_Chapter 4 - The Basics: Determining a Rating_

The previous two chapters described the base indicators and the additional features of the system (Required Improvement and the Exceptions Provision). This chapter describes how to use the indicator data results with the additional features to determine campus and district ratings. The ratings for the overwhelming majority of campuses and districts can be determined this way. Some campuses and districts must be evaluated using different procedures. See Chapter 6 - Special Issues and Circumstances for details about which campuses and districts are affected and how they are evaluated.

Who is Rated?

The state accountability system is required to rate all districts and campuses that serve students in grades 1 through 12. The first step is to identify the universe of districts and campuses that can be considered for a rating. For 2006, the universe is determined to be those districts and campuses that reported students in membership in any grades (early education through grade 12) in the fall of the 2005-06 school year. The universe is then divided into those campuses and districts to be evaluated under Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) procedures (see Part 2 - Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) Procedures) and those evaluated using standard procedures. Most districts and campuses identified for standard procedures receive one of the four primary rating labels (Exemplary, Recognized, Academically Acceptable, or Academically Unacceptable). Some receive a label of Not Rated. Rating labels and their uses are described below.

Once the universe of standard campuses and districts is established, the next step is to determine if the district or campus has TAKS results on which it can be evaluated. In order to attain one of the four primary rating labels, districts and campuses must have at least one TAKS test result in the accountability subset. An effort is made through the pairing process to supply TAKS results to campuses (with any grades from 1 to 12) with no students in the grades tested so that they can also be evaluated. For more information on pairing see Chapter 6 - Special Issues and Circumstances.

Districts and campuses that have only SDAA II results, only completion rates, only dropout rates, or only combinations of these three will not receive one of the four primary ratings in 2006. To be eligible to be Exemplary, Recognized, Academically Acceptable, or Academically Unacceptable, TAKS results are required and only TAKS results are required. Districts and campuses need not have data for the SDAA II, dropout, or completion indicators in order to receive a rating. Furthermore, performance on any one of the TAKS subjects is sufficient for a rating to be assigned (science, mathematics, reading/ELA, writing, or social studies).

Though at least one TAKS tester (in the accountability subset) is required to be considered for a rating, some places with very small numbers of total TAKS test results may ultimately receive a Not Rated label. The process of Special Analysis is employed when there are very small numbers of total test takers to determine if a rating is appropriate. See Chapter 6 - Special Issues and Circumstances for details about Special Analysis.

Standard Rating Labels

Rating labels for districts are specified in statute. For 2006, standard campuses and districts will be assigned one of the following rating labels.

Table 4: Standard Rating Labels

District/Charter Operator Use Campus Use (non-charter and charter)

Exemplary Used for districts or charter operators with at least one TAKS test result (in any subject) in the accountability subset. Small numbers subject to Special Analysis. Used for campuses serving grades 1-12 with at least one TAKS test result (in any subject) in the accountability subset. Includes campuses with TAKS data due to pairing. Small numbers subject to Special Analysis.

Recognized

Academically Acceptable

Academically Unacceptable

Not Rated: Other
Used for districts or charter operators in the unlikely event that there is insufficient data to rate due to no TAKS results in the accountability subset.

In 2006, this rating may be assigned to districts impacted by Hurricane Rita.

Used if the campus:

has no students enrolled in grades higher than kindergarten;

has insufficient data to rate due to no TAKS results in the accountability subset;

has insufficient data to rate through Special Analysis due to very small numbers of TAKS results in the accountability subset;

is a designated Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program (JJAEP) or a designated Disciplinary Alternative Education Program (DAEP); or

was impacted by Hurricane Rita and met provisions outlined in Appendix I.

Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues
Used in the rare situation where the accuracy and/or integrity of performance results are compromised and it is not possible to assign a rating label based on the evaluation of performance. This label may be assigned temporarily pending an on-site investigation or may be assigned as the final rating label for the year.

This rating label is not equivalent to an Academically Unacceptable rating. The Commissioner of Education also has the authority to lower a rating or assign an Academically Unacceptable rating to address problems with the accuracy and/or integrity of performance results that are discovered through accountability system safeguards, Performance-Based Monitoring, or other monitoring and compliance reviews.

Data quality is considered to be a district responsibility. It is possible for a district rating to be Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues without any of its campuses having that rating label. If any campus within a district receives a rating of Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues, then the district's rating will be affected. The district may receive a rating of Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues, either temporarily or permanently, or the district's rating may also be changed to Academically Unacceptable for data quality reasons.

See Chapter 15 - Responsibilities and Consequences for more information about the circumstances that trigger this rating label.

Registered alternative education campuses will receive ratings under the AEA procedures. See Chapter 12 - AEA Ratings for information on the AEA rating labels.

Notification of Ratings (August 1, 2006)

Notification of campus and district accountability ratings will occur on August 1, 2006. This consists of release of the campus and district data tables and the district summary reports on TEA's website. Ratings for both standard and registered alternative education campuses (AECs) will be included.

Notification of Ratings (Late October, 2006)

Accountability ratings are finalized when the accountability appeals process is completed. Agency web products related to state accountability (both public and secure sites) will be updated to reflect the outcome of appeals and to add the Gold Performance Acknowledgments information in late October, 2006. See Chapter 18 - Calendar and Chapter 14 - Appealing the Ratings for more information.

Using the Data Table to Determine a Rating

In late July, prior to finalizing all computations necessary for accountability ratings, TEA will provide districts with access to preview data tables for the district and each campus within the district through the TEASE website.

These tables will not show a rating and will not provide calculations for Required Improvement or the Exceptions Provision. However, using the data on the tables and the 2006 Accountability Manual, districts can anticipate their ratings in advance of the TEA ratings release. These preview data tables will contain unmasked data and must be treated as confidential. That is, information that reveals the performance of an individual student may be shown.

Sample data tables (unmasked) are excerpted on the following pages to present a step-by-step explanation of how ratings are determined.

(For a clearer view of this page, download page 36, a pdf.)

(For a clearer view of this page, download page 37, a pdf.)

(For a clearer view of this page, download page 38, a pdf.)

(For a clearer view of this page, download page 39, a pdf.)

(For a clearer view of this page, download page 40, a pdf.)

Additional Information on August Data Tables

The sample shown is of a preview data table. These will be made available to districts on the TEASE website in July. Data tables with rating labels will be released on August 1, 2006.

The following items are the additional information not present on the preview, but added to the August data tables or the updated tables released in October:

Accountability Ratings. (A list of possible rating labels is shown in Table 4 in this chapter.)
Pairing. Any standard campus with enrollment within grades 1-12, but no students tested on TAKS will be paired for accountability. A message will indicate the campus it is paired with.
Messages. These messages appear in the top section of the data table when applicable:
- Special Analysis used. (campus or district)
- Rating change due to appeal. (campus or district)
- Rating is not based on data shown in the table. (campus or district)
- District rating limited to Academically Acceptable due to having one or more Academically Unacceptable campuses. (district only)
- District rating limited to Academically Acceptable due to exceeding threshold for underreported students. (district only)
- Rating changed after [date] due to Data Integrity Issues. (campus or district)
- Rating is not based on data shown in the table (Hurricane Rita provision used). (campus or district)
- Rating is not based on data shown in the table (due to consolidation/annexation). (campus or district)
Required Improvement. The final data table shows all calculations for Required Improvement:
- Met Min Size - Met Minimum Size shows "yes" or "no."
- RI - This shows the amount of change needed for Required Improvement to be met.
- Met RI? - If Required Improvement is calculated, this shows "yes" or "no" depending on the comparison of actual change to the change needed (RI).
- Blank - If Required Improvement is not applicable, the columns are blank.
- Footnotes. A footnote appears if the Required Improvement floor is not met thus preventing the use of Required Improvement to change a rating from Academically Acceptable to Recognized.
Exceptions. The final data table shows all calculations for the Exceptions Provision:
- Number Needed - This shows the number of assessment measures below the Academically Acceptable standard that did not meet Required Improvement.
- Floor(s) Met? - This shows "yes" or "no" depending on whether or not the performance floor was met for all the assessment measures needing exception. If any don't meet the floor, "no" appears.
- Measure(s) Used in 2005? - The same exception cannot be used in consecutive years. This shows "yes" or "no" depending on whether or not any of the exceptions needed in 2006 were used in 2005.
- Exceptions Applied - This shows the subject and group for which an exception is used. Up to three may be listed.
- Blank - If the Exceptions Provision is not applicable, only the Number Measures Evaluated and Number Allowed columns show a number, other areas are blank.

Masked Data

As in the past, performance on the data tables posted to the agency's public website is masked when there are fewer than five students in the denominator of the measure. Additionally, all performance at or near 0% or 100% is also masked. It is necessary to mask data that potentially reveals the performance of every student in order to be in compliance with the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

System Summary

The following two tables summarize the 2006 system. Table 6 provides an overview of the requirements for each rating level. A district or campus must meet the criteria for every applicable measure to be rated Exemplary, Recognized, or Academically Acceptable; otherwise the next lower rating is assigned.

The Exceptions Provision can elevate to a rating of Academically Acceptable but no higher.

Districts must meet two additional provisions at the Recognized and Exemplary rating levels: checks for Academically Unacceptable campuses and excessive underreported students.

Table 7 is a single-page overview that provides details of the 2006 system, with the base indicators listed as columns. For each of the indicators, users can see brief definitions, the rounding methodology, the accountability subset methodology, the standards, minimum size criteria, subjects and student groups used, application of Required Improvement, and the Exceptions Provision.

Table 6: Requirements for Each Rating Category

	Academically Acceptable	Recognized	Exemplary
Base Indicators
*TAKS (2005-06)* All students and each student group meeting minimum size: African American Hispanic White Econ. Disadv.	meets each standard: Reading/ELA 60% Writing 60% Social Studies 60% Mathematics 40% Science 35% OR meets Required Improvement	meets 70% standard for each subject OR meets 65% floor and Required Improvement	meets 90% standard for each subject
*SDAA II (2006)* All students (if meets minimum size criteria)	meets 50% standard (Met ARD Expectations) OR meets Required Improvement	meets 70% standard (Met ARD Expectations) OR meets 65% floor and Required Improvement	meets 90% standard (Met ARD Expectations)
Completion Rate I (class of 2005) All students and each student group meeting minimum size: African American Hispanic White Econ. Disadv.	meets 75.0% standard OR meets Required Improvement	meets 85.0% standard OR meets 80.0% floor and Required Improvement	meets 95.0% standard
Annual Dropout Rate (2004-05) All students and each student group meeting minimum size: African American Hispanic White Econ. Disadv.	meets 1.0% standard OR meets Required Improvement	meets 0.7% standard OR meets 0.9% floor and Required Improvement	meets 0.2% standard
Additional Provisions
*Exceptions*	Applied if district/campus would be Academically Unacceptable due to not meeting the Academically Acceptable criteria on up to 3 test measures. (See detailed explanation.)	Exceptions cannot be used to move to a rating of Recognized.	Exceptions cannot be used to move to a rating of Exemplary.
*Check for Academically Unacceptable Campuses* (District only)	Does not apply to Academically Acceptable districts.	A district with a campus rated Academically Unacceptable cannot be rated Recognized.	A district with a campus rated Academically Unacceptable cannot be rated Exemplary.
*Underreported Students* (District only)	Does not apply to Academically Acceptable districts.	A district that underreports more than 100 students or more than 2.0% of its prior year students cannot be rated Recognized.	A district that underreports more than 100 students or more than 2.0% of its prior year students cannot be rated Exemplary.

Table 7: Overview of 2005 System Components

TAKS SDAA II Completion Rate I Dropout Rate

Definition
TAKS results (gr. 3-11) summed across grades by subject. ELA & reading results are combined. Cumulative results used for first 2 admins of gr. 3 reading, gr. 5 reading & math. Student pass. stnd. is panel recommendation for all grades, subjects.

A single (gr. 3-10) indicator calculated as the number of tests meeting ARD expecta-tions (summed across grades & subjects) divided by the number of SDAA II tests.

Graduates and continuers expressed as a % of total students in the class. Campuses serving any of gr. 9-12 w/out a completion rate are assigned the district completion rate.

Gr. 7 and 8 official dropouts as a percent of total gr. 7 and 8 students who were in attendance at any time during the school year.

Rounding

Whole Numbers

Whole Numbers

One Decimal

Standards
  Exemplary
Recognized
Acceptable

Ex.: All Subjects ≥ 90%
Re.: All Subjects ≥ 70%
Acc.: Read/ELA/W/SS ≥ 60%
   Mathematics ≥ 40%
   Science ≥ 35%

Ex.: ≥ 90%
Re.: ≥ 70%
Acc.: ≥ 50%

Ex.: ≥ 95.0%
Re.: ≥ 85.0%
Acc.: ≥ 75.0%

Ex.: ≤ 0.2%
Re.: ≤ 0.7%
Acc.: ≤ 1.0%

Mobility Adjustment

(Accountability Subset)

District ratings: results for students enrolled in the district in the fall and tested in the same district.

Campus ratings: results for students enrolled in the campus in the fall and tested in the same campus.

KRI: results removed for evacuees of Katrina and Rita.

None

Subjects
Reading/ELA -- gr. 3-11
Writing -- gr. 4, 7
Mathematics -- gr. 3-11
Social Studies -- gr. 8, 10, 11
Science -- gr. 5, 10, 11

Reading/ELA
Writing
Mathematics
n/a
n/a

n/a

Student Groups
All & Student Grps:
  African American
  Hispanic
  White
  Econ. Disadv.

All Students Only

All & Student Grps:
  African American
  Hispanic
  White
  Econ. Disadv.

Minimum Size Criteria

All No minimum size requirement-special analysis for small numbers
≥ 30 tests

≥ 5 dropouts
AND
≥ 10 students

Groups
30/10%/50

n/a

≥ 5 dropouts
AND
30/10%/50

Required Improvement (RI)

Actual Chg
2006 minus 2005 performance (@ 2006 passing std)

2006 minus 2005 performance

Class of 2005 rate minus Class of 2004 rate

2004-05 rate minus 2003-04 rate

RI
Gain needed to reach standard in 2 yrs.

Gain needed to reach standard in 2 yrs.

Decline needed to reach std. in 2 yrs.

Use
Gate up to Acceptable and Recognized

Gate up to Acceptable and Recognized

Floor (Recognized)
≥ 65%

≥ 80.0%

≤ 0.9%

Minimum Size
Meets minimum size in current year and has ≥ 10 students tested in prior year.

Meets minimum size in current year and has ≥ 10 tests in prior year.

Meets minimum size in current year and has ≥ 10 students in completion class the prior year.

Meets minimum size in current year & has ≥ 10 7th-8th grade students the prior yr.

Exceptions After application of RI, this provision may be applied if the campus or district would be Unacceptable solely due to not meeting the Acceptable criteria on up to 3 assessment measures. Applies to 26 measures - 25 TAKS (5 subjects x 5 groups) plus the SDAA II measure.

n/a

Use As a gate up to Acceptable

Floor No more than 5 percentage points below Acceptable std.

Number of Exceptions Allowed (variable)

# of Assessment Measures
Evaluated (at campus or district)

Maximum Exceptions
Allowed

1 - 5
6 - 10
11 - 15
16 - 26

0
1
2
3

Accountability 2006 | Accountability | Performance Reporting | TEA Home

	District/Charter Operator Use	Campus Use (non-charter and charter)
Exemplary	Used for districts or charter operators with at least one TAKS test result (in any subject) in the accountability subset. Small numbers subject to Special Analysis.	Used for campuses serving grades 1-12 with at least one TAKS test result (in any subject) in the accountability subset. Includes campuses with TAKS data due to pairing. Small numbers subject to Special Analysis.
Recognized
Academically Acceptable
Academically Unacceptable
Not Rated: Other	Used for districts or charter operators in the unlikely event that there is insufficient data to rate due to no TAKS results in the accountability subset. In 2006, this rating may be assigned to districts impacted by Hurricane Rita.	Used if the campus: has no students enrolled in grades higher than kindergarten; has insufficient data to rate due to no TAKS results in the accountability subset; has insufficient data to rate through Special Analysis due to very small numbers of TAKS results in the accountability subset; is a designated Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program (JJAEP) or a designated Disciplinary Alternative Education Program (DAEP); or was impacted by Hurricane Rita and met provisions outlined in Appendix I.
Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues	Used in the rare situation where the accuracy and/or integrity of performance results are compromised and it is not possible to assign a rating label based on the evaluation of performance. This label may be assigned temporarily pending an on-site investigation or may be assigned as the final rating label for the year. This rating label is not equivalent to an Academically Unacceptable rating. The Commissioner of Education also has the authority to lower a rating or assign an Academically Unacceptable rating to address problems with the accuracy and/or integrity of performance results that are discovered through accountability system safeguards, Performance-Based Monitoring, or other monitoring and compliance reviews. Data quality is considered to be a district responsibility. It is possible for a district rating to be Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues without any of its campuses having that rating label. If any campus within a district receives a rating of Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues, then the district's rating will be affected. The district may receive a rating of Not Rated: Data Integrity Issues, either temporarily or permanently, or the district's rating may also be changed to Academically Unacceptable for data quality reasons. See Chapter 15 - Responsibilities and Consequences for more information about the circumstances that trigger this rating label.