Author Archives: Monty Exter

Summary of third-quarter TRS board meeting

TRS logoThe Teacher Retirement System (TRS) of Texas held its quarterly board meeting this week in Austin on Thursday, Sept. 21, and Friday, Sept. 22, 2017. You can watch video of the board meeting here, as well as review the board agenda and board book.

The TRS board received its final update on the TEAM project prior to the upcoming go live date. As we have reported previously on our blog, TEAM is the agency’s ongoing project to update its computer infrastructure and data systems. TRS Executive Director Brian Guthrie reported that everything continues to be a go for the transition to the new system, which is scheduled to go live on Oct. 2. At the next meeting, the board will receive a report on the transition from the legacy system to the new system and the transition from working on phase one of the TEAM project to working on phase two.

In a subsequent agenda item, Guthrie laid out several of his policy goals for the upcoming year. Included in those Guthrie would like to look into significantly streamlining the retire/rehire rules for educators. There are always pros and cons to any changes made to the retire/rehire rules, and advocacy groups including ATPE will stay closely involved during the process to ensure that the rules produce the best results possible for individual educators while also ensuring the overall health of the retirement fund. Additionally, TRS is set to undertake the process of completing an updated experience study, a process utilizing a third-party vendor to analyze the assumptions TRS uses to determine its actuarial numbers. TRS staff expects to complete the study by February and present findings to the TRS board for discussion at the February board retreat.

ThinkstockPhotos-465016790_moneyConducting an experience study and reconsidering the TRS assumptions, including the assumed rate of return, is a significant action for the TRS board and agency. The assumptions combined with the actual assets on hand are what TRS uses to determine the funding window and overall actuarial soundness of the pension fund. Lowering the assumed rate of return without increasing the contribution rate will significantly increase the funding window, or number of years required to fully cover pension liabilities. Under law the fund cannot be considered actuarially sound if the window is greater than 30 years. Currently the fund is just over the 30 year mark but is trending in the right direction. Lowering the assumed rate of return even slightly will add years, as many as five to 10, to the funding window. TRS’s current assumed rate of return is 8 percent. Despite the fact that TRS has a one-year rate of return at 12.9 percent, a five-year rate of return at 8.9 percent, and a 26-year rate of return at 8.7 percent, there is significant pressure, including political and peer pressure, to lower the investment return assumption. ERS recently underwent a similar process that resulted in that fund’s rate of return being lowered from 8 percent down to 7.5 percent.

Any degradation of TRS’s actuarial soundness will undoubtedly result in new calls from some advocates and state lawmakers who oppose government-funded pensions for TRS to be converted from a defined-benefit pension system into a defined-contribution 401(k)-style plan.

In addition to the meeting of the full TRS board, various sub-committees also met this week. Of particular note, the TRS policy committee made changes to a number of TRS rules, many in response to legislative changes from the 85th legislative session that just went into effect on Sept. 1, 2017. You can review the list of rules affected on the Policy Committee Agenda or take a closer look at the rules in the Policy Committee Book.

Other committees that met this week included the following with links to their materials:

  • TRS Investment Management Committee – Agenda and Book;
  • TRS Risk Management Committee – Agenda and Book;
  • TRS Compensation Committee – Agenda and Book; and
  • TRS Audit Committee – Agenda and Book

The next TRS board meeting will be a one-day meeting on October 27, 2017. Stay tuned to Teach the Vote for updates.

TRS-Care info tour coming to a city near you

ThinkstockPhotos-162674067-pillsWith TRS-Care set to undergo significant changes in 2018, TRS staff have designed a comprehensive communications plan to ensure that all  plan participants have access to the information they will need to make decisions about their healthcare coverage. TRS has designed the communications plan to “touch” the 270,000 TRS-Care participants nearly two million times between now and January.

In addition to reaching out to participants through print and electronic communications, TRS staff will be going on the road to conduct in-person seminars. The seminar schedule includes 31 locations all across the state between October 9 and November 2, 2017.

The seminars will be presented in four parts and are divide into two segments of approximately 90 minutes each. The first hour and a half focuses on participants covered by Medicare; the second hour and a half covers plan changes for the pre-Medicare population. In many of the stops, the three hour seminar will be offered once in the morning from 9 am to noon, and once in the afternoon from 1:30 to 4:30 pm. Here is a list of the scheduled meetings released by TRS. To attend an in person event will require an RSVP by phone. Seating is limited. ​Please call 1-800-850-1992 Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., Central time to reserve your seat.

For those who wish to participate in the TRS-Care seminar but are not able to attend one in person, TRS will also hold a minimum of eight webinars. TRS is adding additional webinars during the week of Nov. 6 to help offset its inability to hold more onsite seminars in the Houston area due to Hurricane Harvey.

For additional questions, please visit the TRS website or call TRS at 1-888-237-6762.

Those interested in the recent changes adopted for TRS-Care may also view video of the last TRS board meeting. The board’s discussion on TRS-Care begins around the 3 hour and 46 minute mark on the video and lasts approximately 45 minutes.

TRS adopts retiree healthcare changes, considers 403(b) provider rules

TRS logoATPE lobbyist Monty Exter attended a TRS Board meeting in Austin today. Today’s meeting was rescheduled from last week when it had to be delayed due to Hurricane Harvey. The agenda and board materials for the meeting can be found on the TRS website.

After preliminary housekeeping issues, the board took public comments. TRTA Executive Director Tim Lee engaged the board on the implementation and issus needing to be addressed due to recent legislation which made significant changes to TRS-Care.

After Mr. Lee, multiple industry professionals came to give their comments on TRS’s proposed rule change regarding 403(b) programs. All but one of those offering comments had strong concerns about the effect of the rules on the future availability of a robust cohort of providers for educators to choose. One witness thought the number of companies and products currently in the space was excessive and presented Texas educators with an overly complex and excessively expensive set of options. The board will further consider these rules during an agenda item later today on which we will report afterward for Teach the Vote.

After public comments, the board recognized Howard Goldman for his 24 years of service as TRS Communications Director.

Next the board received an update on the TEAM program. TEAM is the name given to TRS’s work toward updating the agency’s considerable computer infrastructures and data systems. Go live on phase one of the TEAM upgrades is set for October 2, 2017. There are some contingencies based on delays caused by Hurricane Harvey, as the storm may affect as many as 321,705 TRS members.

After the TEAM discussion, Brian Guthrie, TRS Executive Director, gave the board a special session update, including reporting on the passage of House Bill (HB) 21, which included an appropriation of $212 million for TRS-Care. The money appropriated will be used to soften the blow of the increased premiums and deductibles. The board returned to the issue of TRS-Care when it reviewed and adopted the premiums and plan design for TRS-Care, the retiree health benefits program, including the standard plan, the fully insured Medicare Advantage Plans, and the Medicare Part D Plans.

The attached document from TRS staff provides details of the now adopted TRS-Care plan design, how the new plan compares to the current TRS-Care plans, and what the plan would have looked like had HB 21 not passed during the special session. Changes to TRS-Care will not go into effect until Jan 1, 2018.

Following Guthrie’s comments, the board took up the certification of the contributions TRS will receive to fund TRS-ActiveCare. The board voted to certify to the State Comptroller the estimated amount of state contributions to be received by TRS-Active Care for fiscal year 2018. The certification amount totals $795,729,797 which includes $401,129,797 to meet the state contribution rate; $182,600,000 in supplemental funding passed during the regular session; and $212 million passed during the special session via HB 21. The state contribution rate has increased from 1.0% to 1.25% due to the passage of HB 3976 relating to changes for TRS-Care during the regular legislative session earlier this year.

TRS had initially scheduled a Policy Committee meeting to happen concurrently with today’s full board meeting, but that meeting had to be canceled as a result of a lack of quorum of those committee members due to Hurricane Harvey.

Proposed TRS meeting dates for 2018 are Feb. 14-16, April 19-20, June 14-15, July 27, Sept. 20-21, Oct 19, and Dec 13-14

The Board’s next regularly scheduled meeting will be September 21-22.

From Texas Educators Vote: Creating a culture of voting

ThinkstockPhotos-485333274_VoteThe following post is an update from the Texas Educators Vote coalition that was emailed to superintendents in districts who are members of the Texas Association of Community Schools (TACS). ATPE is a member of the Texas Educators Vote coalition.  

Texas Educators Vote Update for August 31, 2017

We know that many of you are focused on recovering from the wrath of Hurricane Harvey, and we stand ready to support you. For those of you who have been fortunate enough to escape the destruction, we are hopeful that you have started the process of getting staff and students registered to vote.

You may know that one of our partners is the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB). Last year, their attorneys worked with us to create a “Culture of Voting Resolution” that can be adopted by school boards to support their district’s efforts to create a culture of voting and increase civic engagement.

One of my favorite lines in the short document reads:
“WHEREAS, public education and the educated citizenry created by public education are the greatest safeguards to the State of Texas and the continuation of a free society; and the institution of public education is best protected by a robust and informed electorate;”

This resolution, once adopted, shields you as superintendents from potential pushback from citizens who may not be interested in encouraging all eligible Texans to vote. It is an important message of support from the school board and it demonstrates a commitment to the basic principles of our democracy.

It is possible that your district has already adopted this resolution, which was included in the August 2016 Regulations Resource Manual – Update 52. If you aren’t sure if your district has done so, why don’t you recommend the board adopt the resolution now to show their strong support for creating a culture of voting in your school district?

We encourage you to present the TASB Culture of Voting Resolution at your September board meeting, so get it on the agenda now! You can find the resolution here: http://texaseducatorsvote.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/TASB-Culture-of-Voting.pdf

Please let us know when your board has signed the resolution by emailing
Laura Yeager and/or Barry Haenisch. We will compile a list of districts that have signed the resolution.

We are currently updating the Texas Educators Vote website to make it as simple, useful, and interactive as possible. The updated site will enable people to sign the “Educator’s Oath to Vote” online so you won’t have to make copies or collect them this year during your kickoff event (that we will explain in more detail in an upcoming email). You may want to share the “Oath” with board members when you present the resolution.

Here is a link to the updated Oath. It simply states:
I am a Texas educator and I commit to vote in
the March primary and the November general elections.

I will vote in support of public education in the
interest of the more than 5 million Texas school children.

Step by step, we will create a robust and informed electorate, which is perhaps the most important goal of public education. Many thanks for your continued hard work to educate all children and by so doing, strengthen the great state of Texas.

Sincerely,

Laura Yeager
TACS Governmental Affairs
Director, Texas Educators Vote

 

Important update for retirees: TRS-Care list of no cost medications

Drugs and MoneyThe Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS) has released a list of medications which will be available at no cost to members on the TRS-Care Standard Plan, which will be the plan available to any pre-65 TRS retirees who are not yet Medicare eligible. The list does not apply to TRS retirees who are eligible for the TRS-Care Medicare Advantage plan (primarily retirees over the age of 65). Medicare Advantage participants will continue to have a co-pay plan that applies to their prescription purchases generally.

Note that none of the changes taking place to TRS-Care, including the introduction of this no cost prescription list, will take effect until January 1, 2018.

If you have additional questions about changes anticipated for TRS-Care, check out this blog post or contact ATPE Governmental Relations.

TRS to vote on changes to retiree healthcare plan next week

Drugs and MoneyIf you are a retired educator or someone planning to retire soon from the profession, you’ll be interested in next week’s meeting of the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) Board of Trustees. The board will meet Friday, Aug. 25, to discuss and adopt modifications to the TRS-Care healthcare program for retirees.

As we reported on Teach the Vote back in June, TRS recently announced several changes to the design of its healthcare plans after the legislature failed to completely fill a funding shortfall during the regular session. But in response to outcries from educators, legislators convinced Gov. Greg Abbott to add retiree healthcare costs to his call for the special session that ended Tuesday. The legislature passed House Bill 21 by Rep. Dan Huberty during special session that will funnel $212 million in additional money to TRS for healthcare.

TRS logoThe attached document from TRS staff provides details on plan changes that TRS board members are expected to adopt next week. Changes to TRS-Care will go into effect on Jan 1, 2018.

House Public Education Committee winds down in busy special session

The House Public Education Committee met Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. Over the two days, they considered a dozen bills and voted three out of committee. Many of the bills considered were outside the scope of the Governor’s call outlining the subjects to be considered during the special session. But as Chairman Dan Huberty relayed to one testifier, the committee had heard bills addressing everything on the call that was assigned to the House Public Education Committee, and any additional bills they heard were those filed that addressed real issues public schools in our state are facing. Huberty expressed that his committee was a serious one and would take any opportunity given to them to further the important policy discussions facing Texas students and schools.

In addition to other issues, the committee discussed bills dealing with aspects of school finance, including the Additional State Aid for Tax Reduction (ASATR) being phased out soon, and teacher merit pay programs. ATPE Lobbyist Monty Exter testified on one such merit pay plan, House Bill (HB) 354 by Rep. Jason Villalba. Exter commented that, while underfunded, the underlying formula the bill proposed to fund districts whose teachers agreed to participate in a local merit pay plan was a potentially promising way to fund a future merit pay system should stakeholders be able to agree on the parameters of the merit pay proposal itself.

The committee voted out three bills Wednesday morning. Committee members moved HB 198 by Rep. Travis Clardy after Chairman Huberty offered a complete committee substitute for the bill that as originally filed has the backing of the governor’s office. The committee’s new substitute version took the bill from being a TEA commissioner-developed merit pay plan to a commission that will study teacher compensation. The commission would include six legislators, six stakeholders; including two classroom teachers, and the commissioner of education or his designee. The Committee also moved HB 378, a final attempt by Representative Ken King to negotiate a deal that extends ASATR funding to districts that will be hit hardest by the scheduled conclusion of this 2006 “hold harmless” provision. Finally, the committee moved SB 16 by Sen. Larry Taylor, which calls for a commission to study school finance. Before moving Chairman Taylor’s bill, the committee substituted it with the language from HB 191 by Rep. Phil King, which also calls for a Commission on School finance but proposes a slightly different composition of committee members.

These hearings likely mark the last regular hearings for the House Public Education Committee during the current special session.

New tools help educators calculate Social Security benefits after WEP or GPO reductions

Retirement planning written on a notepad.One of the most common questions I get from members calling in to the ATPE state office for guidance is about how their TRS pension will affect their ability to draw either their own or their spouse’s Social Security benefits. When I get these questions I always find myself walking the member through the intricacies of one or both of the provisions in federal law that can reduce the Social Security benefits they would otherwise receive. Additional information about these offsets, the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO), can be found here on ATPE’s website.

Up until now, I have been able to explain to ATPE members how the WEP and GPO may affect them, but I haven’t been able to provide them with any direct resources that would show them what their personal Social Security benefits are likely to look like after being reduced by one of these offsets, until now. I recently learned of a new suite of online calculators that have been made available by the federal Social Security Administration on its website that allow the public to get a better understanding of what their Social Security benefit will look like. Two of these calculators are specifically designed to help educators and people subject to either GPO or WEP reductions to determine their remaining Social Security benefit.

The calculators are fairly simple and straightforward to use, but you will need some information about your personal Social Security savings that you can find on your Social Security statement. You’ll also need to have information about your TRS pension that you can get from TRS either by calling the agency, using the MyTRS member portal, or looking on your TRS statement.

You can find the WEP calculator here and the GPO calculator here.

TRS to consider whether you are paying too much for your 403(b)

TRS logoAll state agencies adhere to a regular cycle of rule review. This requirement is intended to help ensure that state rules and regulations stay relatively up to date. Often times a required rule review will result in little more than the existing rule being published, without significant changes, in the Texas Register to satisfy public notice and then readopted essentially as is. Sometimes, however, an agency will take the opportunity of a rule coming up for standard review as a chance to evaluate the policy addressed by the rule and make substantive changes. Such is the case with a Teacher Retirement System (TRS) rule on certification of 403(b) vendors.

While Texas educators’ main source of retirement income will likely be their TRS pension, a TRS pension payment alone will not support more than a modest standard of living during retirement for most educators. That’s where supplemental retirement investment products, such as 403(b)s, come in. They encourage educators to put away additional dollars by providing a relatively simple vehicle, complete with tax advantages, for educators to use when saving for their retirement.

The legislature has tasked TRS with maintaining a list of 403(b) providers that are eligible to offer products to public school employees. In order to be eligible, a provider must meet certain requirements, including some set by state laws and others by agency rules. The agency is currently considering whether to tighten its eligibility rules, particularly with regard to fees that providers can charge educators both for investing and for early withdrawal penalties of certain investments.

ThinkstockPhotos-465016790_moneyThe agency’s proposed rule amendment, which can be found here, was the subject of an informal conference at TRS this week in which many members of the financial services community expressed concerns over the new rule proposal. Essentially all the discrete concerns expressed during the hearing boil down to the basic belief that the new rules create an environment for 403(b) providers in which many of them will not be able to do business profitably, and therefore the number of 403(b) providers offering products to Texas educators will drop dramatically under the proposed rule. The representatives of the financial sector believe this would be a disservice, of course, to Texas educators who benefit from a robust availability of 403(b) products in order to better meet their retirement goals.

TRS staff will now review and address the comments collected both from those who spoke at the conference this week and the many more who will submit written comments. The staff will then determine whether or not to make additional changes to the agency’s proposed rules before the recommending them for adoption by the TRS board. Stay tuned to Teach the Vote for updates as the rulemaking process continues.

Did lawmakers make the grade on updating the accountability system?

skd282694sdcDid lawmakers make the grade on updating the accountability system? You be the judge.

House Bill (HB) 22 by Representative Dan Huberty (R-Kingwood) is likely the most broadly impactful piece of education legislation passed this session. It represents a compromise that was crafted by a conference committee of 10 legislators after the House and Senate passed differing versions of the accountability bill. Over the next two years, HB 22 will affect every district, campus, and charter school. Below are questions and answers about how ATPE perceives this latest iteration of the accountability system will work.

Does HB 22 maintain an A-F accountability system?

Yes, despite parents, educators, administrators, board members, students, and a host of other advocacy groups expressing their concerns about moving forward with an A-F accountability system, the Senate, largely at the direction of the Lt Governor, made it clear that no bill eliminating A-F would be allowed to pass.

When does the new bill go into effect?

Having been passed by more than two thirds of each chamber, HB 22 will go into effect as soon as the governor signs it. However, not all portions of the bill are immediately applicable. Most of HB 22’s provisions will first begin to be implemented during the 2017-18 school year, including assignment of district-level A-F ratings.  Campus-level A-F ratings will not be assigned until the 2018-19 school year. However, the commissioner of education will produce a report that will include non-official campus level ratings using 2017-18 data to be turned into the legislature by Jan. 1, 2019.

Is the HB 22 accountability system based on STAAR test scores?

At least in part, yes. To what degree depends largely on how the commissioner writes the administrative rules to implement the new law. HB 22 certainly allows the commissioner to develop a system that is highly dependent on STAAR test data, particularly at the elementary and middle school levels.

What will the new domains be under the state accountability system?

HB 22 calls for a system with three state-level domains, down from five.  The domains include the following:

Student Achievement This domain includes students’ absolute performance on the STAAR test. For high schools, it also includes the following other factors: TSI, AP, and IB tests; completion of dual credit courses; military enlistment; earning an industry certification; being accepted into certain post-secondary industry certification programs; successful completion of a college prep course under TEC 28.014; “successfully [meeting] standards on a composite of indicators that through research indicates the student ’s preparation to enroll and succeed, without remediation, in an entry-level general education course for a baccalaureate degree or associate degree;” graduation rates; successful completion of an OnRamps™ dual enrollment course; and award of an associate’s degree.
School Progress This domain includes student growth as measured by the percentage of students who met the standard for improvement on the STAAR test and an evaluation of performance as compared to similar districts or campuses. It is unclear whether the “performance” being compared is exclusively STAAR performance or if it will be broader.
Closing the Gaps This domain measures the differences for various categories of sub-populations such as racial, socioeconomic, special education, low mobility, and high mobility students. The bill does not specify which differentiated data is too be used for this purpose. Will it be only STAAR data, or will other data be used as well? The statute is also silent on how the sub-populations will be compared. For example, will gaps be compared to similar districts, or will they be compared within individual districts over time to determine if the gaps are closing, widening, or staying about the same?

Note: there is nothing in the statute as changed by HB 22 that would preclude the commissioner from creating a state-level accountability system that evaluates elementary and middle school campuses entirely on different manipulations of STAAR data.

What is a local accountability system?

Under HB 22, a district may create locally developed accountability domains and may use those domains in addition to the domains required by TEA to award district and campus accountability ratings, including overall ratings. Local domains must be assigned an A-F rating, must be valid and reliable, and must be capable of being audited by a third party. The commissioner of education will write administrative rules on the use of local accountability plans, and TEA will have authority to review and approve those plans.

Districts choosing to use a local accountability system are responsible for producing district and campus report cards locally.

How will the summative or overall grade be calculated under the new accountability system?

Each of the three state-level domains will receive a letter grade. At least 30 percent of the summative grade must be based on domain three (Closing the Gaps). The better of the two grades for domain one (Student Achievement) and domain two (School Performance, a/k/a student growth) will make up the remaining calculation for the summative grade, up to 70%. There is an exception, however, if a district or campus receives an F grade on either domain one or domain two; in that case, the highest grade it can receive for that part of the calculation is a B.

In case it’s not immediately clear, much will depend on the commissioner’s rules to implement HB 22. If the commissioner goes with a breakdown of 30% and 70% as contemplated above, the effect will be that a higher grade in domain three can never bring a district’s or campus’ summative grade up a letter; by contrast, a lower grade in domain three would always bring a district’s or campus’ summative grade down a letter. #AintMathFun

If that’s not already complex enough, here is where it gets really tricky. If one or more districts choose to develop one or more local domains to add to their accountability system, the commissioner can, but does not have to, write rules that would allow for up to half of the overall performance rating for that district or campus to be based on the ratings of the local domain(s). That is unless the campus or district would receive a D or an F on the overall performance rating using only the state level domains. The statute is not really clear what overall performance rating the district or campus would receive under that scenario.

How do A-F ratings relate to acceptable and unacceptable performance?

There are several laws in the Texas Education Code that continue to reference either “acceptable” or “unacceptable” performance as triggers for various actions to occur. As opposed to changing all of those references throughout state law, legislators simply benchmarked the new A-F labels to the existing terms.

When A-F was first rolled out, the cut point between acceptable and unacceptable was between grades C and D. In the current accountability system as it exists prior to HB 22, improvement required (IR) constitutes unacceptable performance. IR correlates to an F, not a D, under the A-F system. Because of this, setting unacceptable performance at a D under the new system would represent an expansion of what the state considers unacceptable performance. This would result in spreading state resources for turning around struggling schools among a larger group of campuses and districts, which would take the focus off those with the greatest need for intervention. HB 22 has resolved this issue by resetting the unacceptable cut point at the F rating.

The new A-F labels will coordinate with previous labels as follows:

Acceptable level of performance

A

Exemplary Met Standard
Acceptable level of performance

B

Recognized Met Standard
Acceptable level of performance

C

Acceptable Met Standard
Acceptable level of performance

D

Needs Improvement* Met Standard
Unacceptable level of performance

F

Unacceptable Improvement Required

* This is a new label created by HB 22 that does not correspond to an older system.

What is the difference between a D and F grade under HB 22?

Before HB 22, there was little to no differentiation between getting a D or an F in terms of consequences. Under HB 22, getting a D will no longer trigger the immediate accountability sanctions associated with an unacceptable level of performance. However, there are some requirements attached to this next to lowest ranking.

Year 1 of a D rating in either a single domain or overall The Commissioner shall instruct the district’s board of trustees to develop a local district or campus improvement plan.
Years 2 and beyond with a D rating overall The Commissioner shall implement interventions and sanctions that apply to an unacceptable campus until the district or campus is ranked C or higher on the overall rating.
Years 2 and beyond with better than a D rating overall but a D rating in a single domain The Commissioner shall instruct the district’s board of trustees to develop a local district or campus improvement plan.


How will stakeholders be involved under the new law?

Through multiple, sometimes broad grants of rulemaking authority, the Commissioner has been given a massive amount of latitude in structuring how the new accountability system under HB 22 will actually work. Thanks to amendment language requested by ATPE, this authority will be balanced at least to some degree by a statutory requirement to involve a stakeholder group in those decisions. HB 22 requires that the group must include  school board members, administrators and teachers employed by school districts, parents of students enrolled in school districts, and other interested stakeholders.

 

Additional changes made by HB 22:

Public education grants and mandatory access to transfers

A student at a campus that receives an unacceptable rating in both the student achievement and school progress domains must be allowed to transfer to another campus in the district and will be eligible for public education grant (PEG) funding.

Extra- and co-curricular indicator study

The commissioner shall study the feasibility of including an indicator that accounts for extracurricular and co-curricular student activity. By the year 2022, the commissioner shall either incorporate the indicator into the accountability system or present a feasibility report to the legislature.

Adopting indicators and setting cut scores

The commissioner may adopt indicators for the accountability system or standards (cut scores) at any point during the school year prior to evaluation of the district or campus. In setting the cut score for all indicators yearly, the commissioner shall consult with educators, parents, and business and industry representatives. The standards are to be modified in a way that promotes continuous improvement in student achievement and closing education gaps.

Reporting

Each school year, the commissioner shall provide each school district a document in a simple, accessible format that explains the accountability performance measures, methods, and procedures.

Thanks to language requested by ATPE, the commissioner, in consultation with stakeholders, must also develop language for each domain that clearly describes the district and campus performance on the indicators used to determine those assigned performance ratings.