’s the fairest accountability system Texas has ever used…4”. But in looking at the grade distributions by poverty in Figures 1 and 2, the system’s lack of full fairness is revealed.

Poverty is not an excuse for poor teaching or poor school performance. It is, however, a shorthand for educational disadvantage. According to TEA5, almost 60% of Texas public school students qualify for free-or-reduced price meals (FRPM), which equates to almost 60% of our students being educationally disadvantaged. As shown in the figures below, the districts receiving Ds and Fs are by and large those serving students from high poverty households, or English learners, and/or students with disabilities; i.e., high percentages of educationally disadvantaged students. Conversely, most high-performing districts, those receiving As and Bs, tend to enroll fewer educationally disadvantaged students. It is noteworthy that there are 53 high poverty districts on the A list and TEA’s datafile shows that almost half of these districts enroll fewer than 1,000 students and only four districts enroll more than 20,000 students.

Elementary and middle schools’ numeric grades are based on how well students perform on the STAAR tests or how much improvement they make on STAAR from one year to the next. High schools’ numeric grade calculations include both STAAR and non-STAAR related metrics (e.g. graduation rates, College, Career, and Military Ready indicators). In summary, the schools’ results show that those in poorer communities nearly all had lower overall numeric grades than did their counterparts in more affluent communities. To a great extent, the state’s inaugural A-F grading system could be considered a proxy for identifying schools that serve high poverty student populations, rather than an indication of educational quality.

• The grades are impacted by mobility. The STAAR performance gaps between continuously and non-continuously enrolled student groups range from 6 to 8 percentage points. However, the largest disparity seen between the two groups is in the College, Career, and Military Ready (CCMR) performance where there is a 23-percentage point gap (57% and 34% respectively6). And since CCMR indicators are included in the calculations of each domain it impacts the overall grades for both districts and high schools that serve mobile students (defined as non-continuously enrolled).

• The grades lack context. What about a grade of “C”? 247 districts and 2,300schools are rated a C. With this grading system, there is not a way to tell if a “C”is cause for celebration or cause for concern. Context is everything. And there islittle, if any, context provided with this grading system.

• Low grades devalue the hard work by our teachers, support staff and our parents. Instead of identifying what to do differently to improve learning, low grades tend to punish schools and districts that are working with children who need the most help. It will limit the ability to attract and retain highly effective educators, and it will further damage morale at these schools and communities.

4 Rivard Report, Texas’ New A-F Rating System for Schools, Explained, August 8, 2018. 5 Texas Education Agency, 2016-17 Texas Academic Performance Report. 6 TEA, 2018 State Closing the Gaps Data Table, August 15, 2018.


https://www.edweek.org/media/2017/03/07/24-rankings-c1.jpg



https://therivardreport.com/texas-new-a-f-rating-system-for-schools-explained/

https://tea.texas.gov/2018Accountability.aspx

Now That You Know, What Can You Do?

Start by advocating to your state and local school leaders about changes you would like to see in the current A-F accountability system. Parents need, and deserve, a wide array of information about a school to make informed decisions. Safety and security are currently receiving a great deal of attention, and appropriately so. School climate and culture, availability of extracurricular activities, dual language programs, library facilities, location and transportation, and services for special needs students are just a few of the criteria that matter to parents. Here are a few suggestions:

Replace A-F letter grades with more descriptive terms. • Consider the terms used to describe the Charter School

Performance Frameworks that were adopted by TEA in August2018. For each Academic Framework indicator, a charterschool receives one of four ratings: • Exceeds Expectations, •Meets Expectations, • Does Not Meet Expectations, or • NotApplicable; or

• Similarly, consider the terms used to describe a student’sprogress on STAAR: Limited Progress, Meets Progress, orExceeds Progress Standards.

Address growing gaps between school systems serving high and low poverty communities and their related performance gaps by recalibrating the A-F letter grades. • Award Challenge Points or Bonus Points or Weights to each domain based on the extent to which

educationally disadvantaged student groups make significant progress towards or meet performancetargets;

• Include other non-STAAR related indicators of student and school success – this is critical forelementary and middle schools; and

• Include a School Climate Domain with indicators aligned to research that support teaching andlearning – extent of student and/or teacher absenteeism, school safety (do students and staff feelsafe), school climate (do students, parents, and educators feel valued), access to counselors, accessto a school nurse, full day Pre-K, participation in Fine Arts and UIL activities, etc.

Policymakers need to come together with educators, parents, and advocates to create an accountability system that makes sense.

Our children are counting on us to figure this out.

“[A SINGLE LETTER GRADE] HAS THE PREDICTABLE EFFECT OF TELLING A SCHOOL WITH A GOOD GRADE THAT ALL IS WELL AND TELLING A SCHOOL WITH A BAD GRADE THAT ALL MUST CHANGE, EVEN THOUGH NEITHER CAN EVER BE ACCURATE.” BRIAN WOODS, SUPERINTENDENT, NORTHSIDE ISD

Source: Northside ISD tweet 2018-05-01 at 9.23.23 PM


http://castro.tea.state.tx.us/charter_apps/production/performance.html

http://castro.tea.state.tx.us/charter_apps/production/performance.html

https://nisd.net/news/articles/77171

https://nisd.net/news/articles/77171

Figure 1. TEA assigned an overall letter grade to 829 districts. Most districts receiving an A or a B enroll fewer educationally disadvantaged students (as measured by FRPM).

Source: TEA 2018 Accountability Ratings datafile. Includes charter districts that received a letter grade. Excludes AEA and Hurricane Harvey Provision districts.

Figure 2. TEA assigned an overall numeric grade to 7,558 schools. Most schools receiving an overall numeric grade lower than 80, serve high percentages of educationally disadvantaged students (as measured by FRPM).

Source: TEA 2018 Accountability Ratings datafile. Includes charter schools that received an overall numeric grade. Excludes AEA and Hurricane Harvey Provision schools.

65

33

110

2535

67

89100

75

0

20

40

60

80

100

A = ExemplaryN = 153 districts

B = RecognizedN = 356 districts

C = AcceptableN = 247 districts

D = Needs Improve.N = 57 districts

F = UnacceptableN = 16 districts

Perc

ent o

f Dist

ricts

Distribution of DISTRICT Overall Letter Grades by Economically Disadvantaged Students Enrolled

250 Districts w Less than 50% Econ. Disadv. Enrolled 579 Districts w 50% or More Econ. Disadv. Enrolled

64

35

18

5 8

36

65

82

95 92

0

20

40

60

80

100

Score = 90-100N = 1,457 schools



Score = 60-69N = 752 schools

Score less than 60N = 298 schools

Perc

ent o

f Sch

ools

Distribution of School Overall Numeric Grades by Economically Disadvantaged Students Enrolled

2,361 Schools w Less than 50% Econ. Disadv. Enrolled 5,197 Schools w 50% or More Econ. Disadv. Enrolled


https://www.mystatesman.com/news/local-education/how-did-low-income-texas-schools-fare-under-state-rating-system/cjolq4DEFU4t6w8altyhUN/

How did low-income Texas schools fare under state’s A-F rating system? METRO-STATE

By Julie Chang , Melissa B. Taboada and Dan Keemahill - American-Statesman Staff

Posted: 12:00 a.m. Sunday, August 19, 2018

Highlights

• Schools and districts with high percentages of low-income students fared better under new rating system.

• But high-poverty schools and districts still posted worse marks than those with lower rates of poverty.

• Officials at Austin-area schools that improved say hard work, not the new rating system, led to rebound.

• Although they tended to perform better under the state’s new school rating system than under the previous one, Texas schools with the highest rates of low-income children still performed worse than schools with wealthier student bodies.

• Among Texas schools with the highest percentages of low-income students, 6 percent of them failed to meet state standards, compared with 12 percent that failed last year and 22 percent that failed in 2013, according to an American-Statesman analysis. School districts with the highest percentage of low-income students also failed at the lowest rate in five years — 4 percent.

• Despite improved performance under the new system compared with the old one, schools and districts with high rates of low-income students still trailed their peers that have wealthier students under the new rating system, according to analysis by multiple education organizations.

103



https://www.mystatesman.com/metro-state

https://www.mystatesman.com/staff/julie-chang/

https://www.mystatesman.com/staff/melissa-b.-taboada/

https://www.mystatesman.com/staff/dan-keemahill/

“We all want a good accountability system, but what we’ve seen is that despite (state officials’) best efforts, we still have a huge population of kids that just aren’t being graded fairly,” said Dax Gonzalez with the Texas Association of School Boards.

Last week’s ratings — school districts were assigned grades of A through F, and campuses were given labels of “met standard” or “improvement required” as well as a numeric score — were determined under a new state system that public school officials have criticized. They say that reducing districts to a letter grade oversimplifies the varied programs and accomplishments of public schools, and they argue the rating system relies too much on student performance on state standardized tests. Research has shown that poorer students — 59 percent of Texas public school students are low-income — tend to perform worse on such tests than their peers.

Advocates of the new rating system, including Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath, have touted it as the fairest school rating system the state has seen yet. They point out that there’s a provision in the system, for example, that allows schools and districts to be compared to other schools and districts with similar student poverty levels.

“There is a modest correlation between level of poverty and a school’s performance, but this system has moved the needle pretty dramatically to lessen that correlation,” said Molly Weiner with Austin-based Texas Aspires.

Why poorer schools lagged

But fairer doesn’t mean the new rating system is fair, according to some public school advocates. The Texas Association of School Boards found that 82 percent of students in F-graded school districts are low-income. Austin-based Moak, Casey and Associates found that 92 percent of schools that earned a numeric score equivalent to an F had student bodies that were 50 percent low-income.

Under the new rating system, schools and districts are scored on student achievement, school progress and how well they did at closing learning gaps among students from different demographic backgrounds.

Public school advocates say poorer schools and districts lagged because student performance on STAAR tests factored heavily into their overall scores. Elementary and middle schools are almost exclusively rated on STAAR results; high school ratings also factor in graduation rates and how well students are prepared for college, a career or military service.

“Family income also makes a difference for the students, in terms of tutoring opportunities, parental education levels and support at home,” said Clay Robison with the Texas State Teachers Association. “Many low-income kids have under-educated parents who are working two or three jobs to make ends

104

https://www.mystatesman.com/news/local-education/some-austin-area-schools-get-failing-scores-under-new-grading-system/nlYUtc9FHBfurcWdodHXaJ/

https://www.mystatesman.com/news/local-education/austin-district-calls-lawmakers-repeal-school-rating-system/cAyk37DLdd3TwNyzsmqLYI/

meet and don’t have the time or the educational background to help with homework or tutoring. And these differences are still reflected in the so-called accountability scores.”

It also doesn’t help that state lawmakers haven’t adequately funded public schools to cover the higher cost of educating low-income students, said Lynn Moak of Moak, Casey and Associates, a school policy consulting firm. The multiplier the state uses to determine how much extra money districts receive to educate low-income students hasn’t changed since the 1980s.

The results “should be a message to the Legislature to provide districts with more assistance to level the playing field,” Moak said.

Moak and his colleagues recommend that the state rating system give bonus points to high-poverty schools and districts that do well. They also say the state should add more holistic measures to the rating system, like teacher and student absenteeism rates, whether students and families feel their schools value them or whether schools have full-day prekindergarten, adequate numbers of counselors and a school nurse.

In coming years, schools and districts could be evaluated in part on those holistic measures. School districts, including Austin, are piloting a locally developed accountability system that could help boost the grades that schools and districts receive from state. However, the state says a school must earn at least a C to use a locally developed system.

Dee Carney, an associate at Moak’s firm, suggests the state replace the A-F rating system with labels that are more descriptive — exceeds expectations, meets expectations, does not meet expectations or not applicable.

“A C doesn’t tell anybody anything. Do we celebrate it? Is it a concern? The context is missing,” Carney said.

How did some high poverty campuses rebound?

Supporters of the system applaud the state for rating schools and campuses on how well their students improved year over year. They say measuring school progress avoids unduly penalizing high-poverty districts and campuses.

Thirty-six Austin campuses, whose average percentage of low-income students is 88 percent, scored higher in the student progress category than in student achievement.

“Many of these schools are actually doing an incredible job at taking students who are far behind and getting them up to speed. We always look at student achievement, adjusting for the level of poverty …

105

https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/austin-district-devise-local-system-for-grading-schools/7yr883mKDWjcZtwf3XICKP/

and TEA takes that into account in their new rating system, which helps explain why among high-poverty districts there’s a lot of variation in their overall ratings,” said David McClendon with Children at Risk.

McClendon found that based on this year’s state ratings, 48 percent of high-poverty districts — which he describes as those with at least 75 percent of their students qualifying as low-income — earned As and Bs. High-poverty districts that did well should be models for the state, he said.

According to the Texas Education Agency, 259 high-poverty campuses — which the agency defines as those where at least 80 percent of students are low-income — received a numeric score equivalent to an A, an indication that student poverty was not a strong factor. However, Carney said a cursory look finds that some of the high-poverty campuses that earned an A might have selective enrollments and smaller student populations.

Although five Austin campuses failed under the new state rating system this year, three campuses rebounded after failing last year — Govalle Elementary and Burnet and Martin Middle Schools. Between 90 and 95 percent of the three schools’ students are low-income.

Govalle Principal Paula Reyes said the new rating system neither helped nor hurt the school’s performance this year.

She attributed the success at Govalle, which earned an overall score of 85 — equivalent to a B — this year, to the staff building stronger relationships with students, students setting goals and knowing what their targets were, and teachers spending more time working together and aligning the curriculum from one grade level to the next.

“We had to change the culture of our campus,” said Reyes, who is starting her fourth year at the helm of the school. “When you become an improvement-required campus, that hurts the staff and students. We did a lot of research on the culture of relationship building. … After building those relationships, the teachers were able to gently push the students. The students felt inspired and motivated because they were part of the culture of the campus.”

The Hays school district turned around Hemphill and Science Hall elementaries, which have student poverty rates of 83 percent and 73 percent, respectively, by replacing principals and working one-on-one with struggling students, among other measures, Superintendent Eric Wright said. Hemphill and Science Hall’s STAAR passing rate jumped 11 percentage points from last year to this year. Wright doesn’t believe the new rating system did his schools any favors.

The new system “is just a gimmick to appease legislators, and Realtors trying to rank and sort schools,” Wright said. “I don’t think it enhances the quality of education one iota.”

106

Gonzalez, with the school boards association, said some district officials want the state to look at student progress over a course of a single school year, rather than from one year to the next.

Ed Fuller, a Penn State University researcher who has analyzed Texas’ new ratings, said the system does not correctly identify schools that need help because the metrics aren’t constructed correctly.

He and others fear that unfairly penalizing schools and campuses with A-F ratings will make public schools look inferior, which can affect property values, the types of families, businesses and social services that move into the surrounding area and whether a community thrives or not.

“You can start that neighborhood in a downward spiral just by incorrectly constructing an accountability system that incorrectly labels a school as low performing,” Fuller said. “I don’t think people understand the seriousness of which the impact that this has on children and families and educators in neighborhoods. This alters people’s lives.”

How the A-F rating system works

School districts are measured in three categories:

• “Student achievement” measures how well students performed on the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness. For high schools, this category also factors in how well students performed on college, career and military readiness measures, as well as graduation rates.

• “School progress” consists of two subcategories that measure how many students improved on the STAAR, as well as school and district performance as compared with other campuses and districts with similar percentages of low-income students. Only the subcategory with the higher score will count toward the school’s overall progress score.

• “Closing the gap” measures how well students performed based on their race or ethnicity, income level, disability and other factors that might affect learning.

Only the higher grade in the school progress or student achievement category is counted toward an overall grade. That higher grade counts for 70 percent of the overall campus or district grade. The closing the gap score counts for 30 percent of the overall grade.

107

The grading scale

A (90-100): exemplary.

B (80-89): recognized.

C (70-79): acceptable.

D (60-69): in need of improvement.

F (59 and below): improvement required, failure to meet standards

108

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/08/24/texas-school-districts-a-f-grades-takeaways/.

Texas has issued A-F grades for its school districts. Here's a look at what stands out. As school communities and state officials discuss their school districts' official state ratings, many disagree on what the results actually mean.

BY ALIYYA SWABY AUG. 24, 201812 AM

Tiffany Szerpicki

Several days after Texas gave school districts their first official grades, school communities are still figuring out how to digest their report cards and interpret the results.

Even school superintendents, the biggest critics of the new A-F school ratings, are poring over the data — forced to balance their mistrust of the new system with a responsibility to score high by its metrics.

"I can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time," said John Kuhn, Mineral Wells ISD superintendent, whose North Texas district received an overall rating of C. "I can criticize a system that is patently unfair while also seeking to improve under that system. I do feel a great deal of pressure to move our score up."

State officials have argued that giving school districts grades instead of the previous pass/fail ratings, will give parents more information to choose the best educational options for their kids. But so far, there's a lot of disagreement about exactly what the data means.

Here are a few of the takeaways from this year's ratings:

109

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/08/24/texas-school-districts-a-f-grades-takeaways/

https://www.texastribune.org/about/staff/aliyya-swaby/

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/08/15/texas-school-districts-receive-first-a-f-grades/

1. The majority of Ds and Fs were given to districts with higher rates of economically disadvantaged or low-income students than the state average. No school district with a rate of low-income students lower than 30 percent received an overall rating of C, D or F. (The state calculates the percent of low-income students based on the number who receive free or reduced-price meals, which many agree is an inexact measure.)

Educators point to this data to argue that the new ratings benefit districts that already have resources and don't show how well school districts are performing despite the inherent challenges of educating students whose families are struggling.

Many argue the ratings are too heavily based on state standardized tests and therefore are unfair to schools enrolling mostly low-income students, who tend to perform lower on those tests.

"The ratings reflect a mixture of factors that are within the schools' control and that are without the schools' control," Kuhn said. "The state should not be allowed to underfund schools in a community and then slap on a failing score without acknowledging the state's role in not providing resources."

110

"If you're looking at this B district and it really should have scored a C, there might be great things going on in that district," said Chris Jackson, accountability director at Cleburne ISD, a North Texas district that received an overall rating of C.

2. But it wasn't impossible for school districts enrolling higher rates of low-income students to do well. The majority of school districts in the state's South Texas region, which includes the Rio Grande Valley, received overall ratings of As and Bs, despite educating mostly students who are low-income and in need of additional resources to learn. State education officials have pointed to these districts to say that poverty has a "moderate" but not all-encompassing effect on the ratings.

Valley View ISD, at the border with Mexico, was the traditional, non-charter school district with the highest rate of low-income students to also receive an A from the state. Superintendent Rolando Ramirez attributes the high grade to the district's programs that fill in the gaps for students who don't have a lot at home: free meals during and after school, community events with free vaccines and physical exams, and free services for parents.

"We're trying to help parents and kids and alleviate, as much as we can, any expense they might have," he said.

However, in West Texas' Permian Basin region, most school districts received Cs, Ds and even one F — despite having generally lower rates of low-income students than the state average.

Wink-Loving ISD — a small rural district with two campuses and 400 students —scored that F, making it an outlier given its 30 percent poverty rate.

111

"We're in the oil fields. Many of the kids who have been economically disadvantaged in the past, their parents have jobs now or have good-paying jobs," said Superintendent Scotty Carman. "In Wink, there's not much telling how many RVs we have in town. We have a lot of mobility, a lot of kids coming in from other states, from Mexico."

The district would have received a D, without a feature of the rating system critics are calling "forced failure." Any district that receives three out of 4 Fs in the subcategories that make up the overall grade automatically receives an overall grade of F — no matter its actual score.

3. Some school districts did better than others at paring down the number of low-performing schools, key to avoiding harsh state penalties. In recent years, Texas has implemented a system of strict sanctions for chronically low-performing schools, including state-mandated closure of a school or state takeover of a school district.

Fort Worth ISD and Dallas ISD both had 14 schools that got failing ratings last year. Fort Worth ISD boosted a couple of schools up to a passing rating. Dallas ISD whittled its list of low-performing schools down to 4, in part by giving stipends totaling up to $12,000 to high-quality teachers who choose to work in those struggling schools — a tactic state officials have expressed interest in replicating across the state.

Dallas ISD is struggling to fund the stipend program's successes, as more teachers turn around low-performing schools. "We're doing so great that teachers who are not getting results are moving out, the ones who are improving, and the ones who are doing well are reaching the highest levels of pay," said Miguel Solis, board trustee.

112

Administrators decided this year to scale back the program in part by decreasing the number of educators eligible for stipends.

4. There wasn't a major disparity in the results for charters and traditional school districts. Charters — public schools with more freedom from state regulations — and traditional districts often compete for students in urban and suburban areas of the state. The percentage of charters receiving overall A grades more than doubled the percentage for traditional districts. But both had a comparable level of As and Bs combined.

A larger percentage of charter districts scored overall ratings of Ds and Fs than traditional school districts. Laura Kelly, the Texas Charter Schools Association's director of quality, said that the percentage of low grades is amplified by the relatively small number of charter districts. Texas gave grades to 87 charter districts and 742 traditional school districts this year.

Unlike educators in traditional school districts, she said she doesn't see school funding issues playing a role in the distribution of this year's ratings.

"Traditional school districts struggle under limited resources the way charters struggle under limited resources," she said. "Do I think that plays out in the academic accountability system? I don't."

The Texas Tribune is a nonpartisan, nonprofit media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them – about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

113

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2018/03/23/big-changes-way-dallas-isds-successful-turnaround-program

https://www.texastribune.org/

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2018/08/31/texas-makes-tougher-students-leave-struggling-schools

Texas makes it tougher for students to leave struggling schools August 30, 2108

More students across Texas will be stuck in some of the state's worst performing schools next year as the number of failing campuses they're allowed to leave behind plummets.

The Public Education Grant list gives families the right to transfer out of struggling schools and seek an education elsewhere, though few use the provision. Texas has 1,331 campuses identified on the PEG list this school year.

But the preliminary list released by the Texas Education Agency in August shows that only 124 schools could meet the threshold next school year. That's compared to 293 campuses that failed accountability standards and another 770 that were on the cusp.

When lawmakers revamped the state's academic accountability standards -- which included the new A-F grading system unveiled this year -- a little noticed provision made it harder for schools to get on one of the most dreaded lists in the state.

Now the Dallas Independent School District will go from having 75 schools on the list to two; Fort Worth, from 47 to four; and Arlington from 16 to three.

114



http://twitter.com/@EvaMarieAyala

http://twitter.com/@EvaMarieAyala

That's because during the accountability overhaul last session, legislators tightened the qualifications for making the list, requiring schools to fail in both the student achievement category and school progress category of the accountability standards. This year, some campuses that failed overall accountability standards did pass muster in one of those areas, which kept them off the PEG list.

Now some are worried that an apparent legislative oversight means that thousands of students will be stuck in struggling schools with few options.

"This could leave kids in a dire situation, when we have 162,000 kids in D and F schools," said Kara Belew, a senior education policy advisor with the Texas Public Policy Foundation and a former TEA administrator. "We need to make it easier to leave those schools, not harder."

Administrators have long wanted changes to how schools land on the PEG list, complaining it unfairly stigmatizes schools and leaves them lingering on the "worst list" even if progress is made.

In the past, schools got on the list in two key ways: if at least half of students failed any subject on the state's standardized STAAR tests for two of the past three years, or if the campus was rated "improvement required" even once in that period in state academic accountability ratings. In 2015, the state had a high of 1,532 campuses on the list.

115

Next year's preliminary list of PEG schools is based on recent accountability ratings that are still subject to appeal.

The PEG list was created in 1995 to give families more education choices, but few families have opted for transfers because schools they wanted to move to didn't always have space or because transportation was limited. The option also wasn't widely publicized, with the list for the following school year typically released around the busy winter holidays.

Fort Worth has only 53 students who used PEG to transfer this school year. Dallas had about 200 students ask to use the provision but typically only about half actually ended up at a new campus, officials said.

Arlington has 1,080 students who have transferred within the district under PEG. Additionally, it has about 205 students from outside the AISD who transferred into the district through PEG.

The Texas public education landscape is vastly different now than it was in 1995, when students were largely assigned to neighborhood schools. But in addition to authorizing PEG transfers that year, the state also authorized charter schools -- public schools typically run by a private or nonprofit operators -- to give families more options. Dallas ISD has about 34,000 students who live in the district boundaries but attend a charter campus.

Now DISD offers revamped choices that include specialty schools and early college high schools and there is a district provision that allows them to enroll at any campus with space available, said Charles Chernosky, DISD's director of federal and state accountability.

"Therefore, it dwindled the importance of PEG primarily because there were other choices they could make," Chernosky said. "There's a lot more freedom of movement these days."

Meanwhile, lawmakers are expected to revisit accountability standards next year with the legislative session meets to address any tweaks needed after this initial rollout of the new accountability system. They've hinted that changes to the PEG list criteria will be considered.

In an April hearing, Education Commissioner Mike Morath told the House Public Education Committee it should review how PEG aligns with the new rating system.

"I don't think it was intentional, but there's a slight definition difference between PEG and A through F," Morath said at the time.

The state issued A through F ratings to districts this year with individual campuses will get the grades next year. But the public can deduce what those grades would have looked like because they will be based on a 100-point scale.

116

Belew hopes lawmakers expand the ways schools can land on the PEG list. She said families may be more apt to use the transfer option under the more transparent A-F grades rather than the outgoing pass/fail accountability system.

"It was difficult to know before if you were leaving for a school that was significantly better than your school just because it met standard," Belew said. "Now in this system, you can better tell what other schools barely passed with a D and which are an A or B school."

But H.D. Chambers, the superintendent of Alief ISD who worked with lawmakers to write the accountability legislation, isn't sure changes are needed. He said the updated definition more fairly reflects progress being made in schools.

"The reason so many schools were on the list to begin with was because they remained even after they demonstrated that they met" accountability standards, Chambers said. "In my estimation, this corrected that it by not forcing a campus to remain on the PEG list even though they demonstrated they were meeting the standard."

117

September 6, 2018 The Honorable Jose Menendez Texas Senate 4522 Fredericksburg Rd., Suite A-22 San Antonio, Texas 78201 Dear Senator Menendez,

Since the release of A-F Public School Accountability System scores last month, I have become more concerned with the parameters brought by HB 22 (85-R) including TEA’s interpretation of the statute.

As we near the start of the 86th Legislative Session, I am asking you to please consider making significant changes to the state’s accountability system, namely:

• Carefully redefine the purpose of the state accountability system • Expand factors for measuring student success beyond the STAAR test • Address and correct the defects in the STAAR testing process • Replace A-F letter grades with a different grading system • Modify the system to be comprehensible and transparent • Allow districts to develop a local accountability system • Mitigate for economically disadvantaged students

Another important item that must be addressed is Commissioner Morath’s interpretation of the statute where schools and districts will now receive an automatic “F” if they receive an “F” in three of the four domains. This “forced failure” system inaccurately reflects the performance of our students in all four domains.

I believe the A-F grading system and TEA’s “forced failure” rule is misrepresentative of what is accomplished in schools outside of just one day of testing. A simple letter grade that results from complex calculations offers little to no information on what is working and what needs improvement in our public schools. The A-F scores unfairly correspond with poverty. This grading system has a significant negative impact by devaluing the hard work of teachers, students, and parents who are already affected by inadequate funding by the State of Texas.

I encourage you to meet with educators, parents, and public school advocates in your district to brainstorm ideas on how to improve the state’s accountability system to make it one that is fair, makes sense to all, and addresses both the accomplishments and challenges of our students/schools.

I am always available to meet with you and your staff to find ways to ensure that every student in our community receives a quality education.

SAMPLE

118

Texas Education Agency | Academics | Performance Reporting August 2018

- Indicates there are no students in the group.** When only one racial/ethnic group is masked, then the second smallest racial/ethnic group is masked (regardless of size).

* Indicates results are masked due to small numbers to protect student confidentiality.

Texas Education Agency 1

2018 STAAR Performance Data TableState

AllStudents

AfricanAmerican Hispanic White

AmericanIndian Asian

PacificIslander

Two orMoreRaces

EconDisadv

EL(Current)

EL(Current

&Monitored)

SpecialEd

(Current)

SpecialEd

(Former)

Continu-ously

Enrolled

Non-Continu-

ouslyEnrolled

All SubjectsPercent of Tests

% at Approaches GL Standard or Above 77% 66% 73% 86% 76% 93% 79% 83% 70% 59% 69% 45% 74% 78% 73%% at Meets GL Standard or Above 48% 35% 42% 62% 46% 79% 50% 57% 38% 26% 36% 24% 43% 50% 43%% at Masters GL Standard 22% 13% 16% 31% 20% 53% 22% 29% 14% 9% 14% 8% 19% 23% 18%

Number of Tests# at Approaches GL Standard or Above 6,597,759 720,197 3,338,185 2,012,846 21,515 336,672 9,249 158,076 3,629,066 879,893 1,479,946 382,056 112,037 4,859,894 1,737,865# at Meets GL Standard or Above 4,143,627 377,206 1,905,757 1,445,543 13,136 285,959 5,842 109,321 1,964,167 381,348 778,478 201,957 64,651 3,112,452 1,031,175# at Masters GL Standard 1,870,202 136,042 748,526 730,448 5,662 191,272 2,538 55,310 730,635 132,145 305,738 68,728 28,534 1,429,281 440,921Total Tests 8,614,108 1,085,431 4,583,861 2,350,089 28,401 362,098 11,745 191,268 5,204,525 1,481,893 2,156,999 851,829 151,594 6,218,473 2,395,635

ELA/ReadingPercent of Tests


Number of Tests# at Approaches GL Standard or Above 2,417,917 264,118 1,211,788 747,078 7,800 124,587 3,357 58,864 1,314,598 302,386 519,355 123,045 40,023 1,789,585 628,332# at Meets GL Standard or Above 1,521,039 141,569 686,691 540,918 4,795 103,429 2,089 41,272 706,994 123,038 262,419 68,793 22,292 1,141,182 379,857# at Masters GL Standard 637,487 48,522 246,609 255,989 1,865 63,482 851 20,062 241,706 42,960 100,131 22,315 9,547 483,697 153,790Total Tests 3,273,390 415,640 1,748,059 885,229 10,827 136,781 4,482 71,964 1,983,702 569,505 817,532 314,366 57,012 2,370,371 903,019

MathematicsPercent of Tests


Number of Tests# at Approaches GL Standard or Above 2,143,909 234,439 1,110,488 634,405 7,065 102,912 2,993 51,319 1,230,655 357,089 549,052 144,471 40,725 1,566,424 577,485# at Meets GL Standard or Above 1,310,461 114,624 625,954 440,079 4,130 89,572 1,866 34,010 655,258 170,967 306,507 71,662 23,905 980,520 329,941# at Masters GL Standard 634,135 44,286 272,156 231,534 1,905 65,516 882 17,751 271,060 67,060 136,695 26,626 11,209 482,488 151,647Total Tests 2,646,833 334,147 1,411,870 720,179 8,820 107,438 3,575 60,456 1,627,339 497,040 703,960 275,696 50,311 1,901,153 745,680

WritingPercent of Tests


Number of Tests# at Approaches GL Standard or Above 490,696 50,701 240,916 154,575 1,572 29,603 683 12,575 259,645 66,418 120,073 21,961 8,642 355,913 134,783# at Meets GL Standard or Above 307,677 27,862 136,359 108,554 959 24,804 421 8,662 140,333 30,651 65,730 14,745 4,809 225,763 81,914# at Masters GL Standard 95,481 6,574 34,441 37,872 258 13,163 120 3,032 32,227 6,622 16,849 4,300 1,260 71,493 23,988Total Tests 745,718 91,831 397,498 202,340 2,412 33,213 985 17,335 457,424 143,437 205,710 71,117 14,840 528,736 216,982

Science

119


- Indicates there are no students in the group.** When only one racial/ethnic group is masked, then the second smallest racial/ethnic group is masked (regardless of size).

* Indicates results are masked due to small numbers to protect student confidentiality.

Texas Education Agency 2

2018 STAAR Performance Data TableState

AllStudents



PacificIslander

Two orMoreRaces

EconDisadv

EL(Current)

EL(Current

&Monitored)

SpecialEd

(Current)

SpecialEd

(Former)

Continu-ously

Enrolled

Non-Continu-

ouslyEnrolled

Percent of Tests% at Approaches GL Standard or Above 80% 70% 76% 89% 80% 94% 82% 86% 73% 60% 71% 49% 79% 81% 76%% at Meets GL Standard or Above 51% 36% 43% 66% 49% 81% 53% 61% 40% 22% 35% 24% 47% 53% 45%% at Masters GL Standard 23% 12% 16% 35% 22% 56% 23% 32% 14% 6% 12% 7% 20% 24% 19%

Number of Tests# at Approaches GL Standard or Above 955,693 104,509 483,217 292,808 3,098 48,229 1,365 22,361 522,504 112,280 205,345 59,611 15,701 700,764 254,929# at Meets GL Standard or Above 606,002 53,704 275,149 217,068 1,907 41,379 877 15,827 282,288 41,215 102,657 28,927 9,374 455,831 150,171# at Masters GL Standard 272,254 17,617 102,366 114,133 860 28,583 374 8,282 98,514 10,446 34,677 8,988 4,069 209,608 62,646Total Tests 1,196,566 150,053 634,081 329,648 3,864 51,131 1,656 26,016 712,410 187,972 290,388 122,025 19,993 860,002 336,564

Social StudiesPercent of Tests


Number of Tests# at Approaches GL Standard or Above 589,544 66,430 291,776 183,980 1,980 31,341 851 12,957 301,664 41,720 86,121 32,968 6,946 447,208 142,336# at Meets GL Standard or Above 398,448 39,447 181,604 138,924 1,345 26,775 589 9,550 179,294 15,477 41,165 17,830 4,271 309,156 89,292# at Masters GL Standard 230,845 19,043 92,954 90,920 774 20,528 311 6,183 87,128 5,057 17,386 6,499 2,449 181,995 48,850Total Tests 751,601 93,760 392,353 212,693 2,478 33,535 1,047 15,497 423,650 83,939 139,409 68,625 9,438 558,211 193,390

120

- Indicates count is not available for this group.

Texas Education Agency2018 Academic Growth Data Table

State

ELA/Reading and Mathematics


Texas Education Agency2018 Academic Growth Data Table

State

ELA/Reading and Mathematics

Current-Year Performance on STAAR

Did Not Meet Approaches Grade Level Meets Grade LevelMasters

Grade Level

Prior-YearPerformanceon STAAR

Progress NotApplicable(0 points)

Did Not MeetProgress(0 points)

Met orExceededProgress(1 point)


Did Not MeetProgress

(1/2 points)




(1/2 points)


Progress NotApplicable(1 point)

GrowthPoints Earned

Total PossiblePoints

Did Not Meet - 266,357 319,334 - 12,893 319,619 - - 67,286 7,317

Approaches GradeLevel

- 219,812 1,533 - 305,531 323,467 - - 345,121 91,749

Meets Grade Level 30,760 - - 226,831 - - - 194,686 295,104 283,779

Masters Grade Level 3,862 - - 56,389 - - 229,205 - - 627,305

Total Number of Tests 34,622 486,169 320,867 283,220 318,424 643,086 229,205 194,686 707,511 1,010,150

Total Points 0 0 320,867 0 159,212 643,086 0 97,343 707,511 1,010,150 2,938,169.0 4,227,940

Score 69

ELA/Reading



Grade Level







(1/2 points)




(1/2 points)



GrowthPoints Earned


Did Not Meet - 156,405 190,857 - 0 161,682 - - 34,018 3,785


- 108,197 92 - 122,558 162,755 - - 157,252 45,003



Total Number of Tests 20,781 264,602 190,949 140,558 122,558 324,437 123,058 108,704 347,056 487,920

Total Points 0 0 190,949 0 61,279 324,437 0 54,352 347,056 487,920 1,465,993.0 2,130,623

Score 69

121



Mathematics



Grade Level







(1/2 points)




(1/2 points)



GrowthPoints Earned


Did Not Meet - 109,952 128,477 - 12,893 157,937 - - 33,268 3,532


- 111,615 1,441 - 182,973 160,712 - - 187,869 46,746



Total Number of Tests 13,841 221,567 129,918 142,662 195,866 318,649 106,147 85,982 360,455 522,230

Total Points 0 0 129,918 0 97,933 318,649 0 42,991 360,455 522,230 1,472,176.0 2,097,317

Score 70

122


+ Ever HS ELs are included in the Federal Graduation Rate

Texas Education Agency2018 Closing the Gaps Status Table

State

AllStudents



PacificIslander

Two orMore

RacesEcon

Disadv

EL(Current

&Monitored)+

SpecialEd

(Current)

SpecialEd

(Former)

Continu-ously

Enrolled

Non-Continu-

ouslyEnrolled

TotalMet

TotalEvaluated

Percent ofEvaluatedIndicators

MetAcademic Achievement Status

ELA/Reading Target 44% 32% 37% 60% 43% 74% 45% 56% 33% 29% 19% 36% 46% 42%Target Met Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Mathematics Target 46% 31% 40% 59% 45% 82% 50% 54% 36% 40% 23% 44% 47% 45%Target Met Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Total Indicators 27 28 96%Growth Status

ELA/Reading Target 66% 62% 65% 69% 67% 77% 67% 68% 64% 64% 59% 65% 66% 67%Target Met Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Mathematics Target 71% 67% 69% 74% 71% 86% 74% 73% 68% 68% 61% 70% 71% 70%Target Met N N Y N N N N N Y Y Y N Y N

Total Indicators 19 28 68%Graduation Rate Status

Graduation Target 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% n/a n/a n/aTarget Met N N N Y N Y N Y N N N

Total Indicators 3 11 27%English Language Proficiency Status

ELP Target 42%Target Met Y

Total Indicators 1 1 100%Student Success Status

STAAR Component Target 47% 36% 41% 58% 46% 73% 48% 55% 38% 37% 23% 43% 48% 45%Target Met Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Total Indicators 14 14 100%School Quality Status

CCMR Target 47% 31% 41% 58% 42% 76% 39% 53% 39% 30% 27% 43% 50% 31%Target Met Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y

Total Indicators 12 14 86%

123


+ Ever HS ELs are included in the Federal Graduation Rate

Texas Education Agency2018 Closing the Gaps Data Table

State

AllStudents



PacificIslander

Two orMore

RacesEcon

Disadv

EL(Current

&Monitored)+

SpecialEd

(Current)

SpecialEd

(Former)

Continu-ously

Enrolled

Non-Continu-

ouslyEnrolled

Academic Achievement (Percent at Meets Grade Level or Above)ELA/Reading

% at Meets GL Standard or Above 46% 34% 39% 61% 44% 76% 47% 57% 36% 32% 22% 39% 48% 42%# at Meets GL Standard or Above 1,521,039 141,569 686,691 540,918 4,795 103,429 2,089 41,272 706,994 262,419 68,793 22,292 1,141,182 379,857Total Tests (Adjusted) 3,273,390 415,640 1,748,059 885,229 10,827 136,781 4,482 71,964 1,983,702 817,532 314,366 57,012 2,370,371 903,019

Mathematics% at Meets GL Standard or Above 50% 34% 44% 61% 47% 83% 52% 56% 40% 44% 26% 48% 52% 44%# at Meets GL Standard or Above 1,310,461 114,624 625,954 440,079 4,130 89,572 1,866 34,010 655,258 306,507 71,662 23,905 980,520 329,941Total Tests (Adjusted) 2,646,833 334,147 1,411,870 720,179 8,820 107,438 3,575 60,456 1,627,339 703,960 275,696 50,311 1,901,153 745,680

Growth (Academic Growth)ELA/Reading

Academic Growth Score 69 66 68 70 68 79 68 70 67 68 62 68 69 68Growth Points 1,465,993.0 171,290.5 752,717.0 426,265.0 4,540.5 74,921.5 1,907.0 34,207.5 837,453.5 344,024.5 117,125.0 26,410.0 1,086,922.5 379,070.5Total Tests 2,130,623 260,561 1,111,684 605,434 6,724 94,677 2,793 48,554 1,258,022 506,962 189,797 39,120 1,573,905 556,718

MathematicsAcademic Growth Score 70 66 69 72 69 85 73 72 68 69 63 69 71 69Growth Points 1,472,176.0 171,047.5 777,443.0 413,099.0 4,663.0 70,373.5 1,942.5 33,457.5 871,906.0 387,313.0 131,835.5 28,248.5 1,083,768.5 388,407.5Total Tests 2,097,317 257,960 1,128,413 571,585 6,732 83,093 2,667 46,662 1,286,953 560,076 209,587 40,681 1,535,560 561,757

Graduation (Federal Graduation Rate)% Graduated 89.7% 86.1% 87.7% 93.6% 86.3% 96.0% 88.6% 91.7% 86.9% 75.5% 77.4%# Graduated 323,373 40,494 157,660 103,591 1,212 13,799 512 6,105 160,183 22,943 22,065Total in Class 360,606 47,036 179,845 110,720 1,405 14,367 578 6,655 184,356 30,382 28,504

English Language ProficiencyTELPAS Progress Rate 53%TELPAS Progress 398,716TELPAS Total 747,644

Student Success (Student Achievement Domain Score: STAAR Component Only)STAAR Component Score 49 38 44 60 47 75 50 56 41 40 26 45 50 45% at Approaches GL Standard or Above 77% 66% 73% 86% 76% 93% 79% 83% 70% 69% 45% 74% 78% 73%% at Meets GL Standard or Above 48% 35% 42% 62% 46% 79% 50% 57% 38% 36% 24% 43% 50% 43%% at Masters GL Standard 22% 13% 16% 31% 20% 53% 22% 29% 14% 14% 8% 19% 23% 18%Total Tests 8,614,108 1,085,431 4,583,861 2,350,089 28,401 362,098 11,745 191,268 5,204,525 2,156,999 851,829 151,594 6,218,473 2,395,635

School Quality (College, Career, and Military Readiness Performance)% Students meeting CCMR 52% 35% 47% 63% 49% 79% 49% 57% 42% 35% 21% 35% 57% 34%# Students meeting CCMR 182,085.0 15,544.0 81,848.5 68,529.5 655.0 11,529.0 268.0 3,711.0 71,599.5 11,006.5 6,635.5 838.5 157,458.5 24,626.5Total Students 350,218 44,510 173,550 109,268 1,329 14,509 548 6,504 169,363 31,470 32,092 2,368 278,544 71,674

ParticipationTarget 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%ELA/Reading

% Participation 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 100% 99% 99% 99% 100% 99% 99% 100% 99%# Participants 3,466,558 448,352 1,853,128 924,375 11,662 145,422 4,925 75,967 2,107,371 891,925 335,153 58,927 2,417,116 1,049,442Total Tests 3,487,018 452,159 1,863,820 929,413 11,778 145,678 4,952 76,428 2,121,036 894,959 338,667 59,286 2,427,963 1,059,055

Mathematics% Participation 100% 99% 100% 100% 99% 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 99% 100% 100% 99%# Participants 2,791,504 361,449 1,484,263 753,257 9,477 113,765 3,928 63,992 1,718,947 749,273 291,496 51,838 1,930,564 860,940Total Tests 2,804,047 363,625 1,490,941 756,383 9,534 113,936 3,952 64,274 1,727,493 751,779 293,862 52,083 1,937,207 866,840

124

July, 12, 2018

TO THE ADMINISTRATOR ADDRESSED:

SUBJECT: 2018 List of Approved Tests for Assessment of English Learners

Local Education Agencies (LEAs) are required to use a list of approved assessments for the identification and reclassification of English learners1.

The 2018-2019 List of Approved Tests for Assessments of English Learners is provided in the link below, but is only applicable for this school year. Beginning in the 2019-2020 school year, LEAs will be required to use a single statewide test for entry and reclassification2.

The approved tests placed on the list are based on scientific research and measure oral language proficiency in listening and speaking in English and Spanish from Prekindergarten (PK) - Grade 12. Assessments also measure reading and writing in English and Spanish from PK - Grade 12.

The list of approved tests are grouped in the following categories:

• Identification

• Formative Assessment

• Annual Assessment

• Reclassification (grades 1-12 only)

The 2018-2019 List of Approved Tests for Assessment of English Learners can be accessed from the TEA webpage at: https://tea.texas.gov/bilingual/esl/education/

If you have questions, please feel free to contact Susie Coultress, State Director of Bilingual/ESL/Title I II in the Division of English Learner Support, at (512) 463-9414 or by email at [email protected].

1 19 Texas Administrative Code (TAC), §89.1225(d), Relating to Testing and Classification of Students 2 In accordance with the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) State Plan, Title III, Part A, approved by the United States Department of Education in March 2018

125

https://tea.texas.gov/Academics/Special_Student_Populations/Bilingual_%E2%80%93_ESL_Education/Bilingual_and_English_as_a_Second_Language_Education_Programs/

mailto:[email protected]

TEA Texas Education Agency Commissioner Mike Morath

1701 North Congress Avenue • Austin, Texas 78701-1494 • 512 463-9734 • 512 463-9838 FAX • tea.texas.gov

August 30, 2018

TO THE ADMINISTRATOR ADDRESSED:

Subject: Career and Technical Education Programs of Study Information

Texas Education Agency (TEA) is in the process of revising Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs of study to reflect high wage, high demand occupations in Texas. These sequences of courses progress from foundational knowledge and skills in a career cluster, to specific academic and technical skills related to the aligned industry and occupations. The following information provides additional details about the background, process, and next steps related to TEA’s revision of CTE programs of study.

Quick Reference Points • Programs of study are a federal requirement for states who accept Carl D. Perkins funding. • Currently, Texas programs of study do not meet all of the requirements of a program of study in Carl

D. Perkins. • Programs of study are in the beginning of the process to be revised with input from industry

advisory committee members. These committees include representation from secondary CTE teachers in the content, CTE administrators, postsecondary faculty in the content, industry associations, and industry partners in the content area.

• Programs of study will go through multiple rounds of external stakeholder review and will reflect feedback from these stakeholders.

• Programs of study will align with Texas’s labor market data and postsecondary programs to ensure students have better access to high quality career paths after high school.

Background • The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins IV) calls upon states to

create sequences of academic and Career and Technical Education coursework to help students attain a postsecondary degree or industry-recognized certificate or credential, otherwise known as programs of study.

• The Strengthening Career and Technical Education Act, better known as Perkins V, which was just reauthorized in July 2018, affirms the definition of a program of study adding the following language: “is aligned to the needs of industries in the state, region, Tribal community, or local area; has multiple entry and exit points” that allow for credentialing; and ultimately culminates in the attainment of a recognized postsecondary credential.”

• TEA is in the process of drafting programs of study which would meet both the current and new federal definitions of programs of study by aligning coherent sequences of courses to Texas’s vast labor market and postsecondary landscape.

Necessity • CTE courses need to adequately prepare students for success in both postsecondary training and the

workforce across all 16 nationally recognized career clusters. • Texas must offer programs of study that meet the requirements in both Perkins IV and V.

126

https://careertech.org/perkins

https://cte.careertech.org/sites/default/files/BILLS-115hr2353enr.pdf

, , , , ,

Align to Determine

Review and Secondary Align to Identify and Appropriate

Finalize Opportunities Postsecondary Validate Skills Courses to

Occupations (courses, work Opportunities Necessary for Address Skills

within POS based learning, (education, Targeted within a POS

certifications) training) Occupations Four Level

Sequence

• CTE teachers need to be given the right tools to attain stronger student outcomes; with these clearer, more aligned sequences, teachers will have the tools they need to best prepare students for postsecondary and career choices.

Process • Programs of study revision will occur in multiple steps, including research and data gathering, skill

alignment, and reviewing and implementing feedback. Secondary teachers, postsecondary educators, business and industry, teacher and industry associations are being utilized to:

o Determine high wage, in demand occupations in Texas; o Group related occupations based on knowledge and skills; o Validate knowledge and skills with industry employers; o Develop sequences of appropriately aligned courses; o Convene and vet through regional stakeholders from industry and education; and o Seek feedback from CTE teachers and directors and update draft programs of study based on

feedback.

What’s Next: • Vetting draft programs of study with Industry Advisory Committees (made up of secondary teachers,

postsecondary faculty, business and industry partners in the content; • Releasing draft programs of study for public comment; • Implementing feedback from public comment and revising draft programs of study; • Developing an opt-in process for districts who chose to adopt in 2019-2020; • Providing grant opportunities to assist districts with funding for implementation; • Developing training and resources to support implementation in 2020-2021; and • After implementation, TEA will continue to critically review its programs of study and ensure

alignment with labor market information to coincide with the Texas Workforce Commission’s labor projections.

Industry Advisory Committee Timeline

Page 2 of 3

127

Advisory Committee work

Public comment period

Revision of programs of study

Commissioner approval

Opt-in period for schools

Implementation in all schools

Overall Programs of Study Timeline

Contact • Additional information about programs of study process and methodology can be located on the

CTE website. • Questions about the programs of study process can be directed to [email protected].

Page 3 of 3

128

https://tea.texas.gov/cte/

mailto:[email protected]

Annual Individual Graduation Committee Data, 2016-17Workbook OverviewBackground:This workbook includes data on Individual Graduation Committees (IGCs) for the 2016-17 school year as required by Texas Education Code Section (TEC) §28.0259(c). In 2015, the 84th Texas Legislature signed into law Senate Bill 149, which revised the state's assessment graduation requirements for students enrolled in Grades 11 or 12 during the 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 school years. In 2017, the 85th Texas Legislature signed into law Senate Bill 463, which extended the IGC requirements through the 2018-19 school year. Under the requirements, a student who failed the end-of-course (EOC) assessment for no more than two of five courses may receive a Texas high school diploma if the student was determined to be qualified to graduate by an IGC (Title 19 of the Texas Administrative Code Section [TAC] §101.3022). A student receiving special education services is not subject to IGC requirements (19 TAC, §74.1025(n)). A student's admission, review, and dismissal (ARD) committee determines whether a student is required to achieve satisfactory performance on an EOC assessment to graduate (19 TAC, §101.3022(f)). In April 2016, the commissioner of education adopted rules related to IGC implementation, including timelines and related reporting requirements (19 TAC §74.1025; TEC §28.0258(k)).

Contents:The datasets provided in this workbook include the number of students who were assigned an IGC (IGC Assigned ); the number of IGC graduates (IGC Graduates ); the number of all graduates (All Graduates ); the percentage that IGC graduates represent of total graduates (% of All Graduates ); and the percentage that IGC graduates represent of total students assigned to IGCs (% of IGC Assigned ). Data are provided at the state, region, district, and campus levels by race/ethnicity, gender, economic status, and English Language Learner (ELL) status. Additional data are provided at the state level by diploma program (only available for graduates). The four datasets can be accessed using the tabs at the bottom of the workbook.

Notes and Limitations:Note that the data in the IGC Graduate, IGC Assigned, and All Graduate columns were reported by districts at the individual student level and represent students who were in attendance and/or who graduated during the 2016-17 school year (between September 1, 2016 and August 31, 2017); they do not show longitudinal graduation data.

The IGC Graduate numerator only includes students who were reported to have graduated by IGC determination. Students who had an IGC assignment but were reported as regular graduates are not included in this count. These non-IGC graduates could have graduated by meeting traditional graduation requirements even though an IGC was convened; or these students could be data reporting errors. The IGC Assigned denominator represents the number of students reported by districts in June 2017 as having an IGC formed during the school year as well as those who graduated by means of an IGC but for whom an IGC assignment was not reported. Some of the students who were not reported as having an IGC assignment could be students who had an IGC formed over the summer, for which there is no data reporting, and others may be data reporting errors. The counts of IGC Assigned students only include students for whom an IGC was established and who were eligible to graduate in 2016-17. Students who had an IGC formed in Grade 11 and were not eligible to graduate are not included in the denominator. In 2016-17, there were 284 students who were assigned an IGC in Grade 11 and were not eligible to graduate.

The All Graduates denominator is the sum of traditional graduates and IGC graduates.

Students who are included in the Foundation High School Program without Endorsement diploma program group includes those who did not earn an endorsement as well as those who were not eligible for an endorsement under 19 TAC §89.1070(c).

Texas Education Agency, Division of Research and Analysis3/9/2018

Moak, Casey and Associates 1 129

Annual Individual Graduation Committee (IGC) Data, Texas Public Schools, 2016-17 IGC

Graduates IGC

Assigned % of IGC Assigned

All Graduates

% of All Graduates

All students 11,422 14,735 77.5% 334,416 3.4%

By race/ethnicityAfrican American 1,994 2,657 75.0% 42,129 4.7%American Indian 51 61 83.6% 1,251 4.1%

Asian 335 416 80.5% 14,035 2.4%Hispanic 7,772 9,869 78.8% 164,428 4.7%

Pacific Islander 17 20 85.0% 525 3.2%White 1,174 1,606 73.1% 105,766 1.1%

Multiracial 79 106 74.5% 6,282 1.3%

By genderFemale 4,865 6,272 77.6% 167,819 2.9%

Male 6,557 8,463 77.5% 166,597 3.9%

Economically Disadvantaged 8,697 11,118 78.2% 166,989 5.2%English Language Learner (ELL) 4,479 5,459 82.0% 17,632 25.4%

By graduation programMinimum 2,414 n/a n/a 37,069 6.5%

Recommended 6,460 n/a n/a 207,400 3.1%Advanced 49 n/a n/a 44,686 0.1%

Foundation without Endorsement 1,462 n/a n/a 16,650 8.8%Foundation with Endorsement 296 n/a n/a 3,212 9.2%

Foundation with Endorsement and Distinguished Level of Achievement 741 n/a n/a 25,399 2.9%

Note. n/a indicates data are not available. See Overview tab for more information.



STAAR End-Of-Course (EOC) Data for IGC GraduatesIGC Graduates who failed at least one EOC exama 11,004

IGC Graduates PercentFailed 1 EOC exam 6,172 56.1 Failed 2 EOC exams 4,510 41.0 Failed 3 or more EOC exams 322 2.9

Failed English II only 4,829 43.9 Failed US History only 530 4.8 Failed English I only 516 4.7 Failed Algebra I only 267 2.4 Failed Biology only 30 0.3

Failed English I and English II 3,606 32.8Failed English II and US History 498 4.5Failed English II and Algebra I 190 1.7Failed English I and US History 73 0.7Failed Biology and English II 58 0.5Failed English I and Algebra I 28 0.3Failed Algebra I and US History 28 0.3Failed Biology and US History 21 0.2Failed Biology and English I 6 0.1Failed Algebra I and Biology 2 < 0.1aSee Overview tab for more information on STAAR data.Texas Education Agency, Division of Research and Analysis3/9/2018Updated on 4/25/2018 to include STAAR EOC information.

131

Annu

al In

divi

dual

Gra

duat

ion

Com

mitt

ee (I

GC)

Dat

a, b

y Re

gion

, Tex

as P

ublic

Sch

ools

, 201

5-17

Regi

onRe

gion

Nam

e

14-1

5 IG

Cs%

of A

llG

radu

ates

15-1

6 IG

Cs%

of A

llG

radu

ates

IGC

Assi

gned

IGC

Gra

duat

esAl

l G

radu

ates

16-1

7 IG

Cs%

of A

llG

radu

ates

% o

f All

Afric

an

Amer

ican

G

radu

ates

% o

f All

Asia

n G

radu

ates

% o

f All

Hisp

anic

G

radu

ates

% o

f All

Amer

ican

In

dian

G

radu

ates

% o

f All

Paci

fic

Isla

nder

G

radu

ates

% o

f All

Whi

te

Gra

duat

es

% o

f All

Mul

tirac

ial

Gra

duat

es

% o

f All

Econ

omic

ally

Di

sadv

anta

ged

Gra

duat

es01

Edin

burg

4.3%

4.0%

1,98

21,

762

27,1

256.

5%2.

3%0.

7%6.

6%0.

0%0.

0%2.

0%0.

0%7.

4%02

Corp

us C

hrist

i3.

2%4.

6%36

323

87,

974

3.0%

4.8%

2.1%

3.4%

0.0%

0.0%

1.4%

1.0%

3.9%

03Vi

ctor

ia1.

0%1.

6%10

064

3,72

11.

7%3.

1%0.

0%2.

3%0.

0%0.

0%0.

8%0.

0%2.

5%04

Hous

ton

1.7%

2.9%

3,03

22,

651

71,7

153.

7%5.

0%2.

2%4.

8%10

.4%

3.4%

1.2%

0.9%

5.4%

05Be

aum

ont

1.8%

2.2%

204

135

5,08

52.

7%6.

0%0.

7%2.

6%0.

0%12

.5%

1.2%

1.1%

4.0%

06Hu

ntsv

ille

1.7%

3.3%

576

360

12,1

363.

0%7.

4%1.

1%5.

1%1.

7%0.

0%1.

2%0.

8%5.

4%07

Kilg

ore

2.8%

1.4%

388

269

10,5

892.

5%4.

7%1.

6%3.

6%2.

0%10

.0%

1.4%

2.5%

3.2%

08M

t Ple

asan

t1.

8%2.

3%15

014

13,

930

3.6%

7.4%

2.9%

5.5%

0.0%

0.0%

1.8%

0.8%

4.9%

09W

ichi

ta F

alls

2.4%

1.9%

8263

2,40

52.

6%2.

8%3.

0%4.

8%0.

0%0.

0%1.

8%2.

3%3.

7%10

Rich

ards

on1.

6%2.

6%2,

219

1,31

252

,794

2.5%

3.8%

1.6%

3.7%

2.1%

2.4%

0.5%

1.0%

4.1%

11Fo

rt W

orth

1.7%

2.1%

1,25

393

538

,758

2.4%

4.6%

3.1%

3.6%

2.0%

5.4%

0.9%

0.9%

4.3%

12W

aco

0.7%

2.9%

382

283

10,2

262.

8%5.

0%2.

8%3.

5%4.

9%1.

4%1.

4%0.

8%4.

4%13

Aust

in1.

1%1.

9%94

784

326

,519

3.2%

4.5%

2.3%

5.1%

0.0%

2.9%

1.2%

2.0%

5.8%

14Ab

ilene

1.1%

0.8%

107

963,

038

3.2%

9.2%

9.8%

4.6%

6.7%

50.0

%1.

5%1.

2%6.

2%15

San

Ange

lo0.

6%3.

6%16

497

3,21

93.

0%1.

7%0.

0%4.

7%8.

3%0.

0%0.

9%2.

2%4.

3%16

Amar

illo

2.6%

2.8%

305

217

5,47

44.

0%9.

8%18

.1%

4.2%

3.8%

0.0%

2.4%

2.6%

6.0%

17Lu

bboc

k1.

6%2.

4%23

619

55,

112

3.8%

8.5%

0.0%

5.2%

7.1%

0.0%

1.0%

2.7%

5.9%

18M

idla

nd2.

9%4.

3%33

919

74,

726

4.2%

3.6%

7.2%

5.3%

5.0%

0.0%

1.6%

1.9%

5.0%

19El

Pas

o3.

1%3.

8%74

959

212

,122

4.9%

4.5%

1.4%

5.1%

0.0%

0.0%

1.6%

2.7%

6.0%

20Sa

n An

toni

o2.

2%3.

2%1,

157

972

27,7

513.

5%3.

8%4.

0%4.

2%1.

6%1.

7%1.

1%1.

6%5.

3%ST

ATE

2.0%

2.8%

14,7

35

11,4

22

33

4,41

6

3.4%

4.7%

2.4%

4.7%

4.1%

3.2%

1.1%

1.3%

5.2%

Not

e. A

das

h (-)

indi

cate

s dat

a ar

e no

t rep

orte

d to

pro

tect

stud

ent a

nony

mity

. Whe

n th

e nu

mbe

r of I

GC

grad

uate

s is n

ot re

port

ed, t

he c

orre

spon

ding

num

bers

of a

ll gr

adua

tes a

nd IG

C as

signe

d m

ay b

e pr

esen

ted

in su

ch a

man

ner a

s to

prov

ide

a ge

nera

l ide

a of

the

num

bers

whi

le m

aint

aini

ng st

uden

t ano

nym

ity. A

dot

(.) i

ndic

ates

that

the

rate

can

not b

e ca

lcul

ated

.

Texa

s Edu

catio

n Ag

ency

, Div

ision

of R

esea

rch

and

Anal

ysis

Scho

ol Y

ear 2

016-

2017


Annual Individual Graduation Committee (IGC) Data, by District, Texas Public Schools, 2015-17 (TSA Districts)

2016-17 Enrollment

IGC Assigned

IGC Graduates

All Graduates

16-17 IGCs % of All

Graduates221901 Abilene ISD 14 Abilene 1.8 0.0 16,871 60 60 1,006 6.0101902 Aldine ISD 04 Houston 0.0 5.3 69,671 <25 - <3,675 0.0101903 Alief ISD 04 Houston 3.5 1.7 46,331 234 232 2,702 8.6188901 Amarillo ISD 16 Amarillo 2.0 4.7 33,066 141 133 1,915 6.9220901 Arlington ISD 11 Fort Worth 2.4 5.1 62,085 355 302 4,075 7.4227901 Austin ISD 13 Austin 2.6 3.4 82,766 191 162 4,352 3.7178904 Corpus Chris 02 Corpus Chr 4.5 6.1 38,214 <25 - <2,475 0.2101907 Cypress-Fair 04 Houston 1.5 1.7 114,633 167 164 8,072 2.0057905 Dallas ISD 10 Richardson 2.4 6.8 157,787 673 530 7,685 6.9068901 Ector County 18 Midland 4.4 5.0 31,380 119 56 1,581 3.5071902 El Paso ISD 19 El Paso 4.2 6.4 59,246 277 241 3,883 6.2079907 Fort Bend IS 04 Houston 1.0 0.9 73,750 131 65 5,487 1.2220905 Fort Worth I 11 Fort Worth 3.8 5.8 87,233 62 59 4,306 1.4057909 Garland ISD 10 Richardson 2.4 0.6 57,029 168 45 3,977 1.1031903 Harlingen CI 01 Edinburg 3.6 0.0 18,614 16 16 1,300 1.2101912 Houston ISD 04 Houston 2.6 6.8 215,408 908 861 10,613 8.1101913 Humble ISD 04 Houston 1.3 2.8 41,125 115 115 2,899 4.0220916 Hurst-Euless 11 Fort Worth 1.0 2.4 23,065 59 50 1,549 3.2057912 Irving ISD 10 Richardson 2.5 4.1 34,725 119 92 2,280 4.0101914 Katy ISD 04 Houston 0.8 1.4 75,231 45 45 5,016 0.9014906 Killeen ISD 12 Waco 0.0 3.1 43,725 63 60 2,133 2.8152901 Lubbock ISD 17 Lubbock 1.7 1.7 28,329 66 47 1,554 3.0108906 McAllen ISD 01 Edinburg 3.5 4.6 23,703 41 25 1,593 1.6057914 Mesquite IS 10 Richardson 1.1 1.5 40,945 109 55 2,565 2.1165901 Midland ISD 18 Midland 2.7 5.1 24,642 114 72 1,380 5.2015910 North East IS 20 San Anton 0.9 1.8 67,217 98 92 4,981 1.8015915 Northside IS 20 San Anton 0.9 1.6 105,492 104 103 6,856 1.5108909 Pharr-San Ju 01 Edinburg 10.9 0.0 32,191 23 0 2,043 0.0057916 Richardson I 10 Richardson 1.6 2.7 39,170 84 82 2,124 3.9246909 Round Rock 13 Austin 0.7 0.0 48,142 40 40 3,290 1.2226903 San Angelo I 15 San Angelo 0.2 7.2 14,572 53 48 957 5.0015907 San Antonio 20 San Anton 5.9 10.9 52,486 298 245 2,672 9.2071909 Socorro ISD 19 El Paso 2.4 0.6 45,804 243 181 3,319 5.5101920 Spring Branc 04 Houston 1.8 3.1 35,016 52 52 2,199 2.4212905 Tyler ISD 07 Kilgore 0.0 0.0 18,096 41 41 1,024 4.0240903 United ISD 01 Edinburg 3.8 3.9 43,558 177 177 2,991 5.9161914 Waco ISD 12 Waco 0.0 13.9 15,058 73 35 697 5.0

TSA - - 2.3 3.6 2,016,376 5,569 4,583 121,226 3.8State - - 2.0 2.8 5,343,834 14,735 11,422 334,416 3.4

Note. A dash (-) indicates data are not reported to protect student anonymity. When the number of IGC graduates is not reported, the corresponding numbers of all graduates and IGC assigned may be presented in such a manner as to provide a general idea of the numbers while maintaining student anonymity. A dot (.) indicates there were no students in the group.


Higher than State

SY 2016-17

DistrictDistrict Name

RegionRegion Name

14-15 IGCs % of All

Graduates

15-16 IGCs % of All

Graduates

Source: TEA IGC Data posted March 2018 Moak, Casey and Associates


PRESIDENT Alief ISD Mr. HD Chambers PRESIDENT-ELECT Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD Mr. Steve Chapman VICE PRESIDENT Northside ISD Dr. Brian Woods SECRETARY Corpus Christi ISD Dr. Roland Hernandez TREASURER Katy ISD Dr. Lance Hindt PAST PRESIDENT Aldine ISD Dr. LaTonya Goffney

MEMBER DISTRICTS Abilene Aldine* Alief* Amarillo* Arlington Austin Corpus Christi* Cypress-Fairbanks* Dallas Ector County El Paso Fort Bend Fort Worth Garland Harlingen Houston Humble* Hurst-Euless-Bedford* Irving* Katy* Killeen* Lubbock McAllen Mesquite* Midland North East Northside* Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Richardson Round Rock San Angelo* San Antonio Socorro Spring Branch* Tyler* United Waco *TSA Board Members

August 30, 2018 Dr. Trey Miller American Institutes for Research 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington, DC 20007-3835

Re: Draft Study “Dual Credit Education Programs in Texas: Phase II”

Dear Dr. Miller,

The Texas School Alliance (TSA) comprises 37 of Texas’ largest school districts, serving over 2 million students or nearly 40 percent of the state’s total pupil enrollment. Our students represent 44 percent of the state’s economically disadvantaged student population, 52 percent of its English Language Learners, 45 percent of all at-risk students, and 38 percent of all Early College High School students in the state. The organization works on issues that will improve educational quality for Texas students, particularly those in large and urban districts. Texas is now home to 198 Early College High School (ECHS) campuses, and 70 (or 35%) of these innovative high schools are located within TSA districts. During the 2017-18 school year, these 198 ECHS enrolled approximately 69,000 students, including 26,000 students from TSA districts. These enrollment numbers provide evidence that dual credit is an important topic in Texas public education, particularly for TSA districts, as we prepare our students for postsecondary success after high school graduation. TSA appreciates your research team and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) for continuing to advance the study of dual credit in Texas. We also appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft research report. Listed below are the member districts’ concerns and recommendations relative to the proposed draft.

Concern: The draft study excludes all students enrolled in ECHS, comprehensive high schools which offer an ECHS, and four-year institutions; and only follows students beginning with their junior year in high school. TSA recommends the following:

a. include dual credit students enrolled in ECHS, students in comprehensive high schools which offer an ECHS, and students who received dual credit education from a four-year university in the study;

b. include freshman and sophomore dual credit students and conduct further analyses on more recent cohorts of students (2009-2016); and

c. rewrite the Executive Summary to include the additional analyses and convey both the benefits and shortcomings of dual credit.

134

1 of 1

Concern: The research methodology miscategorized dual credit students. On August 20, 2018, Dr. Mike Villareal, assistant professor and founding director of the Institute on Urban Education at the University of Texas at San Antonio, published his concerns with the AIR research design decisions. He states that “AIR researchers made a series of design decisions that consistently diminished the estimated effect of dual credit on student outcomes. Moreover, they miscategorized students who did not earn dual credit as members of their quasi-treatment group and students who earned dual credit as members of their quasi-control group. This error discredits the study’s conclusions.”1 TSA recommends the following:

a. consult with other researchers external to AIR and THECB; b. replace the deficient methodology with one which better reflects students who actually did or

did not earn dual credit; and c. reanalyze the data using a defensible research design.

Dual credit programs currently serve large number of high school students in Texas and are expected to continue to grow. TSA believes that AIR and THECB have a unique opportunity to help inform important policy discussions for K-12 and higher education on the future of dual credit education in Texas.

TSA member districts welcome continued opportunities for dialogue and are happy to serve as resources in the refinement of this final report.

Sincerely,


cc: Dr. David W. Gardner, Deputy Commissioner for Academic Planning and Policy/Chief Academic Officer, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

Mr. Mike Morath, Commissioner, Texas Education Agency

1 Dual credit programs deserve an honest look from Texas educators, Trib Talk, August 20, 2018

135

http://texasschoolalliance.org/

136

1

Sec. 28.023. CREDIT BY EXAMINATION. (a) Using guidelines established by

the State Board of Education, a school district shall develop or select for

review by the district board of trustees examinations for acceleration for each

primary school grade level and for credit for secondary school academic subjects.

The guidelines must provide for the examinations to thoroughly test comprehension

of the information presented in the applicable grade level or subject. The board

of trustees shall approve for each subject, to the extent available, at least

four examinations that satisfy State Board of Education guidelines. The

examinations approved by the board of trustees must include:

(1) advanced placement examinations developed by the College Board;

and

(2) examinations administered through the College-Level Examination

Program.

(b) A school district shall give a student in a primary grade level credit

for a grade level and advance the student one grade level on the basis of an

examination for acceleration approved by the board of trustees under Subsection

(a) if:

(1) the student scores in the 80th percentile or above on each

section of the examination;

(2) a district representative recommends that the student be

advanced; and

(3) the student's parent or guardian gives written approval of the

advancement.

(c) A school district shall give a student in grade level six or above

credit for a subject on the basis of an examination for credit in the subject

approved by the board of trustees under Subsection (a) if the student scores in

the 80th percentile or above on the examination or if the student achieves a

score as provided by Subsection (c-1). If a student is given credit in a subject

on the basis of an examination, the district shall enter the examination score on

the student's transcript and the student is not required to take an end-of-course

assessment instrument adopted under Section 39.023(c) for that subject.

(c-1) A school district shall give a student in grade level six or above

credit for a subject if the student scores:

(1) a three or higher on an advanced placement examination approved

by the board of trustees under Subsection (a) and developed by the College Board;

or

(2) a scaled score of 50 or higher on an examination approved by the

board of trustees under Subsection (a) and administered through the College-Level

Examination Program.

137

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/GetStatute.aspx?Code=ED&Value=39.023

2

(d) Each district shall administer each examination approved by the board

of trustees under Subsection (a) not fewer than four times each year, at times to

be determined by the State Board of Education.

(e) Subsection (d) does not apply to an examination that has an

administration date that is established by an entity other than the school

district.

(f) A student may not attempt more than two times to receive credit for a

particular subject on the basis of an examination for credit in that subject.

(g) If a student fails to achieve the designated score described by

Subsection (c) or (c-1) on an applicable examination described by Subsection (c)

or (c-1) for a subject before the beginning of the school year in which the

student would ordinarily be required to enroll in a course in that subject in

accordance with the school district's prescribed course sequence, the student

must satisfactorily complete the course to receive credit for the course.

(h) This subsection applies only to a school district surrounded by a

school district described by Section 11.065(a). Notwithstanding any other

provision of this section, a school district's board of trustees may establish a

minimum required score for each section of an examination for acceleration or an

examination for credit approved by the board under Subsection (a) that is higher

than the minimum required scores under Subsections (b) and (c), respectively. A

minimum required score established by a board of trustees under this subsection:

(1) may be no greater than a score in the 90th percentile;

(2) must be established before the beginning of a school year for

examinations to be administered in the school year; and

(3) must apply for at least the entire school year.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995.

Amended by:

Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1029 (H.B. 2694), Sec. 2, eff. June 14,

2013.

Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1203 (S.B. 1365), Sec. 2, eff. June 14,

2013.

Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1146 (S.B. 453), Sec. 1, eff. June 19,

2015.

Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 813 (H.B. 789), Sec. 1, eff. June 15, 2017.

138

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/GetStatute.aspx?Code=ED&Value=11.065

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/html/HB02694F.HTM

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/html/SB01365F.HTM

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/html/SB00453F.HTM

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85R/billtext/html/HB00789F.HTM

Text of Adopted Amendment to 19 TAC

Chapter 74. Curriculum Requirements

Subchapter C. Other Provisions

§74.24. Credit by Examination.

(a) General provisions.

(1) A school district must provide at least one window to test between January 1 and March 31, one window to test between April 1 and June 30, one window to test between July 1 and September 30, and one window to test between October 1 and December 31 annually when each examination for acceleration for each primary school grade level and for credit for secondary school academic subjects required under Texas Education Code, §28.023, shall be administered in Grades 1-12 unless the examination has an administration date that is established by an entity other than the school district. A student may take a specific examination only once during each window. The testing window must be designed to meet the needs of all students. The dates must be publicized in the community.

(2) A school district shall provide opportunities for a student who is homeless or in substitute care who transfers to the district after the start of the school year to be administered credit by examination at any point during the school year.

(3) A school district shall not charge for an examination for acceleration for each primary school grade level or for credit for secondary school academic subjects. If a parent requests an alternative examination, the district may administer and recognize results of a test purchased by the parent or student from Texas Tech University or The University of Texas at Austin.

(A) For each grade level or course, Texas Tech University and The University of Texas at Austin shall ensure that the assessments they provide for the purposes of this section are aligned to and address all assessable [with and contain appropriate breadth of coverage of the] Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) at [for] the appropriate level of rigor [course] .

(B) Texas Tech University and The University of Texas at Austin shall arrange for a third party to conduct an audit, on a rotating basis, of at least 20% of the assessments they provide for the purposes of this section. The audit shall be conducted annually.

(C) The results of each audit shall be provided to the Texas Education Agency in the form of a report to be delivered no later than May 31 of each year.

(4) A school district must have the approval of the school district board of trustees to develop its own tests or to purchase examinations that thoroughly test the essential knowledge and skills in the applicable grade level or subject area.

(5) A school district may allow a student to accelerate at a time other than one required in paragraph (1) of this subsection by developing a cost-free option approved by the school district board of trustees that allows students to demonstrate academic achievement or proficiency in a subject or grade level.

(b) Assessment for acceleration in kindergarten through Grade 5.

(1) A school district must develop procedures for kindergarten acceleration that are approved by the school district board of trustees. The board of trustees shall approve an audit process to be completed for assessments for acceleration.

(2) A student in any of Grades 1-5 must be accelerated one grade if he or she meets the following requirements:

139

(A) the student scores 80% on a criterion-referenced test for the grade level he or she wants to skip in each of the following areas: language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies;

(B) a school district representative recommends that the student be accelerated; and

(C) the student's parent or guardian gives written approval for the acceleration.

(c) Assessment for course credit in Grades 6-12.

(1) A school district board of trustees shall approve for each high school course, to the extent available, at least four examinations. The board of trustees shall approve an audit process to be completed for examinations under subparagraph (B)(iii) of this paragraph.

(A) The examinations shall include the following, which are not subject to the requirements in paragraphs (2)-(7) [(2)-(5)] of this subsection :

(i) College Board advanced placement examinations; and

(ii) examinations administered through the College-Level Examination Program.

(B) The examinations may include examinations developed by:

(i) Texas Tech University;

(ii) The University of Texas at Austin;

(iii) the school district; and

(iv) another entity if the assessment meets all of the requirements in paragraph (2) of this subsection.

(2) In order for a school district to administer an [a district-developed] examination [or an examination under paragraph (1)(B)(iv) of this subsection] for credit, prior to the first administration, the school district or the provider of the assessment must certify that the examination:

(A) is aligned to [covers] all assessable TEKS [Texas essential knowledge and skills (TEKS)] for the course;

(B) has not been published and is not publicly available;

(C) will only be administered in a secure environment under standardized conditions by a school district or institution of higher education; and

(D) has been [externally] evaluated to ensure [validity and reliability. For an examination that is evaluated for this purpose, a school district or the provider of the assessment must make public] :

(i) test scores can be interpreted as indicators of what the test is intended to measure;

(ii) consistency of test results across testing conditions.

[(i) the test development process; and]

[(ii) a statement certifying that the examination meets the development and validation criteria in this paragraph.]

[(D) has been externally validated;]

[(E) is equivalent to state level end-of-course assessment instruments in terms of content coverage, item difficulty, and technical quality;]

[(F) yields comparable results for all subgroups; and]

140

[(G) if for a course that has a state level end-of-course assessment instrument, is validated against the applicable end-of-course assessment. For an examination that is validated for this purpose, a school district must make public:]

[(i) the test development process; and]

[(ii) the results of the validation efforts.]

(3) A school district or the provider of the assessment must make public an annual report, including:

(A) the test development process;

(B) a statement certifying that the examination meets the criteria in paragraph (2)(D) of this subsection;

(C) the number of students who took each examination;

(D) the number of students who scored 70% or above on each examination;

(E) the number of students who scored 80% or above on each examination; and

(F) the average score for all students who took the examination for each examination.

(4) [(3)] In order for a school district to administer an examination for credit for a course that has a state end-of-course assessment instrument, the school district or the provider of the assessment must certify, prior to the first administration, that the examination:

(A) meets the requirements of paragraph (2) of this subsection;

(B) has been externally validated and determined to:

(i) align to and appropriately address all assessable TEKS for the course;

(ii) assess the appropriate level of rigor for each student expectation; and

(iii) [(ii)] yield comparable distribution of results across tested [for all] subgroups . [; and]

[(iii) have comparable item difficulty to the relevant state end-of-course assessment instrument as defined by the Texas Education Agency-approved psychometric measurement characteristics.]

(5) If the number of students who take an examination in a given year is not sufficient to determine comparable results among subgroups, the provider may obtain approval from the State Board of Education to demonstrate comparable results over a specified number of years.

(6) [(4)] For an examination that is validated in accordance with paragraph (4) [(3)] of this subsection, a school district or the provider of the assessment must make public:

(A) the annual report required by paragraph (3) of this subsection;

[(A) the test development process;]

(B) all relevant test development specifications;

[(C) a statistical analysis of the information required by paragraph (3)(B) of this subsection; and]

(C) [(D)] a statement certifying that the examination meets the [development and validation] criteria in paragraph (4)(B) [(3)] of this subsection ; and [.]

(D) results for all tested subgroups disaggregated by students who receive prior instruction and students with no prior instruction and including descriptive data for small subgroups.

(7) [(5)] Examinations for courses that do not have a state end-of-course assessment shall meet all requirements in paragraph (2) of this subsection no later than the 2019-2020 school year.

141

[(3) Examinations developed by Texas Tech University and The University of Texas at Austin for courses that do not have a state end-of-course assessment shall meet all requirements of paragraph (2) of this subsection not later than the 2018-2019 school year for each of its examinations offered for credit.]

[(4) District-developed examinations for courses that do not have a state end-of-course assessment shall meet all requirements of paragraph (2) of this subsection no later than the 2018-2019 school year for each of its examinations offering credit.]

(8) [(6)] [(5)] A student in any of Grades 6-12 must be given credit for an academic subject in which he or she has had no prior instruction if the student scores:

(A) a three or higher on a College Board advanced placement examination that has been approved by the school district board of trustees for the applicable course;

(B) a scaled score of 50 or higher on an examination administered through the College-Level Examination Program and approved by the school district board of trustees for the applicable course; or

(C) 80% on any other criterion-referenced test approved by the school district board of trustees for the applicable course.

(9) [(7)] [(6)] A student may not attempt to earn credit by examination for a specific high school course more than two times.

(10) [(8)] [(7)] If a student fails to earn credit by examination for a specific high school course before the beginning of the school year in which the student would ordinarily be required to enroll in that course in accordance with the school district's prescribed course sequence, the student must satisfactorily complete the course to receive credit.

(11) [(9)] [(8)] If a student is given credit in accordance with paragraph (8) [(6)] [(5)] of this subsection in a subject on the basis of an examination on which the student scored 80% or higher, the school district must enter the examination score on the student's transcript, and the student is not required to take an applicable end-of-course assessment instrument for the course.

(12) [(10)] [(9)] In accordance with local school district policy, a student in any of Grades 6-12 may be given credit for an academic subject in which he or she had some prior instruction if the student scores 70% on a criterion-referenced test approved by the school district board of trustees for the applicable course.

142

SBOE Adopts New Credit-by-Exam Rules The State Board of Education recently adopted new rules governing credit-by-exams that became effective August 2018. During the rule-making process, a cohort of 12 organizations made public comment and provided public testimony to the SBOE Committee on Instruction. The organizations included: Mexican American School Board Association (MASBA), Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented (TAGT), Texas Association of Bilingual Educators (TABE), Texas Association of Community Schools (TACS), Texas Association of Latino Administrators and Superintendents (TALAS) Texas Association of Mid-Sized Schools (TAMS), Texas Association of School Administrators (TASA), Texas Association of School Boards (TASB), Texas School Alliance (TSA), Texas Tech University, Texas Urban Council (TUC), and The University of Texas at Austin. The gist of the group’s comments focused on the lack of clarity and consistency in TEA’s proposed rules, which put thousands of students at-risk of not having access to CBEs from university and school district providers because the test development guidelines were not reasonable or appropriate. The stakeholder groups strongly advocated for rule recommendations that were clear and consistent for ALL CBE providers, and across subsections of rule. These recommendations would have ensured there were no gaps in access to CBEs and treated the development of CBEs appropriately and in a meaningful way. TEA’s response to the written public testimony can be viewed here http://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/regviewer$ext.RegPage?sl=T&app=2&p_dir=N&p_rloc=355580&p_tloc=-1&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_reg=201803407&z_chk=50959&z_contains=^^^74.24 The SBOE adopted the final version of CBE rules by a unanimous vote.

UT-Austin Certifies Credit-by-Exams for the 2018-2019 School Year The University of Texas at Austin has posted notice certifying that the exams they have developed meet the rule requirements, effective August 2018, for courses that have end-of-course (EOC) exams and for courses that do not have end-of course exams https://highschool.utexas.edu/credit_by_exam

143

http://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/regviewer$ext.RegPage?sl=T&app=2&p_dir=N&p_rloc=355580&p_tloc=-1&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_reg=201803407&z_chk=50959&z_contains=%5e%5e%5e74.24

http://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/regviewer$ext.RegPage?sl=T&app=2&p_dir=N&p_rloc=355580&p_tloc=-1&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_reg=201803407&z_chk=50959&z_contains=%5e%5e%5e74.24

https://highschool.utexas.edu/credit_by_exam

ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR EARNING CREDIT EHDC CREDIT BY EXAMINATION WITHOUT PRIOR INSTRUCTION (EXHIBIT)

1 of 2 EHDC(EXHIBIT)-RRM

Resolution of Board-Approved Credit-by-Examination Audit Process

Kindergarten–Grade 5

WHEREAS, 19 Texas Administrative Code 74.24(b)(1) provides that a board of trustees must approve an audit process for credit-by-examination assessments used for kindergarten–grade 5 acceleration;

[Insert or modify the District’s audit process below.]

[Use the following text for District-developed credit-by-examination assessments.]

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of ________________ School District by adoption of this resolution approves an audit process by which ________________ (example: a committee/District curriculum personnel) will certify that District-developed credit-by-examination assessments used for kindergarten–grade 5 acceleration accurately and appropriately assess a student’s knowledge and skills of the TEKS for the relevant grade level.

[Use the following text for credit-by-examination assessments developed by the University of Texas at Austin or Texas Tech University.]

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of ________________ School District by adoption of this resolution has determined that the university’s certification and audit demonstrates that the examinations accurately and appropriately assess a student’s knowledge and skills of the TEKS for the relevant grade level.

[Use the following text for credit-by-examination assessments developed by providers other than the District or the University of Texas at Austin or Texas Tech University.] NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of ________________ School District by adoption of this resolution has determined that the provider’s audit demonstrates that the examinations accurately and appropriately assess a student’s knowledge and skills of the TEKS for the relevant grade level.

Grades 6–12

WHEREAS, 19 Texas Administrative Code 74.24(a)(4) and 74.24(c)(1)(B) authorize a board of trustees to approve of the district’s development and use of its own examinations that thoroughly test the essential knowledge and skills in the applicable grade level or subject area; and

WHEREAS, 19 Texas Administrative Code 74.24(c)(1) requires a board to approve an audit process for examinations for credit that are developed by the district;

[Insert or modify the District’s audit process below.]

150

ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR EARNING CREDIT EHDC CREDIT BY EXAMINATION WITHOUT PRIOR INSTRUCTION (EXHIBIT)

2 of 2 EHDC(EXHIBIT)-RRM

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that for each District-developed examination for credit in grades 6–12, the Board of ____________________________ School District approves an audit process by which ________________ (example: a committee/District curriculum personnel) will certify that District-developed credit-by-examination assessments used for grades 6–12 accurately and appropriately assess a student’s knowledge and skills of the TEKS for the relevant grade level.

The authority granted by this resolution is effective until the Board revokes such authority by further action.

Adopted this _______ (date) day of _______________ (month), _______ (year), by the Board of Trustees.

Presiding officer:

Secretary:

151