Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accountability Ratings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Laredo ISD projects small rise in district accountability rating; several campuses dip
Summary
Laredo ISD staff presented preliminary state accountability projections at the Curriculum and Instruction Committee on Aug. 5 showing the district’s overall projected rating rising from 87 to 88 but with several campus-level declines.
Laredo Independent School District presented preliminary state accountability projections at its Curriculum and Instruction Committee on Aug. 5, projecting a districtwide increase from an 87 (2023–24) to an 88 (2024–25) while flagging several campus-level declines.
Myra Garcia, the district’s administrator for accountability, told the committee that the Texas Education Agency’s A–F accountability system “evaluates our academic performance of public schools and assigns letter grades to both districts and campuses.” She reminded members the official ratings will be released to school systems on Aug. 13 and to the public on Aug. 15, and that projections carry a 2–3 point caveat pending TEA methodology adjustments.
Garcia’s presentation broke the district totals into elementary, middle and high school projections. For 2023–24 the district had 15 campuses projected as A (exemplary), 8 as B (recognized), 4 as C (satisfactory) and 1 as D (in need of improvement). In the 2024–25 projection the number of A campuses rose to 19, Bs remained at 8, Cs fell to zero and there was one projected D. At the elementary level staff reported a net shift that included two campuses moving from C to A but also seven elementary campuses that dropped compared with the prior year.
Committee members pressed for campus-level detail. Trustee Goyo M. Lopez asked why some campuses dropped multiple points despite strong previous performance; Garcia and Roger Garcia, assistant superintendent for curriculum, explained that domain scoring can reflect different measures (student achievement, school progress/growth and closing gaps), and a campus with a near-maximum prior score may have “less room to grow.” As an example, Garcia cited McDonald (identified in the presentation) which moved from 99 to a projected 93 because its prior growth left less relative growth available.
On secondary projections the district reported three high schools projected to earn an A for both years and one high school maintaining a B. Middle schools showed more movement: in 2023–24 the district had two middle schools with a C and one with a D; in 2024–25 staff projected several individual middle-school campus shifts, including one campus moving from C to B and another from D to B.
Board members asked for follow-up materials. Officials said they would provide executive summaries and campus-by-campus files once TEA’s preliminary files are available — noting the district typically receives those files the morning of the release and then uploads them to the district data system. Garcia emphasized that the projections are based on TEA inputs and “the state can come in and add” factors before publishing final ratings.
The committee did not take formal action at the meeting. Staff said they will return with more detailed, campus-level summaries after the state’s release and that executive directors would present campus-specific plans of action for schools with declines.
Ending: District staff emphasized these are preliminary projections and that TEA’s formal release and any post-release corrections will determine the official campus and district ratings.
