For Texas District Leadership

Raise your district’s accountability rating.

Get a report with detailed, specific moves that would raise your district to its next rating.

What’s in the report

The shortest path from your current rating to your next one.

Your report opens with one slide that answers the question your board keeps asking: what will it take? For Pecos-Barstow-Toyah ISD, the answer came out to 3 scaled points and three moves. Yours will look different. But every report starts here.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / SAMPLE

Three moves close the gap to a B

Current

77 scaled points

→

Target

80 scaled points

Gap: 3 points

Binding constraint: Closing the Gaps

SAMPLE · 2026 MANUAL METHODOLOGY

A custom deck, built for your board meeting.

Designed to be walked through in about twenty minutes. It moves from your current rating down to the specific student movements that close the gap to your next one.

Every number traces back to a TEA source. The file is a fully editable PowerPoint, so you can rebrand it, cut slides, or fold it into a larger board deck.

Part 1 — The gap Your current rating, target rating, and the scaled-point gap.

Part 2 — Where it lives Which domain, which campuses, which subjects, which subgroups.

Part 3 — The moves The student-count math, a three-move scenario, and the caveats.

Why this is different

“Lift Closing the Gaps by 5 points.” That’s a direction, not an action.

Every accountability plan you’ve seen stops at the domain level. Five points becomes a goal on a slide, then a footnote in a strategic plan, then nothing. This report gives you the next four layers down: which campus, which subject, which subgroup, how many students.

What you usually get

What this report gives you

“Improve Student Achievement by 5 points.” A domain-level goal with no assignment of where those points actually come from.

180 students across four subjects are one level from moving up. That is 6% of tests administered. Most are a single partial-credit SCR score from clearing the next cutline.

“Close our achievement gaps.” No subgroup, no subject, no cell, no number. A sentiment, not a target.

A 4-point lift at Pecos HS and Zavala ES earns 2.3 district points. Those two campuses hold 58% of the district STAAR weight. Everywhere else is marginal.

“Prioritize Tier 1 instruction district-wide.” No subject, no grade band, no item type, no accountable campus.

Four Closing the Gaps cells are one step from earning. Named subgroup, named subject, named instrument. Each flip is worth one CTG point.

What it answers

Six questions your cabinet is already asking.

Q.01

Which of the three domains is dragging our overall rating down, and by how much?

Q.02

Which of our campuses are worth concentrating effort on, and which aren’t?

Q.03

On each STAAR subject, how many students do we need to move from Approaches to Meets, or Meets to Masters?

Q.04

Is this a writing problem across all subjects, or a content problem in one?

Q.05

Which Closing the Gaps cells are one step from earning, and which subgroups?

Q.06

If we do the three things you recommend, what rating do we actually get next year?

How it’s built

Four public data sources. Four steps.

Every number in your report comes from a TEA source you can audit. We do not guess, we do not extrapolate, and we do not ask for anything you haven’t already published.

STEP 01INGEST

Pull your district’s public data

TEA accountability download files, PEIMS 3–12 enrollment, Texas Assessment Research Portal, TAPR for CCMR and graduation rates. We reconcile everything against published ratings before we run a single calculation.

STEP 02MODEL

Rebuild the rating formula

We apply the 2026 Manual logic as written: STAAR component weights, the “better of” rule in School Progress, the 70/30 overall split, every CTG cap. If our rebuilt score doesn’t match your published rating, we stop and check.

STEP 03REVERSE

Work backward from your target

We enumerate every campus-by-subject-by-subgroup movement that would close the gap, rank them by cost per point, and cap each campus at the largest year-over-year move Texas districts have actually achieved.

STEP 04DIAGNOSE

Test for the writing pattern

If your Meets-Masters gap is uniform across all four STAAR subjects, the problem isn’t content knowledge. It’s the short constructed responses. We flag which one your district is dealing with, because the intervention is different.

Every number in this report traces back to: TEA accountability download files, Texas Assessment Research Portal, PEIMS Fall Snapshot, TAPR.

Built by Neto-x.

We’re the AI essay grading platform used by 50,000+ teachers in 1,000+ schools across Texas and 49 other states. The privacy and security posture that makes districts comfortable with our grading product applies here too.

SOC 2 Type 1

Audited security and data controls.

FERPA · COPPA

Federal student privacy compliant.

Request your report

Tell us about your district.

That’s all we need to get started.

Texas districts only. We send the deck to your district email.

FAQ

A few things you’re probably wondering.

How accurate is the rebuilt rating compared to our actual TEA rating?

We validate our rebuild against your most recently published rating before we touch a projection. If our number doesn’t reconcile, we stop and investigate rather than ship a report. Typical variance after reconciliation is inside a single scaled point.

Does this reflect the 2026 accountability manual?

Yes. The report applies the 2026 Manual as written — STAAR component weights, the “better of” rule in School Progress, the 70/30 overall split, every Closing the Gaps cap. If TEA publishes mid-year clarifications, we reflect them on the next run.

What’s the catch? Why is this free?

Neto-x is an AI grading platform used by Texas districts and 1,000+ schools nationally. This report is how we introduce ourselves to district leadership. No commitment, no sales call required, and you don’t have to use Neto-x to keep the deck.

Who at Neto-x builds the report, and who sees our data?

A Neto-x analyst with a background in Texas accountability builds your report, reviewed by our head of assessment. It stays internal — nothing is published or shared outside the team that builds it. The methodology is the same across every district; the inputs and outputs are yours.

How is this different from what our ESC or internal research team produces?

ESC and district research summaries typically stop at the domain level — "lift Closing the Gaps by X points." This report goes four layers further down: the specific campuses, subjects, subgroups, and student head-counts behind the gap. Use it alongside your existing work, not instead of it.

What if we have a pending TEA appeal or a charter / non-standard campus structure?

We stamp every report with its data vintage and flag any pending appeals. Once the appeal resolves we refresh the analysis at no charge. The methodology also handles charters, K-12 districts, AEA campuses, and single-campus districts; when the standard approach doesn’t cleanly apply, we note the limitation in the report instead of papering over it.

Can we share the deck with our board, staff, or community?

Yes. You own the deck. Leave the methodology attribution line intact and share it however you like — board meetings, principal briefings, community presentations. It’s a PowerPoint, fully editable.