La Porte ISD to publish preliminary 2023 TEA accountability ratings April 24; district leaders urge context

La Porte ISD will receive preliminary 2023 accountability ratings from the Texas Education Agency on April 24, district staff told the Board of Trustees on a spring meeting focused on the district’s response to a new accountability system.

The ratings are “preliminary” because litigation has affected publication timing in prior years and could still change, a staff presenter said. The district’s presentation summarized three major changes in the 2023 accountability system: reliance on the new STAAR 2 test, revised weighting of the college, career and military readiness (CCMR) measure, and campus-level weighting based on membership rather than a simple average across campuses.

Board members and staff emphasized why that matters locally. Under the new calculations, district staff showed a “what‑if” column that applied the 2023 accountability rules to 2022 data; that exercise would have moved the district’s prior rating downward, the presenter said. The presenter also reviewed preliminary campus-level outcomes from the TEA release: La Porte High School at 78 (C), the Academy at DeWalt High School at 77 (C), Baker and other secondary campuses varying between C and B, and most elementary campuses at B or higher with notable single-campus improvements.

“On April 24…the 2023 preliminary accountability will be released,” the presenter said, noting the results are subject to ongoing litigation and possible appeal. The presenter added that TEA will publish a 2022 “what‑if” report alongside the 2023 preliminary release so districts and the public can compare the effect of the new rules on previous datasets.

Board members pressed for context on how the new system changed specific domain calculations. Staff explained STAAR 2 introduced new item types and digital delivery across all tested grades, the CCMR thresholds increased dramatically for an A rating (from a 60% target in prior cycles to about 88% under the new scale), and campus scores now carry different weight toward the district total depending on membership. That combination, staff said, makes direct comparisons to prior years misleading without the re‑calculation.

Trustees asked about impacts on particular cohorts of students (for example, students who missed in‑person instruction during the pandemic). Staff said those cohorts could show measurable downstream effects in specific campuses and grades, and said the district will track cohort progress and report publicly when more TEA data and internal projections are finalized.

Staff also described plans to review test items and student essays for possible rescoring where AI or grading irregularities are suspected; TEA permits rescoring requests, and a fee is waived if a rescore changes scores. The district said it will follow TEA procedures and has a process to decide which essays or assessments to submit for rescore.

District officials asked trustees to treat the forthcoming release as a public‑relations and information task: staff recommended sharing the results with context, explaining how the rules changed, and outlining targeted instructional responses rather than relying on headline grades.

Board members did not take a formal vote on accountability matters at the meeting. Staff said they will return with further analysis once TEA publishes the official files and will bring 2025 and any delayed 2024 ratings to the board when released.