The individuals with whom legislative staff consulted in Texas discouraged the use of the first option. Low performing schools lose all hope. Simulations show that's not true. Progressive weights offset the effect of the higher growth target. Texas only has one cut point, not 5 like recommended in the California model.
Schools get more credit for moving students at the low end to higher levels.
The truth is that there are limits on how much students can grow in achievement. Everything is triggered by growth. Mr. Haertel moved ahead to his presentation on this issue, explaining that the API measures growth and cross-sectional rankings. Numerically significant subgroups all must make comparable improvement. He summarized the definition of numerically significant subgroups.