The Texas Education Agency (TEA) released a new letter to administrators Nov. 6 on the Industry‐Based Certification (IBC) List for public school accountability. This has important implications for secondary continuing education (CTE) programs, accountability reporting, and graduation pathways. The letter announces that TEA has finalized the list of 523 IBCs that will count toward public school accountability starting in the 2025-26 school year (applying to accountability ratings issued in August 2027). The list is growing from 309 in the previous 2022-2025 cycle.

What this means for educators is that your district’s career and technical education (CTE) and college/career/military readiness (CCMR) systems must align with the new IBC list. TEA explains the criteria used to evaluate more than 2,000 unique credentials, including whether they meet the definition of certification, are industry recognized, are attainable by a high school student, portable, and represent an end-of-program capstone. The letter notes that while the 2025-30 list is effective immediately for student crediting, the tier assignments (which signify relative value) will not be applied to accountability ratings until 2028 following rulemaking.

Districts will need to check whether existing CTE programs of study reflect IBCs on the 2025-30 list. If your district uses a certification on the 2022-25 list that is no longer on the new list, TEA clarifies that no more than 20% of graduates (or five graduates, whichever is higher) may earn CCMR credit solely via that removed IBC when ratings are calculated for 2027. Second, note the data-reporting timing. Codes for newly added IBCs will be released in the PEIMS data standards for the 2026 summer and extended-year submissions. Students in grades 9-12 may have taken an IBC added to the list as early as Sept. 1, 2025.

From an implementation standpoint, educators should expect their districts will want to engage CTE and accountability staff now to ensure the district’s Program of Study (POS) framework documents are updated to reflect the new list. Districts should also communicate with teachers and academic advisors about the implications for students choosing credentials and review scheduling, sequencing, student advising and reporting systems to ensure alignment. TEA provides on the IBC page the “Final 2025-2030 IBC List,” “Comprehensive 2025 IBC Evaluation Results,” and a “IBCs to Program of Study Crosswalk,” along with FAQ guidance.

District leaders will have to evaluate how programs intersect with accountability and workforce-readiness policy to best embed “meaningful” industry-recognized credentials that continue to be a priority for college, career, and military readiness metrics and for the districts’ accountability ratings under the A–F system. If a certification doesn’t meet industry-recognized standards or align with student well-being and post-secondary opportunities, it has been removed, which means the educators who previously taught that class will need to pivot. The fact that TEA reviewed over 2,000 credentials signifies increasing scrutiny of credential quality and alignment.

Districts will need to track local data on how many students earn IBC-based CCMR credit, especially where older certifications are phased out, and assess how this list change may impact equity across campuses, especially with respect to access to high-value credentials in under-resourced schools or rural districts. ATPE will monitor and report back on TEA rulemaking on tiers, which will affect how much “value” each IBC provides in accountability weighting beginning in 2028.