Arlington ISD says vendor error on AI scoring cost campuses higher grades; district to file appeals

Arlington ISD officials told the Board of Trustees on Aug. 21 that a technical failure by testing vendor Cambium prevented 4,370 student written responses from being rescored by human readers in time for the Texas Education Agency'published Aug. 15 accountability ratings.

The rescoring request, submitted by Arlington ISD in June, was processed and later confirmed by TEA after Cambium reported an internal processing error, Dr. Lopez said. The rescoring produced score increases that would raise letter grades at several campuses; the district plans to file appeals with TEA to update the published ratings.

Why it matters: The district said roughly 21 percent of rescored tests showed a raw- or scale-score increase and 14 percent gained a performance-level change. Those shifts would have altered several campus accountability letters published Aug. 15, and trustees warned that inaccurate public ratings can affect communities, families and students.

Dr. Lopez, the district official who presented the rescore results, said the district submitted 4,370 assessments for human rescore because submitting every assessment would have cost an estimated $1.5 million. "So we were strategic by identifying assessments for rescore based on their proximity to the next performance level with those that were within 2 items prioritized for submission," she said.

Campus-level results: After TEA rescored the submitted items, district staff reported increases that would change projected letter grades for a number of schools. Examples the district singled out for appeal include Owsley Junior High (projected from a B to an A with rescored results), Duff Elementary (B to A), Hill Elementary (C to B), Peach Elementary (D to C) and Berry Elementary (forced F to D). The presentation said Arlington High School also showed a letter-grade increase when staff completed later analysis.

Board reaction: Several trustees voiced frustration with TEA's reliance on AI scoring and the short timeframe districts receive to request rescoring. "When we read the news headlines that are given... those headlines that people are reading is wrong," Trustee Richardson said, arguing the published Aug. 15 ratings misstate campus performance. Trustee Fowler said: "I'm angry. And it takes a lot to get me angry, but this has angered me."

Process and next steps: Dr. Lopez said TEA'staff (including Director of Assessment Kevin Mallendrokala) acknowledged the vendor error and expedited processing once the issue was discovered, but the rescored results could not be incorporated into the Aug. 15 public release. The district will compile documentation and submit appeals for the affected campuses; Dr. Smith said the appeal submission deadline is Sept. 12.

District context: The board and staff emphasized that rescoring affects not only accountability letters but also how families and communities interpret school performance. Trustees urged state legislators and education officials to review the scoring and accountability process. Trustee Mike asked whether submitting more essays would have produced larger district-wide changes; staff said the number of submissions matters and small, targeted submissions were chosen because of cost and the one-week window districts have to select items for rescore.

What was not decided: The board did not vote on formal policy or funding changes at the Aug. 21 meeting. Staff said they will pursue appeals for specific campuses and continue to document the issue with TEA.

Ending: District staff said they will work through the appeals process and provide updated information to trustees and the public once TEA processes any successful appeals. The board encouraged staff to include the issue in legislative conversations about STAAR scoring and accountability.