Frequently Asked Questions

Exemplary campuses 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 because there are fewer students at the school level. That is, while schools and districts are held accountable for the performance of every student group, the student group must have at least 30 students to be considered in the ratings system. For that reason an elementary schools might only be judged on 7 or 8 indicators because they only had a handful of students taking (for example) 5th grade TAKS science, but at the district level, where science is tested in grades 5, 10, and 11, there are enough students in each group, so the district is held accountable for the performance of every student group in science.

Also, 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 36 indicators, while many schools are held accountable to fewer than 10 indicators.

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: Districts whose performance is at the Recognized or Exemplary level can be held to a rating of Academically Acceptable for several reasons:

  1. Any district that has one or more campuses rated Academically Unacceptable cannot receive a rating of Exemplary or Recognized.
    2.  
  2. Districts are required to report the "leaver" status of all grade 7–12 students who were enrolled at any time in the prior year (2002–03) but who did not continue in the current year (2003–04). These students may have left the district because they graduated, transferred to another district, dropped out, or some other reason.
     
    When districts fail to provide a leaver record for a student who is no longer in enrollment, TEA counts him or her as underreported. In order to maintain a rating of Exemplary or Recognized, districts must not exceed the accountability standards for underreporting students.
    3.  
  3. Districts are held responsible for the performance of all their students, including those who attend campuses that do not receive a regular rating, such as a Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program.

Please see the 2004 Accountability Manual for more information on student groups and minimum size requirements (Section I), underreported leavers (Section II), and additional students in district ratings (Section II).

Comparing TAKS performance from 2003 to TAKS performance from 2004

Q: I checked the 2003 TAKS performance shown on the 2004 Data Tables with that shown on the 2002–03 AEIS reports, and the numbers don't match. Why is this?

A: In order to allow for "apples to apples" comparison, the 2003 TAKS results were recomputed to match the 2004 accountability methodology. For this reason, the results shown on the 2004 data tables may differ in a number of ways from the AEIS reports:

    1. Summed Across Grades. Only performance "summed across all grades" is used for accountability purposes. The AEIS reports provide grade-level performance as well as performance summed across grades. The closest comparison to the 2003 performance used for 2004 accountability is that shown in the section in the AEIS reports titled:
      TAKS Met Standard (Sum of All Grades Tested)
      (1 SEM Below Panel Recommendation)
      2.  
    2. Rounding. The 2002–03 AEIS reports show all TAKS values rounded to one tenth. That is, a passing rate of 89.945% was rounded to 89.9%. For the 2004 accountability system, the Met Standard calculations are rounded to whole numbers. For example, 49.877% is rounded to 50%; 79.4999% is rounded to 79%; and 89.5% is rounded to 90%.
      3.  
    3. ELA and Reading Combined. For the 2004 accountability ratings, performance on English Languages Arts (tested in grades 10 and 11) and Reading (tested in grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9) have been combined to show one passing rate when summed across grades. In the 2002–03 AEIS reports, ELA and Reading performance were shown separately. This affects high school that include 9th grade and district-level reports.
      4.  
    4. Accountability Subset. Sometimes referred to as the mobility subset, this is the performance used for determining the accountability ratings. While an accountability subset has always been used for AEIS, accountability, and other products, in 2004 the accountability subset methodology changed. For the first time, campus-to-campus mobility removes a student's performance from the subset, even if both campuses are in the same district. At the district level, the accountability subset remains the same. This affects the performance of all campuses, especially those in large districts, where mobility within the district is more common. Please see Section I, Table 2 in the 2004 Accountability Manual. Note that this resulted in higher 2003 performance for many campuses.
      5.  
    5. Grade 3 Reading (Cumulative). The AEIS reports show grade 3 reading performance for the first administration only. For accountability purposes, both the first (March) administration and the second (April) administration have been combined to show a cumulative passing rate across the two administrations. Note that this resulted in higher 2003 performance for many elementary campuses.
      6.  
    6. Different Standard for Passing the Exit-Level TAKS. To determine whether a student counts as a passer, the student must meet the passing standard adopted by the State Board of Education (SBOE) for the current year. For 2004 the student passing standard is 1 standard error of measurement (SEM) below the panel recommendation (PR) for students in grades 3–10 and 2 SEM below PR for students in grade 11.
       
      In the section titled TAKS Met Standard (Sum of All Grades Tested) / (1 SEM Below Panel Recommendation) on the 2002–03 AEIS reports, the performance shown is at 1 SEM below panel recommendation on all tests, including exit-level performance. However, in order to provide comparable performance on the 2004 accountability data tables, the performance used was 1 SEM for grades 3 through 10, and 2 SEM on the exit-level TAKS. Note that this resulted in higher 2003 performance for most districts.

Mobility

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 Section I, Table 2 in the 2004 Accountability Manual for a complete explanation.

Masking

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 2004 accountability data tables employ greater 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.

Overall Information

Q: I'm doing research and would appreciate information that provides a larger view of the ratings. Is that available?

A: Please refer to the Highlights document (downloadable PDF) for a statewide perspective on how Texas performed in 2004.