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. 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 this?

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 subject areas.
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 Rating

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 Students.

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 Manual.

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 Chapter 2, Table 3 in the 2010 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 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.