When the Texas Education Agency released preliminary ratings through the new A-F accountability rating system Jan. 6, school districts across the state expressed concerns regarding the scores.

In a Jan. 24 Senate Finance Committee hearing, TEA Commissioner Mike Morath said he has heard “buckets” of feedback regarding the system. He said there has been a small group in support of the evaluation, but a multitude of others with louder criticisms.

At their January meeting, members of the CFISD board of trustees made their voices heard when they unanimously approved a resolution to urge legislators to repeal the A-F system altogether.

“Although we do not agree with the new system and feel that it oversimplifies all the incredible achievements and programs at individual campuses, we will remain focused on our goal of providing the best possible education opportunities for all CFISD students,” Superintendent Mark Henry said in a district statement.

A New System

House Bill 2804, which passed in the 84th Texas Legislature, mandated the new five-domain A-F system replace the existing Met Standard accountability system. About 94 percent of Texas school districts and all CFISD schools received Met Standard in 2015-16.

The A-F system, which will be fully implemented in 2018, will give districts and their campuses an overall grade of A, B, C, D or F, as well as grades in five domains: Student Achievement, Student Progress, Closing Performance gaps, Postsecondary Readiness, and Community and Student Engagement.

As a district, CFISD received grades of B, A, B and C in the first four domains. Domain V—Community and Student Engagement—was not evaluated in the preliminary round of ratings.

Linda Macias, CFISD’s associate superintendent of curriculum, instruction and accountability, said the preliminary report might be misleading because the TEA did not have sufficient data required for a comprehensive report. Additionally, 55 percent of the overall rating is based on State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness test results, she said.

“We’re being measured on one test at one time,” Macias said. “When [a parent] sees a ‘B’ on their student’s report card, they’re not expecting that to come from one test. They’re expecting there were quizzes, extra support, unit tests and finals. That’s what our parents understand with an A-F type grade, but that’s not what this system is.”

Macias said although standardized testing dominates accountability ratings, the STAAR test is not the primary focus for CFISD educators. The district’s curriculum philosophy is to teach essential knowledge and skills that meet the standard and to track students along the way so they are aware of major progress gaps, Macias said.

“Certainly there’s pressure with the STAAR test because that’s how we’re evaluated,” she said. “However, if our teachers are doing a great job of teaching the curriculum and we’re monitoring kids that need a little more help, the test will take care of itself.”

District officials and parents alike would be more comfortable with an older system that gave districts ratings of Exemplary, Recognized, Acceptable or Unacceptable, Macias said.

“This [A-F] report doesn’t have any value at this point, and it probably won’t even look like this when implemented in the 2017-18 school year,” she said. “The state will open up an opportunity for all districts to give feedback on how this might be different.”

‘Flaws in the System’

TEA spokesperson Lauren Callahan said the preliminary report published in January only measured the first four domains and reflects a system that is a work in progress.

Domain IV, or postsecondary readiness, ratings may change by 2018 because the TEA did not have all the data required under HB 2804, she said.

More than 60 percent of the nearly 1,000 school districts that received a grade in Domain IV received a C, D or F, according to the TEA. Elementary schools are graded on the number of chronically absent students. Middle schools are graded on absenteeism and dropout rates.

“That’s a challenge because—[while] our campuses work very hard at getting kids to school—sometimes absenteeism is not in control of the schools,” Macias said.

Domain IV indicators for high schools include graduation rate, SAT and ACT scores, postsecondary credits earned and how many students took Advanced Placement courses. Factors that could be considered before the full report is released in August 2018 include the number of students who enlisted in the armed forces or earned an industry certification.

The problem with determining whether students are ready for college-level courses is that there is no common definition for college readiness, said Raymund Paredes, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board commissioner of higher education.

“There’s a great variance in what might be college readiness at a community college and what might be college readiness at [The University of Texas] or Texas A&M University,” Paredes said. “There’s no certain definition of college readiness. It means different things to different people.”

Macias identified a few aspects of other domains as areas that CFISD would like to see adjusted.

Domain II evaluates whether students improved performance over the previous year—if a student moves from meeting the standard to the advanced level, for example. This can vary each year, Macias said.

“You may have a child who came in last year and took the [STAAR] test after a great breakfast and scored at the advanced level,” she said. “That same child the next year might not have been feeling so good and passed the test but didn’t score at the advanced level. So we are penalized for that.”

Domain III looks at the performance of economically disadvantaged students. Macias said schools with higher poverty numbers tend to score lower.

For example, nearly 90 percent of the students at Holbrook Elementary School receive free or reduced price lunch based on family income. Although the school Met Standard in 2016 and received all possible distinctions from the TEA, the campus scored C, B, B and C in the A-F system, Macias said.

“You would think they would have earned all A’s or maybe a couple of B’s, but that wasn’t the case,” Macias said. “To me, that tells you there are certainly some flaws in the system.”

Next Steps

Although many districts across the state are seeking to pass resolutions requesting the A-F system be repealed, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has said the A-F system will not be repealed or replaced.

Many state legislators seem poised to move forward with the new system.  However, some bills that have been filed this legislative session either add more indicators to Domain IV or slightly change the wording in the Education Code for the accountability system.

State Rep. Kevin Roberts, R-Spring, said educators work to ensure their students receive a quality education, and while an accountability system has value, it should not hinder those efforts.

“After talking to my school boards and superintendents, I have come to the conclusion that we need an accountability system that measures outcomes accurately, taking into account all aspects of a district and a student’s education,” Roberts said.

During the Jan. 24 hearing, state Sen. Larry Taylor, who sponsored SB 6, said the A-F system is not going away.

Taylor said he would devote part of this session to refining the domains so they would be better indicators of student performance going forward. CFISD officials hope he does not disappoint.

“I am hopeful with the rest of our district that this new legislative session will go back and look at this and come back with a system that truly is meaningful and that parents truly do understand,” Macias said. “This current A-F system is not what’s in the best interest of kids.”

Lindsey Juarez contributed to this Article