but Acceptable district
Q: All the campuses
in our district are Exemplary or Recognized, but
the district is rated Acceptable. How can that be?
A: It is often
the case that individual schools have higher ratings than their
district. Any one of a number of situations may explain it:
- First of all, there are fewer students
at the school level. That is, while schools and districts are
held accountable for the performance of all students, the individual
student groups (African American, Hispanic, White, and Economically
Disadvantaged) must have at least 30 students to be considered
in the ratings system. For that reason, an elementary school
might be judged on only 7 or 8 indicators because it had very
few students taking (for example) 5th grade TAKS science. On
the other hand, at the district level, where science is tested
in grades 5, 8, 10, and 11, there may be enough students in each
group, so the district is held accountable for the performance
of every student group in science.
- Second, students who move from campus to campus within the same
district during the school year may have their results removed
from each campus's performance. However, their results are included
in the district's performance. This is referred to as the Accountability
Subset. See Chapter 2 in the 2010
Accountability Manual for more information.
- Third, elementary and middle schools are not accountable for
the Completion Rate indicator. As a result, districts are more
likely to be held accountable for all 35 indicators, while many
schools are held accountable for fewer than 10 indicators.
- Finally, a district's rating is held to Academically Acceptable if any of its campuses is are rated Academically Unacceptable
or if certain problems are found with the quality of the district's
data leaver reporting.
Q: I carefully checked
the performance of my district on every indicator, and it appears
they should be rated Recognized, but the state rated them
Acceptable. How can this be?
A: A district whose
performance is at the Recognized or Exemplary
level can be held to a rating of Academically Acceptable
if it has one or more campuses rated Academically Unacceptable.
Also, a district whose performance is at the Recognized or Exemplary level
can be held to a rating of Academically Acceptable if it underreports students
who left by a certain amount.
Comparing TAKS performance from 2009
to TAKS performance from 2010
Q: I checked the
2009 TAKS performance shown on the 2010 Data Tables with that shown
on the 2008-09 AEIS reports, and the numbers don't match. Why is
A: In order to allow
for "apples to apples" comparison, and the ability to
accurately calculate Required Improvement, the prior year (2009)
TAKS results were recomputed. For this reason, the results used
to determine ratings for 2009 may differ from those shown on the
2010 data tables:
- TAKS (Accommodated). The 2009 TAKS base indicator has
been rebuilt to include the performance of all TAKS (Accommodated)
assessments (this includes reading and mathematics (grades 3-10) and
writing (grades 4 and 7), and the Spanish versions for these grades and
- New Vertical Scale Cut Points. New vertical scale cut points
for grades 3-8 for reading and mathematics that are used in 2010 have been
applied to 2009.
- TAKS Grade 3 Reading. In 2010, there is only one administration
of grade 3 reading, so the 2009 results have been rebuilt to use only the
first administration of grade 3 reading from that year.
- TAKS Grade 6 Spanish. As of 2010, grade six Spanish
assessments are no longer administered.
Q: The 2010 preview indicator
that was included on my 2008-09 AEIS reports does not match the 2009 data that
now appears on the 2010 data table. Why is this?
A: The preview indicator that was reported on the 2008-09 AEIS reports was based on the horizontal scale scores corresponding to the vertical scale score cuts that were established in January 2009. Following the spring 2009 TAKS administration, the horizontal scale scores corresponding to the vertical scale score cuts shifted for grades 6 and 8 reading (English version) and grades 3, 4, and 6 mathematics (Spanish version). Due to this discrepancy, the 2010 Preview Indicator shown on the 2008-09 AEIS reports may not exactly match the prior year data used for 2010 accountability. The 2009 data reported on the 2010 accountability data tables is based on the 2010 vertical scale standards.
Change in TPM Numbers between July and November
Q: I have our data table from July and noticed that the updated data table for November had different numbers for some of the TPM areas. It didn't affect our rating, but was there a change?
Yes, the Texas Projection Measure (TPM) results on the updated state accountability data tables will differ slightly from the TPM results reported in July for some districts and campuses. In August, Pearson — the testing contractor — identified a slight error in their calculation of the TPM in cases where students in grades 3 and 4 had taken TAKS reading in Spanish and TAKS mathematics in English. The incorrect TPM classifications affected students located in 93 districts and 398 schools. After the correction was made, the state accountability ratings for five campuses were elevated to a higher rating. All districts with a campus whose rating was changed, or whose use of Additional Features was affected, or had one or more students affected by the error were contacted in August by TEA and the testing contractor.
The values shown on the data tables posted on November 3, 2010 reflect the correction.
Ethnic Groups that Count Toward
Q: Why is it that
the groups looked at to determine a school's rating do
not include Asian students? What happens
to the scores that do not fall under the White, Hispanic, African American, or economically disadvantaged?
A: The performance
of all students -- regardless of ethnicity -- is included
as part of All
Students. The performance of White, Hispanic, African American,
and economically disadvantaged student groups is looked at if there
are enough students to comprise a statistic of reliable size.
Ethnic groups with very small populations statewide, such as Asian/Pacific
Islander and Native American are not considered separately because
there are rarely enough of them in a given school or district to
count as an additional indicator. Again, the performance of these
students is not omitted; it is included with All
The ethnic groups that are part of school and district accountability
comprise at least 10% of the state population. For 2009-10, the
population of students in Texas public schools was as follows: African
American 14%, Hispanic 49%, Native American 0.4%, Asian/Pacific
Islander 3.7%, White 33%.
For more information on minimum size in accountability, please
see Chapter 2 in the 2010 Accountability
Q: What happens when
a student comes to my school just a week before the TAKS test? We
try hard to get them ready for the tests, but it's difficult with
so little time. Will their performance affect our rating?
A: No, students who
change schools after the PEIMS snapshot date (end of October) and
before the date of testing are taken out of the accountability subset.
Please see Chapter 2, Table 3 in the 2010
Accountability Manual for a complete explanation.
Q: Why does the
data table for my school show >99% under Percent Met Standard?
I know that 100% of the students passed that test!
A: The accountability
data tables now employ more masking of assessment data than has
been used in the past, in order to comply with the federal Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). For more detailed information,
please see the Explanation of Masking.
| Performance Reporting