The Texas Education Agency (TEA) adopts amendments to §§97.1051, 97.1055, 97.1059, 97.1065, and 97.1067; the repeal of §§97.1061, 97.1063, and 97.1064; and new §§97.1061, 97.1063, 97.1064, and 97.1066, concerning accreditation status, standards, and sanctions. The amendments to §§97.1055, 97.1059, and 97.1065; the repeal of §§97.1061, 97.1063, and 97.1064; and new §97.1066 are adopted without changes to the proposed text as published in the April 29, 2016, issue of the Texas Register (41 TexReg 3068) and will not be republished. The amendments to §97.1051 and §97.1067 and new §§97.1061, 97.1063, and 97.1064 are adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the April 29, 2016, issue of the Texas Register (41 TexReg 3068). The adopted amendments, repeals, and new rules update processes and procedures related to campus sanctions and interventions to reflect changes made by House Bill (HB) 1842, 84th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2015.

REASONED JUSTIFICATION. HB 1842, 84th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2015, amended Texas Education Code (TEC), Chapter 39, relating to interventions and sanctions for campuses that do not meet state accountability standards.

The adopted revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 97, Subchapter EE, reflect changes made by HB 1842, as follows.

The adopted amendment to 19 TAC §97.1051, Definitions, revises definitions to provide a definition of board of managers, which must, if possible, include the statutory requirements of community leaders, business representatives, and education experts; provide a definition of campus turnaround that highlights achieving acceptable performance within two years, which is the timeframe required by the statutory changes to TEC, §39.107, for a turnaround plan to achieve its purpose, and that clarifies that interventions initiated by statute due to "unacceptable performance" will be those ratings established under the academic accountability manual as unacceptable in any particular year; remove the definition of campus closure, which prohibited its use for educational purposes as the changes to TEC, §39.107, allow its use for educational purposes in certain instances. Adopted new §97.1066 details current options. The adopted amendment also revises the definitions to remove language regarding campus closure, which, along with language regarding alternative management, were moved to separate sections of rule to provide better clarity and organization of requirements; provide a definition of district coordinator of school improvement to ensure districts clearly identify an individual responsible for being a member of the campus intervention team (CIT); provide a definition of professional service provider as an educator approved by the commissioner as statute provides the commissioner the flexibility to require districts to select or be assigned a provider; and remove the definition of campus reconstitution to align with the statutory changes.

Based on public comment, 19 TAC §97.1051 was modified at adoption to add a definition for root cause to align with statute.

The adopted amendment to 19 TAC §97.1055, Accreditation Status, provides clarifying language since legislative changes in HB 1842 authorized monitoring reviews in addition to investigations under TEC, §39.056. The adopted amendment also provides clarification that grades, course credits, and diplomas issued by a school district prior to annexation remain valid.

The adopted amendment to 19 TAC §97.1059, Standards for All Accreditation Sanction Determinations, updates a cross reference to the rule for financial accountability ratings.

The adopted repeal of 19 TAC §97.1061, Interventions and Sanctions for Campuses, removes outdated provisions. Adopted new 19 TAC §97.1061, Interventions and Sanctions for Campuses, provides clarifying language on the required sanctions and interventions for campuses that do not meet academic accountability standards. The adopted new rule outlines the Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS) continuous improvement process and specific intervention requirements for each consecutive year that a campus does not meet academic accountability standards.

The TAIS process is a research-based best practice for improving performance on low-performing campuses. The TAIS provides a framework for the CIT to work with stakeholders to implement strategies that will address areas of low performance.

Based on public comment, new 19 TAC §97.1061 was modified at adoption to clarify the roles of the commissioner, campus, and CIT in alignment with statutory requirements.

The adopted repeal of 19 TAC §97.1063, Campus Intervention Team, removes repetitive requirements that are outlined in statute. Adopted new 19 TAC §97.1063, Campus Intervention Team, provides clarification from statute about the role and members of the CIT. Based on public comment, new §97.1063 was modified at adoption to clarify additional statutory responsibilities for the CIT.

The adopted repeal of 19 TAC §97.1064, Reconstitution, removes outdated provisions. Adopted new 19 TAC §97.1064, Campus Turnaround Plan, updates provisions from previous reconstitution requirements, which were repealed under the statutory changes of HB 1842. The adopted new rule reflects new campus turnaround requirements by outlining the procedures, content, and timeline for developing and submitting a campus turnaround plan for commissioner approval, as follows.

Subsection (a) imposes the statutory requirement for creation of a turnaround plan after two consecutive years of poor performance.

As campus interventions apply to open-enrollment charters, subsection (b) implements the statutory duty imposed on an open-enrollment charter to modify its charter to enact the turnaround plan. The adoption also specifies that the governing board must perform the duties imposed on boards of trustees.

Subsection (c) implements statutory authorization to use regional education service centers.

Subsection (d) implements new statutory provisions requiring input from parents and the community in developing the turnaround plan. The adoption imposes timelines necessary to ensure proper notice and inclusion of the input received. Based on public comment, subsection (d) was modified at adoption to add stakeholders to the list of groups that should be notified and provided an opportunity to give input.

Subsection (e) implements the statutory requirement that parents, the community, and stakeholders provide input in developing the plan. The adoption clarifies that a campus-level committee and teachers must be included since the statutory requirement of a turnaround plan requires including comments from those entities.

Subsection (f) implements statutory provisions requiring certain components of the turnaround plan.

Subsection (g) requires districts, after board of trustee approval, to submit the adopted campus turnaround plan electronically to the commissioner by March 1. As statute requires extensive planning, approval, and then implementation, this date and delivery method afford the greatest possibility of effectively achieving all three phases.

Subsection (h) allows a district to implement the turnaround plan or implement a modified version even if the subsequent rating removes the requirement to implement the plan, as authorized by statute.

The adopted amendment to 19 TAC §97.1065, Repurposing, Alternative Management, or Campus Closure, incorporates changes to commissioner determinations for campuses that do not meet academic accountability requirements. Specifically, the adopted amendment removes various references and provisions regarding repurposing, alternative management, and optional waiving of imposing sanctions as HB 1842 repealed these actions. Similarly, the adopted amendment removes old law processes regarding when functions such as repurposing, alternative management, and closure would be used; imposes the HB 1842 requirement that the commissioner must either, at the commissioner's discretion, close the campus or appoint a board of managers over the district upon five years of consecutive poor performance; clarifies the commissioner's authority to not approve a campus turnaround plan resulting in campus closure, alternative management, or appointment of a board of managers to oversee district operations; and changes the section title to "Commissioner Determinations for Decisions Preceding Alternative Management, Campus Closure, or Board of Managers."

Adopted new 19 TAC §97.1066, Campus Closure, clarifies the process and procedures in the event that the commissioner orders campus closure. As statute does not explicitly state a timeframe for closure, adopted new subsection (a) clarifies that the closure date will be defined by the commissioner for each decision. Adopted new subsections (b) - (d) address the statutory requirements for when a building containing a closed campus may be used for alternative purposes and for a student's option to attend any other campus in the district.

The adopted amendment to 19 TAC §97.1067, Alternative Management of Campuses, clarifies the process and procedures in the event the commissioner orders alternative management. The adopted amendment includes the addition of language, which was removed from 19 TAC §97.1065, regarding the closure of a campus due to poor performance upon the return of the campus to district operation. Based on public comment, 19 TAC §97.1067 was modified at adoption to clarify the terms of alternative management in alignment with statute.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES. The public comment period on the proposal began April 29, 2016, and ended May 31, 2016. Following is a summary of public comments received and corresponding agency responses regarding the proposed revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 97, Planning and Accountability, Subchapter EE, Accreditation Status, Standards, and Sanctions.

Comment. The Texas Classroom Teachers Association (TCTA) commented that the definition of root cause should be included in 19 TAC §97.1051.

Agency Response. The agency agrees and has added a definition for root cause to 19 TAC §97.1051.

Comment. TCTA commented that new 19 TAC §97.1061 should be revised to better align with enabling statute. TCTA provided specific rule text recommendations that included clarifying the roles of the commissioner and campus in proposed subsection (a)(1) and (2); specifying that the CIT is responsible for the provisions in proposed subsection (a)(3)-(6); including language in proposed subsection (a)(4) referencing the guidelines and procedures in TEC, §39.106(b)(1)-(12); adding a new CIT responsibility to recommend actions relating to any area of insufficient performance in accordance with TEC, §39.106(c); modifying the CIT responsibilities in proposed subsection (a)(5), (a)(5)(B) and (C), and (a)(6); adding a new subsection to specify the responsibilities of the board of trustees of a school district after a targeted improvement plan or updated plan is submitted to the board; and adding clarifying language in proposed subsection (b) that specifies which provisions in subsection (a) are required of a campus that is assigned an unacceptable rating for a second consecutive year.

Agency Response. The agency partially agrees and has modified new 19 TAC §97.1061 accordingly to better align with statute and minimize redundant information in the rule. Specifically, the following changes were made.

Paragraphs (1)-(6) under proposed 19 TAC §97.1061(a), were reorganized to clearly specify the roles of the commissioner, campus, and CIT to align with requirements in statute.

Proposed 19 TAC §97.1061(a)(5), relettered as (d)(3), was partially amended to specify that the CIT shall assist in the creation of a targeted improvement plan.

Proposed 19 TAC §97.1061(a)(6), relettered as (d)(4), was partially amended to specify that the CIT shall assist the commissioner in monitoring the implementation of the targeted improvement plan.

The agency disagrees with some of TCTA's recommendations, as follows.

Proposed 19 TAC §97.1061(a)(4), relettered as (d)(2), was not amended to reference the guidelines and procedures in TEC, §39.106(b)(1)-(12), as those requirements are already clearly outlined in statute and do not require further clarification in rule.

Additional language was not added to specify which provisions in subsection (a) are required of a campus that is assigned an unacceptable rating for a second consecutive year because the creation of an updated targeted improvement plan is implicit in completing the requirements in subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d).

Additional language was not added to state that the CIT must recommend actions related to areas of insufficient performance as the agency has determined that this action is implicit in the creation of a targeted improvement plan outlined under new 19 TAC §97.1061(d)(3) and (4) and TEC, §39.106.

Recommended changes and additions to clarify the CIT responsibilities in proposed 19 TAC §97.1061(a)(5)(B) and (C), relettered as (d)(3)(B) and (C), were not made as the agency has determined that the language does not require clarification.

The recommended addition of a new subsection to specify the responsibilities of the board of trustees of a school district after a targeted improvement plan or updated plan is submitted to the board was not made as the requirements are clearly stated in the enabling statute and, therefore, require no further clarification in rule.

Comment. TCTA commented that new 19 TAC §97.1063(a) should be amended to include TEC, §39.107, in the statutory responsibilities for the CIT.

Agency Response. The agency agrees and has revised new 19 TAC §97.1063(a) accordingly.

Comment. San Antonio Independent School District and the Texas Urban Council commented about the requirement of a professional service provider (PSP) to serve as a member of the CIT. The commenters stated that TEC, §39.109, clearly states the use of PSPs as permissive, therefore, requiring them under new 19 TAC §97.1063 exceeds the commissioner's authority. Additionally, the commenters cited the cost burden of hiring PSPs as well as the lack of research or data that signals the effectiveness of PSPs. The commenters recommended amending new 19 TAC §97.1063 to specify that the CIT may include PSPs.

Agency Response. The agency disagrees that the requirement of PSPs exceeds the commissioner's authority. TEC, §39.109, permits the commissioner to order the district to acquire professional services, and TEC, §39.106, provides the commissioner the authority to assign the CIT. Therefore, it is within the commissioner's authority to clarify those members through the rulemaking process. The commissioner provides wide latitude to districts in determining the number of hours to contract with PSPs as well as the hourly rate for their services. Finally, to ensure the effectiveness of PSPs, the agency's technical assistance contractor completes a comprehensive evaluation of all PSPs every school year, which includes surveys of district personnel, campus principals, campus leadership teams, and TEA staff, and a component of academic growth on the campuses served by the PSP. The results of this evaluation are used to remove individuals who are no longer identified as effective.

Comment. TCTA commented that, given the focus by the enabling statute and the agency on the importance of the CIT's role in ensuring stakeholder input into and review of the campus turnaround plan, it recommends that this duty be specifically referenced in new 19 TAC §97.1063 by adding a new subsection stating that the CIT shall ensure that stakeholders are given the opportunity to provide input into the development of and written feedback on the turnaround plan.

Agency Response. The agency disagrees as requirements for stakeholder input are sufficiently covered in applicable areas of rule, including new 19 TAC §97.1061 and §97.1064.

Comment. TCTA commented that stakeholders should be included in new 19 TAC §97.1064(d) and (d)(2) in the list of groups that are notified of a campus's unacceptable rating for two consecutive years and provided an opportunity to give input in the development of the final campus turnaround plan. TCTA commented that this addition would conform the list of groups to those outlined in the enabling statute.

Agency Response. The agency agrees and has added stakeholders to new 19 TAC §97.1064(d) and (d)(2).

Comment. TCTA commented that it strongly supports proposed new 19 TAC §97.1064(e) and (f), as the subsections list all the categories of stakeholders that shall be provided an opportunity to review and comment on the completed campus turnaround plan before it is submitted for approval to the board of trustees.

Agency Response. Although the comment does not request a change to the proposed rules, the agency acknowledges the input on the process.

Comment. TCTA commented that 19 TAC §97.1067(a)(1) should be amended to state that the contract for alternative management of a campus must not exceed five years.

Agency Response. The agency agrees and has modified 19 TAC §97.1067(a)(1) accordingly.

Comment. TCTA commented that a new subsection should be added to 19 TAC §97.1067 to align with the enabling statute (TEC, §39.107(g-1)) that specifies if a campus receives an academically unacceptable performance rating for two consecutive school years after the managing entity assumes management of the campus, the commissioner shall cancel the contract with the managing entity.

Agency Response. The agency agrees that additional clarification should be included in the rule and has amended 19 TAC §97.1067(b)(5)(A) to clarify when a contract should be terminated.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY. The amendments and new sections are adopted under the Texas Education Code (TEC), §39.052, which requires an annual evaluation of the accreditation status of each school district. This section specifically safeguards diplomas, course credit, and grade promotions granted prior to the revocation by the commissioner; TEC, §39.056, which authorizes the agency to conduct monitoring reviews or investigations in accordance with requirements of the statutory provisions; TEC, §39.104, which applies interventions and sanctions imposed by TEC, Chapter 39, on school districts and campuses to open-enrollment charters. The section authorizes the commissioner to adopt rules to apply the interventions; TEC, §39.106, which requires the placement of a campus intervention team by the commissioner when a campus's performance fails to meet standards established under TEC, §39.054(e). This section also describes the duties, public notice, guidelines for a needs assessment to be done by a campus intervention team, and required areas of recommendations. This statute allows the commissioner to authorize some substitutions of certain committees and plans. The statute requires a board of trustees to take certain actions such as conducting a public hearing and submitting the plans to the commissioner; TEC, §39.107, which prescribes certain actions that must occur when a campus has consecutive years of unacceptable performance. The statute requires the development of a turnaround plan for two consecutive years of poor performance, requires public notice and input in developing the turnaround plan, details certain requirements of the turnaround plan, and authorizes the commissioner to adopt rules governing procedures for application to charters. The statute also prohibits the approval of a campus turnaround plan unless the commissioner determines the plan will achieve acceptable performance within two years of implementation and authorizes a district to implement a turnaround plan (or modified version) even if subsequent performance removes the requirement to implement the plan. TEC, §39.107, authorizes the commissioner to adopt rules necessary to implement the section; TEC, §39.109, which authorizes the commissioner to require a district or campus to select or be assigned professional services at their expense. This requirement is in addition to other interventions and sanctions authorized by statute. The statute authorizes additional requirements by the commissioner with regard to professional services; and TEC, §39.112, which describes the duties and responsibilities of a board of managers. This statute includes a requirement for the commissioner to, if possible, appoint certain types of individuals to a board of managers.

CROSS REFERENCE TO STATUTE. The amendments and new sections implement the TEC, §§39.052, 39.056, 39.104, 39.106, 39.107, 39.109, and 39.112.