GISD fails new accountability rating

Just in time for the start of school, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) announced its accountability scores for state school districts. Gonzales ISD was none too pleased with their score, having received an overall “F” rating in the new Texas Achievement Performance Report (TAPR).

The ratings are the first in the state's new A-F scale, which garnered much scrutiny when it was proposed. All Texas multi-campus public and charter schools get a rating. Of the 742 public schools getting scores, only nine received a failing grade.

Of note are that single-campus districts like Waelder ISD are not graded by this system, rather, they still rely on the older scheme of “met standard” or “improvement required.” WISD achieved “met standard” scoring an overall score 74. Additionally, 92 school districts were not graded because of certain criteria met from the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey.

GISD officials were quick to point out that the scores were preliminary and that an investigation will be launched to find why this score did not meet the district's anticipated score.

"We want to assure you, our community, that the GISD preliminary rating of ‘F’ is NOT a representation of our campus performance,” said GISD Superintendent Dr. Kim Strozier in an online statement. “It is a representation of administrative errors that caused the district to sacrifice well-earned points... GISD should have earned a higher score. The reason that did not happen is administrative error driven.”

She praised her campus staff and faculty as outstanding as well as the students they lead.

Scores can be viewed for districts at www.txschools.org. The site explains that grades for schools are calculated based on performance in three key areas, or domains. They take the higher score between how much students know and can do, known as “student achievement,” or how much better students are doing than last year or than peers in similar schools, known as “school progress.” They then consider whether performance gaps exist among different groups of students, which they call “closing the gaps.”

Districtwide, GISD also received a score of “D” on student achievement, getting a score of 60 out of 100; a “C” in school progress, with 70 out of 100; and an “F” in closing the gaps, with 34 out of 100. They also got a “B” in the financial integrity rating, scoring 84 out of 100.

On a campus-by-campus basis, scores were mixed. Gonzales High School received a designation of “improvement required” with a score of 58 out of 100, Gonzales Junior High “met standard” with a score of 82, North Avenue Intermediate “met standard” with 74, Gonzales Elementary, East Avenue Primary, and the primary academy were all paired together and got “improvement required” with a score of 56.

“Although our students met expectations — as they have in the past, according to a passing standard — we must include more in the way of certifications,” said Strozier in an interview. “Our scores were affected by factors such as opportunities to graduate with certifications or join the military. GISD offers more vocational courses than any of our surrounding districts. We are working to offer more in the way of [TEA's] approved industry based certifications.”

Superintendent Jon Orozco responded to Waelder’s “met standard” rating, stating that he believed “that districts and students need to be evaluated accountability measures for student progress.”

“Many individuals and organizations will debate how and when these evaluations should occur,” he continued. “Regardless of any state's accountability system, all school districts need to be held accountable for student learning. As Superintendent of Schools, it is my responsibility to meet the measures as adopted. Our focus at Waelder ISD has always been to provide quality instruction focused on high student academic outcomes for all learners. We strategically plan to accomplish learning goals by building long-lasting relationships of trust between staff, students, and parents.”

Down at Nixon-Smiley CISD, the scores were better. The district overall scored a “B” with 82 out of 100, student achievement fetched a “C” with a score of 75, school progress got a “B” with 85, and closing the gaps got a “C” with score of 74. By campus, the high school “met standard” with an 80, the middle school “met standard” with an 89, and the elementary “met standard” with a 64.

Even though NSCISD scored well, that did not stop Superintendent Dr. Cathy Lauer from casting skepticism on the outcome of the TAPR scores, saying that they do not consider local initiatives. For their financial score of 100, she said that factors seem to change from year-to-year even though their fiscal management continues to be the same. The indicators are important, she said, but it is not a measure of who the district is overall.

And even the “B” rating isn't too much reason to celebrate, she continued, because she isn't even sure how the TEA arrived at that score.

“We honestly thought we were getting a 'C,'" Lauer said. “Therefore, we don't even know how to improve for next year or keep ourselves from slipping to a lower score. The whole system is complicated and attempts to define a whole lot of data in to a very small label.”

She compared it to listing a student as a “B” average, which does not reveal anything else such as being an exceptional reader or gifted athlete, or even what other troubles the student might have. The same idea applies to her district, she said. This was not to negate the hard work her teachers have taken to get to this level, but she would rather look at the whole picture, not just “a single letter based on a formula we can't decipher.”

“Moreover, I am especially sympathetic to districts like Gonzales who received an 'F,'” she said. “That doesn't say anything about the many great things going on there or the exceptional programs they have put in place based on local need. I truly hope the community will look at the larger picture.”

The scoring system has been a lightning rod of criticism from the beginning, with many superintendents and elected officials coming out against the law when it was first proposed. The Texas State Teacher's Association (TSTA) went as far as to call it a misleading way to rate schools.

“We remain strongly opposed to the new A‐F grading system,” said TSTA President Noel Candelaria. “It is based largely on STAAR scores, a misleading, incomplete way to gauge student success, and it was designed by the governor and the legislative majority to pass the blame for their own failures to children and educators.

“Instead of addressing these and other critical needs of our students, our state leaders are trying to hide their own failings by assigning arbitrary, misleading letter grades to under‐funded school districts.”

Reports have shown skewed results, such as some large districts in the state having high ratings under the old grading system and then tumbling a year later when the A-F scores were released. Others say that the system is being rigged as a way for lawmakers to cry foul on public schools viewed as performing poorly and thus use the argument to send taxpayer dollars to private schools under the “school choice” scheme.

Regardless, GISD awaits the ruling on their appeal, which will be announced in December.