_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 2007, 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 2006-07 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 2007. 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 2007, standard campuses and districts will be assigned one of the following rating labels.

Table 4: Standard Rating Labels

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, 2007)

Notification of campus and district accountability ratings will occur on August 1, 2007. 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, 2007)

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, 2007. 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 2007 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 late July. Data tables with rating labels will be released on August 1, 2007.

The following items are the additional information not present on the preview, but added to the August data tables and 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)
  • Rating changed after [date] due to Data Integrity Issues. (campus or district)
  • Rating is not based on data shown in the table (School Leaver Provision used).
  • (campus or district)
  • Grade 8 science results are not included because they are not used in the 2007 accountability system. (campus or disrict with grade 8)
  • Special Analysis used. Exception applied for [subject - student group] (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.
  • Msr(s) Used in 2006? – 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 2007 were used in 2006.
  • 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 Msrs Evaluated and Number Allowed columns show a number; other areas are blank.

Masked Data

Performance posted to the 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 masked. It is necessary to mask data that potentially reveals the performance of every student to be in compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

System Summary

The following tables summarize the 2007 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 can have no Academically Unacceptable campuses to receive a rating of Recognized or Exemplary. They must also not have excessive underreported students; however, for 2007, the School Leaver Provision means a district’s underreported student count or rate cannot be the cause for a lowered rating.

Table 7 is a single-page overview that provides details of the 2007 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

Table 7: Overview of 2007 System Components

2007 Accountability | Accountability | Performance Reporting | TEA Home