When the 79th Texas Legislature overhauled the state’s public school accountability system, lawmakers addressed the high-stakes nature of tying student achievement on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test to a school’s accountability rating. How? By allowing for other factors, such as growth in student achievement, to be considered when determining accountability ratings. To measure that improvement, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) developed the Texas Projection Measure (TPM). Recent state accountability rating results have raised questions, however, as to whether the TPM is being used properly or even a valid model for tracking improvement in student performance.

The TPM uses a complicated formula to predict whether students who fail the TAKS test are likely to pass in the future. Schools are then given credit for students who are predicted to pass in the future, even if they actually failed the test. Because of this adjustment, 73 districts and 1,111 campuses saw their ratings rise from recognized to exemplary last year, and 178 districts and 1,077 campuses climbed from acceptable to recognized.

Critics say the TPM is inaccurate and serves only to prop up poor-performing schools. During a hearing of the Education Subcommittee, Rep. Scott Hochberg (D–Houston)—vice chairman of the House Public Education Committee and chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Education—pointed to instances where students could score a zero on the TAKS test yet still be counted as passing under the TPM. Hochberg revealed that TEA’s own analysis showed that the accuracy rate of the predictions for those students whose performance was upgraded using the TPM was in the range of 50 percent. Hochberg added that even if the TPM were accurate, he doesn’t believe that rating the performance of a school using a projection of how fourth-graders might do in the fifth grade, and so on, is an appropriate way to measure student improvement.

Supporters of the TPM, including Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott, say that the system is valid and works. According to Scott, schools are using the projection measure as a way to encourage kids who failed the test but are projected to pass in the future. Scott also believes that the TPM helps schools by allowing them to focus more attention on students who have been identified as likely to fail. In recognition of dissenting opinions, however, he has stated that the TPM will most likely be eliminated or revised in 2011.

ATPE will continue to follow this issue and report on it as it develops.

Questions? Contact ATPE Governmental Relations.