PART 2. TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY
CHAPTER 97. PLANNING AND ACCOUNTABILITY
SUBCHAPTER AA. ACCOUNTABILITY AND PERFORMANCE MONITORING
(Editor's note: In accordance with Government Code, §2002.014, which permits the omission of material which is "cumbersome, expensive, or otherwise inexpedient," the figure in 19 TAC §97.1001 is not included in the print version of the Texas Register. The figure is available in the on-line version of the July 25, 2008, issue of the Texas Register.)
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) adopts an amendment to §97.1001, concerning accountability. The amendment is adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the May 30, 2008, issue of the Texas Register (33 TexReg 4284). The section describes the state accountability rating system and annually adopts the most current accountability manual. The amendment adopts applicable excerpts of the 2008 Accountability Manual. Earlier versions of the manual will remain in effect with respect to the school years for which they were developed.
Legal counsel with the TEA has recommended that the procedures for issuing accountability ratings for public school districts and campuses be adopted as part of the Texas Administrative Code . This decision was made in 2000 given a court decision challenging state agency decision making via administrative letter/publications. Given the statewide application of the accountability rating process and the existence of sufficient statutory authority for the commissioner of education to formally adopt rules in this area, portions of each annual accountability manual have been adopted since 2000. The accountability system evolves from year to year so the criteria and standards for rating and acknowledging schools in the most current year differ to some degree over those applied in the prior year. The intention is to annually update 19 TAC §97.1001 to refer to the most recently published accountability manual.
The amendment to 19 TAC §97.1001 adopts excerpts of the 2008 Accountability Manual into rule as a figure. The excerpts, Chapters 2-6, 8, 10-13, and 15-17 of the 2008 Accountability Manual, specify the indicators, standards, and procedures used by the commissioner of education to determine accountability ratings, both standard and alternative education accountability (AEA), for districts, campuses, and charter schools. These chapters also specify indicators, standards, and procedures used to determine Gold Performance Acknowledgment (GPA) on additional indicators for Texas public school districts and campuses. The TEA will issue accountability ratings under the procedures specified in the 2008 Accountability Manual by August 1, 2008. Ratings may be revised as a result of investigative activities by the commissioner as authorized under Texas Education Code, §39.074 and §39.075.
In 2008, campuses and districts will be evaluated using three base indicators: Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) results, completion rates, and annual dropout rates. In 2008, the GPA system will award acknowledgment on up to 14 separate indicators to districts and campuses rated Academically Acceptable, AEA Academically Acceptable, or higher: Attendance Rate for Grades 1-12; Advanced Course/Dual Enrollment Completion; Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate Results; College Admissions Test Results; Commended Performance on Reading/English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, Writing, Science and/or Social Studies; Recommended High School Program/Distinguished Achievement Program Participation; Comparable Improvement on Reading/ELA and Mathematics; and Texas Success Initiative - Higher Education Readiness Component on ELA and/or Mathematics.
The adopted amendment also modifies subsection (e) to specify that accountability manuals adopted for school years prior to 2008-2009 will remain in effect with respect to those school years.
The TEA determined that the adopted amendment will have no direct adverse economic impact for small businesses or microbusinesses; therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis, specified in Texas Government Code, §2006.002, is required.
The public comment period on the proposal began May 30, 2008, and ended June 30, 2008. Following is a summary of the public comments received and corresponding agency responses regarding the proposed amendment to 19 TAC Chapter 97, Planning and Accountability, Subchapter AA, Accountability and Performance Monitoring, §97.1001, Accountability Rating System.
Comment. Concerning §97.1001, 20 districts and three professional organizations, constituting over 200 individual comments, requested that the School Leaver Provision (SLP) be applied to the completion rate and annual dropout rate indicators for the 2008 and 2009 accountability years. Twelve of the districts requested the provision extend longer--through the 2010, 2011, or 2012 accountability years. The 20 districts represented by the individual comments were: Alief Independent School District (ISD), Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD, Cypress Fairbanks ISD, Galena Park ISD, Goose Creek ISD, Granbury ISD, Humble ISD, Kerrville ISD, Klein ISD, Northside ISD, Pearland ISD, Round Rock ISD, Dallas ISD, Corpus Christi ISD, Kingsville ISD, Seguin ISD, Fort Bend ISD, Houston ISD, Pasadena ISD, and Lubbock ISD. The three professional organizations were the Texas Association of School Boards, the Texas Association of School Administrators, and the Texas School Alliance. Comments were received from superintendents, assistant superintendents, other central office administrators, teachers and other district employees, principals, school board members, and others with no affiliation specified.
Agency Response. During the development of the 2008 accountability system procedures, the Educator Focus Group and the Commissioner's Accountability Advisory Committee (CAAC) reviewed and discussed the continuing impact of the new National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) dropout definition on both dropout and completion rate indicators.
These advisory groups were given the class of 2006 completion rate results and the annual dropout rate results for the 2005-2006 school year that were based on the first year of the new dropout definition. However, two years of data were not available in spring 2008 to inform the advisory groups on the dual impact of the second year of the new dropout definition and the increase in the student passing standard on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) exit-level tests. While adjustments were made to some of the leaver indicators for 2008 based on the first year of data under the new definition, it was not possible to determine the impact of these changes using actual data based on two years of results.
The advisory groups were also informed that the passing standard on the TAKS exit-level test contributed toward more rigorous graduation requirements for students in the class of 2007. This class was the first required to graduate under TAKS exit-level tests based on the panel recommended student passing standards. Also, the changes to graduation requirements to comply with attainment of the "4 x 4" curriculum that began with 2007-2008 ninth graders will impact the class of 2011, the first to graduate having completed four years of study in each of four core academic areas.
The advisory groups understood that the rigor of the completion rate indicator will continue to increase incrementally each year until the NCES definition of a dropout is fully phased-in in 2010. Based on a review of one year of dropout/completion data under the NCES definition, they recommended that the standards for Completion Rate I should remain constant, since each year it is more difficult to continue to achieve those standards during the phase-in period.
Although the completion rate and annual dropout rate indicators did not change in name, these indicators have a different definition and impact than under the prior dropout definition. The agency acknowledges that the completion rate indicator will continue to be altered for two more years until all years of the cohort are subject to the new dropout definition. The agency, therefore, agrees that the SLP should extend through the 2008 accountability year and should apply to all leaver indicators evaluated under standard procedures as it did in 2007; namely, the Grade 7-8 Annual Dropout Rate, the Completion Rate I (graduates and continuers), and the Underreported Students indicators. In addition, the agency will also apply the SLP to Completion Rate II (graduates, continuers, and GED recipients) used under Alternative Education Accountability (AEA) procedures, since many of the rationales provided by comments are applicable to both Completion Rate I and Completion Rate II.
Since the proposed amendment pertains only to the 2008 accountability ratings, comments regarding the extension of the SLP provision beyond the 2008 accountability year are not applicable. However, during the development of the 2009 accountability system procedures, the agency will undertake a comprehensive review of the use of the leaver indicators in the state accountability system to determine whether the SLP should be continued, removed, or modified for 2009 and beyond accountability ratings.
Comment. Weatherford ISD suggested a phase-in for the use of the completion rate with one possible way being to count only the All Students completion rate for 2008 with a future phase-in of the other student groups.
Agency Response. The agency agrees with the recommendation to phase in the use of the completion rate, though the mechanism used for 2008 will be the SLP which applies to All Students as well as the individual student groups.
Comment. Lake Travis ISD submitted a comment stating that the rounding methodology for determining the student group percents should be modified such that any percentage less than 10% prior to any rounding is considered not to have met the minimum student group size criteria.
Agency Response. The agency disagrees but has added text to the figure adopted as rule to clarify the formula for calculating the student group percent. The methodology used to calculate the student group percent is consistent with the methodology used beginning with the 2004 ratings and mirrors the calculation used to determine percent passing rates for the assessment indicators.
Comment. Galena Park ISD and Round Rock ISD requested application of the Exceptions Provision to the Completion Rate I and the Grade 7-8 Annual Dropout Rate indicators. Comments submitted on behalf of Alief ISD and Humble ISD also mentioned the lack of use of the Exceptions Provision with these indicators is inconsistent and noted that use of SLP would compensate for this inconsistency.
Agency Response. The agency disagrees and has maintained language as published as proposed for 2008. Application of the Exception Provision was considered during the development cycle and not chosen as an option. Use of the SLP negates the impact the Exceptions Provision could have on these indicators.
Comment. Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD commented that the completion rate definition should be modified to include students who take longer than five years to complete high school as completers in the accountability system.
Agency Response. The agency disagrees and has maintained language as published as proposed for 2008. The 75% standard established for the completion rate already takes into account these types of specific circumstances within an individual campus or district.
The amendment is adopted under the Texas Education Code, §§39.051(c) - (d), 39.072(c), 39.0721, 39.073, and 29.081(e), which authorize the commissioner of education to specify the indicators, standards, and procedures used to determine standard accountability ratings and alternative education accountability ratings, and to determine acknowledgment on additional indicators.
The amendment implements the Texas Education Code, §§39.051(c) - (d), 39.072(c), 39.0721, 39.073, and 29.081(e).
§97.1001.Accountability Rating System.
(a) The rating standards established by the commissioner of education under Texas Education Code (TEC), §39.051(c) and (d), shall be used to evaluate the performance of districts, campuses, and charter schools. The indicators, standards, and procedures used to determine ratings under both standard and alternative education accountability (AEA) procedures will be annually published in official Texas Education Agency publications. These publications will be widely disseminated and cover the following procedures:
(1) indicators, standards, and procedures used to determine district ratings;
(2) indicators, standards, and procedures used to determine campus ratings;
(3) indicators, standards, and procedures used to determine acknowledgment on Additional Indicators; and
(4) procedures for submitting a rating appeal.
(b) The standard and alternative procedures by which districts, campuses, and charter schools are rated and acknowledged for 2008 are based upon specific criteria and calculations, which are described in excerpted sections of the 2008 Accountability Manual provided in this subsection.
Figure: 19 TAC §97.1001(b) (.pdf)
(c) Ratings may be revised as a result of investigative activities by the commissioner as authorized under TEC, §39.074 and §39.075.
(d) The specific criteria and calculations used in the accountability manual are established annually by the commissioner of education and communicated to all school districts and charter schools.
(e) The specific criteria and calculations used in the annual accountability manual adopted for school years prior to 2008-2009 remain in effect for all purposes, including accountability, data standards, and audits, with respect to those school years.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on July 11, 2008.
TRD-200803550
Cristina De La Fuente-Valadez
Director, Policy Coordination
Texas Education Agency
Effective date: July 31, 2008
Proposal publication date: May 30, 2008
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1497
SUBCHAPTER EE. COMMISSIONER'S RULES CONCERNING PILOT PROGRAMS
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) adopts new §102.1054, concerning the Intensive Summer Pilot Program. The new section is adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the April 25, 2008, issue of the Texas Register (33 TexReg 3370). The adopted new rule implements the requirements of the Texas Education Code (TEC), §29.098, as added by House Bill (HB) 2237, 80th Texas Legislature, 2007, which requires the commissioner of education to establish by rule procedures for the awarding of grants for intensive summer programs.
HB 2237, 80th Texas Legislature, 2007, added the TEC, §29.098, requiring the commissioners of education and higher education to establish by rule a pilot program to award grants to participating campuses to provide intensive academic instruction during the summer to students identified as being at risk of dropping out of school or college. The commissioner of higher education is responsible for establishing rules to implement a program administered by institutions of higher education to provide intensive academic instruction to facilitate a student's transition from high school to a postsecondary institution. The commissioner of education is responsible to establish rules to implement programs administered by school districts to promote high school completion and college readiness through intensive academic instruction in: (1) English language arts, mathematics, and science, and (2) reading and mathematics in Grades 6-8. A school district program supported by the Intensive Summer Pilot Program grant must provide at least four weeks of rigorous instruction and be designed and implemented in partnership with an institution of higher education.
In accordance with the TEC, §29.098, adopted new 19 TAC Chapter 102, Educational Programs, Subchapter EE, Commissioner's Rules Concerning Pilot Programs, §102.1054, Intensive Summer Pilot Program, establishes and addresses provisions for: (1) applicable definitions, (2) eligibility criteria and application requirements, (3) notification of a grant award, (4) program funding and use of funds, (5) conditions of program operation, (6) program evaluation, and (7) revocation and recovery of funds.
At adoption, a technical correction was made in subsections (i) and (j) relating to pilot program participation as directed by TEA legal counsel. Subsection (i) relating to sanctions was deleted, and language relating to recovery of funds was clarified in subsection (j) and re-lettered as subsection (i). Recovery of funds is the appropriate sanction for state grant compliance and not the performance-based sanctions under the TEC, Chapter 39.
Approved pilot program participants are required to adhere to all procedural, reporting, and evaluation requirements.
The TEA determined that the adopted new section will have no direct adverse economic impact for small businesses or microbusinesses; therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis, specified in Texas Government Code, §2006.002, is required.
The public comment period on the proposal began April 25, 2008, and ended May 25, 2008. No public comments were received.
The new section is adopted under the Texas Education Code, §29.098, as added by House Bill 2237, 80th Texas Legislature, 2007, which authorizes the commissioners of education and higher education to establish by rule a pilot program to award grants to participating campuses to provide intensive academic instruction during the summer to students identified as being at risk of dropping out of school or college. The commissioner of education is responsible to establish rules to implement programs administered by school districts to promote high school completion and college readiness through intensive academic instruction in: (1) English language arts, mathematics, and science, and (2) reading and mathematics in Grades 6-8.
The new section implements the Texas Education Code, §29.098.
§102.1054.Intensive Summer Pilot Program.
(a) Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this section, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
(1) Intensive Summer Pilot Program--A pilot program established and implemented by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) in accordance with the Texas Education Code (TEC), §29.098. The pilot program is to provide eligible school districts with financial grants to establish programs in which school districts provide intensive academic instruction during the summer to students identified as being at risk of dropping out of school. Each district awarded funds under this pilot program shall design, establish, and operate an intensive summer program in partnership with an institution of higher education and must provide intensive academic instruction in English language arts, mathematics, and science in Grades 9-12 and in reading and mathematics in Grades 6-8.
(2) School district--For the purposes of this section, the definition of school district includes an open-enrollment charter school.
(3) Shared services arrangement (SSA)--A shared services arrangement is an agreement between two or more school districts and/or education service centers that provides services for entities involved.
(b) Eligibility.
(1) In accordance with the TEC, §39.358, a school district is eligible to apply for funding under the Intensive Summer Pilot Program if the school district exhibited during each of the three preceding school years characteristics that strongly correlate with high dropout rates.
(2) Eligibility for participation in the Intensive Summer Pilot Program will be determined annually by the commissioner of education based on the latest available data and research and in accordance with the TEC, §29.098, and eligibility criteria outlined in the TEC, §39.358.
(3) An eligible school district may enter into an SSA with other eligible school districts in order to establish an Intensive Summer Pilot Program that serves students from school districts identified in the SSA.
(4) An eligible school district which submits a single grant application on behalf of itself and several other school districts participating in an SSA agrees to serve as the fiscal agent for the grant and will be held responsible for all compliance and audit recoveries.
(c) Application.
(1) An eligible school district must apply through the request for application (RFA) process to participate in the Intensive Summer Pilot Program.
(2) Eligible applicants must meet all deadlines, requirements, and guidelines outlined in the RFA.
(3) An eligible school district that applies to participate in the Intensive Summer Pilot Program must describe in its application how grant funds, in-kind contributions, and donations (including matching funds) will be allocated.
(4) An eligible school district applying as the fiscal agent for an SSA must complete and submit the required SSA form as part of the grant application.
(d) Notification. The TEA will notify each applicant in writing of its selection or non-selection for participation in the Intensive Summer Pilot Program.
(e) Program funding and use of funds.
(1) In accordance with the TEC, §29.098, programs will be funded on a per-student participant amount not to exceed $750 per student. Grant awards must be matched by not less than $250 for each participating student in other federal, state, or local funds, including donations.
(2) In accordance with the TEC, §29.098, the entire amount of a grant awarded under the Intensive Summer Pilot Program must fund the program as described in the RFA, including the description of how grant funds, in-kind contributions, and donations will be allocated. In-kind contributions may include facilities use, support services, transportation, and volunteers. Donations may include the minimum district matching contribution of not less than $250 per participating student in other federal, state, or local funds, including private donations. The district matching requirement may be met with matching funds and/or in-kind contributions.
(3) A school district participating in the Intensive Summer Pilot Program may use grant funds for other necessary costs such as implementing the optional allowable activities outlined in the program requirements section of the RFA and in the guidelines related to specific costs appendix to the RFA.
(f) Conditions of pilot program operation. Each school district operating an approved Intensive Summer Pilot Program:
(1) must operate the pilot program in accordance with the TEC, §29.098, and the requirements outlined in the RFA; and
(2) may include additional classes and activities, as outlined in the RFA, to supplement the pilot program's instructional core curriculum of mathematics, science, English language arts, and reading. Additional optional activities must be aligned with the program goals and requirements provided in the RFA.
(g) Program evaluation. Each school district operating an approved Intensive Summer Pilot Program must comply with evaluation procedures established by the commissioner as detailed in the RFA.
(h) Revocation.
(1) The commissioner may revoke participation in the Intensive Summer Pilot Program based on any of the following factors:
(A) noncompliance with requirements and assurances outlined in the RFA or the provisions of this section;
(B) lack of program success as evidenced by progress reports and program data;
(C) failure to meet performance standards specified in the RFA; or
(D) failure to provide accurate, timely, and complete information as required by the TEA to evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot program.
(2) A decision by the commissioner to revoke authorization of a grant award is final and may not be appealed.
(i) Recovery of funds. The commissioner may audit the use of grant funds and may recover funds against any state provided funds.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on July 11, 2008.
TRD-200803548
Cristina De La Fuente-Valadez
Director, Policy Coordination
Texas Education Agency
Effective date: July 31, 2008
Proposal publication date: April 25, 2008
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1497
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) adopts new §102.1055, concerning the Collaborative Dropout Reduction Pilot Program. The new section is adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the April 25, 2008, issue of the Texas Register (33 TexReg 3372). The adopted new rule implements the requirements of the Texas Education Code (TEC), §29.096, as added by House Bill (HB) 2237, 80th Texas Legislature, 2007, which requires the commissioner of education to adopt rules to administer the Collaborative Dropout Reduction Pilot Program.
HB 2237, 80th Texas Legislature, 2007, added the TEC, §29.096, establishing the Collaborative Dropout Reduction Pilot Program for students who are at risk of dropping out of school. The commissioner of education is to establish grant application criteria for school districts and open-enrollment charter schools to collaborate with various entities to coordinate services and programs among those entities. The commissioner is also required to establish standards for local collaborative agreements.
In accordance with the TEC, §29.096, the adopted new 19 TAC Chapter 102, Educational Programs, Subchapter EE, Commissioner's Rules Concerning Pilot Programs, §102.1055, Collaborative Dropout Reduction Pilot Program, establishes and addresses provisions relating to: (1) applicable definitions; (2) application requirements for a school district to receive funding on behalf of an eligible campus for the pilot grant program, including eligibility criteria; (3) notification of a grant award; (4) local collaborative agreement requirements; (5) use of funds; (6) conditions of program operation; (7) program evaluation; and (8) revocation and recovery of funds. At adoption, a technical correction was made in subsections (j) and (k) relating to pilot program participation as directed by TEA legal counsel. Subsection (j) relating to sanctions was deleted, and language relating to recovery of funds was clarified in subsection (k) and re-lettered as subsection (j). Recovery of funds is the appropriate sanction for state grant compliance and not the performance-based sanctions under the TEC, Chapter 39.
The adopted new section creates a process through which school districts or open-enrollment charters may obtain a grant to implement a local collaborative dropout program. Approved participants in collaborative dropout reduction pilot programs are required to adhere to all procedural, reporting, and evaluation requirements.
The TEA determined that the adopted new section will have no direct adverse economic impact for small businesses or microbusinesses; therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis, specified in Texas Government Code, §2006.002, is required.
The public comment period on the proposal began April 25, 2008, and ended May 25, 2008. Following is a summary of the public comment received and corresponding agency response regarding proposed new 19 TAC Chapter 102, Educational Programs, Subchapter EE, Commissioner's Rules Concerning Pilot Programs, §102.1055, Collaborative Dropout Reduction Pilot Program.
Comment. The director of development and grants for the Lubbock-Cooper Independent School District commented that a total community approach to dropout prevention efforts is key to meeting the educational needs of stakeholders, especially in rural and inter-city regions. The commenter indicated that such an approach would not be possible if TEA grants did not seek to include all community stakeholders. The commenter also provided a description of a regional consortium in West Texas that brings together community-based partners to address the dropout problem in the region.
Agency Response. The agency agrees. Through the Collaborative Dropout Reduction Pilot Program, the TEA has sought to provide an opportunity for local districts to partner with municipalities and local community-based organizations to establish innovative programs to reduce the dropout rate and increase the college and workforce readiness of students. No changes to the rule text were necessary in response to the comment.
The new section is adopted under the Texas Education Code, §29.096, which authorizes the commissioner of education to adopt rules as necessary to administer the Collaborative Dropout Reduction Pilot Program.
The new section implements the Texas Education Code, §29.096.
§102.1055.Collaborative Dropout Reduction Pilot Program.
(a) Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this section, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
(1) Collaborative Dropout Reduction Pilot Program--A pilot program established and implemented by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) in accordance with the Texas Education Code (TEC), §29.096. The pilot program is to provide eligible school districts with financial grants to implement a local collaborative dropout reduction program. Only an eligible school district may apply for funding under this program and must serve as the fiscal agent for the pilot program. A school district awarded a grant under this pilot program shall coordinate the delivery of research-based intervention services and programs among local entities such as local businesses, local government or law enforcement agencies, nonprofit organizations, faith-based organizations, and institutions of higher education to comprehensively reduce the dropout rate in the community and to increase the job skills, employment opportunities, and continuing education opportunities of students who might otherwise have dropped out of school.
(2) Collaborative partner--A collaborative partner is a public or private entity which participates in a Collaborative Dropout Reduction Pilot Program and contributes to collaborative efforts through the provision of funds, services, personnel, and/or in other ways deemed appropriate to assist in reaching program goals. Collaborative partners may include, but are not limited to, entities such as school districts, local businesses, other local governments or law enforcement agencies, nonprofit organizations, faith-based organizations, and institutions of higher education.
(3) Lead educational staff member--A person working as part of the Collaborative Dropout Reduction Pilot Program that is responsible for program coordination, outreach, recruitment, and other activities necessary to implement and manage the program. The lead educational staff member may be a full- or part-time paid staff person, or the position may be filled by a volunteer. The lead educational staff member may be an employee of the district awarded a grant under this program, or an employee/volunteer from one of the partners in the local collaborative.
(4) Outreach--Activities designed to raise awareness and provide information, solicit participation and/or contributions, recruit students and other stakeholders, and involve the local community in collaborative initiatives.
(5) School district--For the purposes of this section, the definition of school district includes an open-enrollment charter school.
(6) Shared services arrangement (SSA)--A shared services arrangement is an agreement between two or more school districts and/or education service centers that provides services for entities involved.
(b) Eligibility.
(1) In accordance with the TEC, §39.358, a school district is eligible to apply for funding under the Collaborative Dropout Reduction Pilot Program if the district exhibited during each of the three preceding school years characteristics that strongly correlate with high dropout rates.
(2) Eligibility for participation in the Collaborative Dropout Reduction Pilot Program will be determined annually by the commissioner of education based on the latest available data and research and in accordance with the TEC, §29.096, and eligibility criteria outlined in the TEC, §39.358.
(3) An eligible school district may enter into an SSA in order to apply for grant funds. An SSA is limited to no more than ten eligible districts. A school district may submit or be a member of an SSA for no more than one Collaborative Dropout Reduction Pilot Program grant application. A collaborative partner, other than a school district, may be included in more than one SSA.
(4) An education service center (ESC) established under the TEC, §8.001, is not eligible to apply as a fiscal agent for an SSA but may be a collaborative partner with eligible districts.
(5) An eligible school district which submits a single grant application on behalf of itself and several other school districts participating in an SSA agrees to serve as the fiscal agent for the grant and will be held responsible for all compliance and audit recoveries.
(c) Application.
(1) An eligible school district must apply through the request for application (RFA) process to participate in the Collaborative Dropout Reduction Pilot Program.
(2) Eligible applicants must meet all deadlines, requirements, and guidelines outlined in the RFA.
(3) An eligible school districts that applies to participate in the pilot program must identify and include in its application:
(A) the source(s) of matching funds from the participating collaborating partners as specified in the grant application; and
(B) a description of how the program will be sustained beyond the life of the grant funding.
(d) Notification. The TEA will notify each applicant in writing of its selection or non-selection for participation in the Collaborative Dropout Reduction Pilot Program.
(e) Local collaborative agreement.
(1) Each eligible school district selected to participate must submit a copy of a local collaborative agreement, such as a memorandum of understanding, to the TEA prior to implementation of the pilot program.
(2) The local collaborative agreement must include the minimum standards specified in the TEC, §29.096(e), and a detailed description of the following:
(A) the source(s) of matching funds;
(B) how matching funds will be used by the pilot program;
(C) a description of the services, activities, commitments, assurances, responsibilities, obligations, and understandings of each collaborative partner; and
(D) decision-making procedures between the school district and collaborative partner(s).
(f) Use of funds.
(1) In accordance with the TEC, §29.096, the entire amount of a grant awarded under the Collaborative Dropout Reduction Pilot Program must fund programs in adherence with guidelines and requirements provided in the RFA.
(2) A school district participating in the Collaborative Dropout Reduction Pilot Program may allocate no more than 15% of total project funds, which include the state grant award and local match, for administrative expenses. Of the amount used for administrative costs, no more than 5.0% may be state grant award funds. Up to an additional 10% may be matching funds, but in no case can administrative costs exceed 15% of the total project funds. A school district may use in-kind contributions for administrative expenses. In-kind contributions may include the use of facilities, office space, and equipment and the provision of administrative services and supplies.
(3) Allowable costs include, but are not limited to:
(A) costs associated with implementing the local Collaborative Dropout Reduction Program in the following four service areas: workforce skill development, academic support, attendance improvement, and student and family support services; and
(B) costs associated with a designated lead educational staff member to conduct outreach activities designed to identify and involve eligible students as well as public and private entities to participate in the program.
(g) Conditions of pilot program operation. Each school district operating an approved Collaborative Dropout Reduction Pilot Program must operate the program in accordance with the TEC, §29.096, and the requirements outlined in the RFA and must:
(1) coordinate the delivery of research-based intervention services and programs among local entities such as local businesses, local government or law enforcement agencies, nonprofit organizations, faith-based organizations, and institutions of higher education to comprehensively reduce the dropout rate in the community and to increase the job skills, employment opportunities, and continuing education opportunities of students who might otherwise have dropped out of school;
(2) serve students in Grades 9, 10, 11, and 12 or any combination thereof;
(3) comply with all deadlines, requirements, and assurances established in the RFA;
(4) provide services in the areas of workforce development, academic support, student and family support services, and attendance improvement;
(5) serve a minimum of students (as specified in the grant application) per grant period; and
(6) designate governance responsibilities to a school district official for the purposes of managing the implementation and operation of the pilot program.
(h) Program evaluation. Each school district operating an approved Collaborative Dropout Reduction Pilot Program must comply with evaluation procedures established by the commissioner as detailed in the RFA.
(i) Revocation.
(1) The commissioner may revoke participation in a Collaborative Dropout Reduction Pilot Program and require the school district that received an award to repay some or all of the grant award based on any of the following factors:
(A) noncompliance with requirements and assurances outlined in the RFA and/or the provisions of this section and the TEC, §29.096;
(B) failure to meet performance measures specified in the RFA; or
(C) failure to provide accurate, timely, and complete information as required by the TEA to evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot program.
(2) A decision by the commissioner to revoke authorization of a grant award is final and may not be appealed.
(j) Recovery of funds. The commissioner may audit the use of grant funds and may recover funds against any state provided funds.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on July 11, 2008.
TRD-200803549
Cristina De La Fuente-Valadez
Director, Policy Coordination
Texas Education Agency
Effective date: July 31, 2008
Proposal publication date: April 25, 2008
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1497
SUBCHAPTER C. ADOPTIONS BY REFERENCE
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) adopts an amendment to §109.41, concerning the Financial Accountability System Resource Guide. The amendment is adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the April 18, 2008, issue of the Texas Register (33 TexReg 3114).
Section 109.41 adopts by reference the Financial Accountability System Resource Guide as the TEA's official rule. The Resource Guide describes rules for financial accounting in modules for financial accountability and reporting, budgeting, purchasing, auditing, site-based decision making, accountability, data collection and reporting, management, and state compensatory education. The Resource Guide also includes a special supplement module for nonprofit charter school chart of accounts. Public school districts use the Resource Guide to meet the accounting, auditing, budgeting, and reporting requirements as set forth in the Texas Education Code and other state statutes relating to public school finance. Under §109.41(b), the commissioner of education shall amend the Resource Guide, adopting it by reference, as needed. The Resource Guide is available at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/school.finance/ on the TEA website.
The adopted amendment to §109.41 references the Resource Guide dated June 2008. The amendment includes updates to the state compensatory education module and the accounting and auditing modules to reflect new accounting and auditing rules and standards. Part of the update includes the addition of new account codes and the deletion of some account codes. The charter school supplement has also been updated to reflect these changes in accounting and auditing rules and standards. In addition, the charter school supplement has been updated to address provisions for recovering over-allocated funds as a result of an audit adjustment.
The rule text of §109.41 was modified since published as proposed to reflect June 2008 as the date of the Resource Guide since changes were made subsequent to the April 2008 proposal.
In response to public comments, the following changes are made to the Resource Guide at adoption.
Module 1 has been updated to align language related to the technology coordinator for instructional networks in Section 1.4.3 - Function Codes; amend language related to the collection of taxes in Section 1.4.3 - Function Codes; and provide clarification on coding for substitutes in Section 1.4.9 - Expenditure/Expense Object Codes.
Appendix 7 has been modified to clarify the procedures for recording accounting entries in Illustration #1 and investment income codes for realized and unrealized market changes in Illustration #1.
The TEA determined that the adopted amendment will have no direct adverse economic impact for small businesses and microbusinesses; therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis, specified in Texas Government Code, §2006.002, is required.
The public comment period on the proposal began April 18, 2008, and ended May 18, 2008. Following is a summary of public comments and corresponding agency responses regarding proposed amendment to 19 TAC Chapter 109, Budgeting, Accounting, and Auditing, Subchapter C, Adoptions By Reference, §109.41, Financial Accountability System Resource Guide.
Comment. Concerning Module 1, Section 1.4.3 - Function Codes, the executive director of budget and finance at Whitehouse Independent School District (ISD) commented that the "Include" column for Function 13 regarding costs related to the technology coordinator for instructional networks was not in agreement with the "Exclude" column for Function 12, which noted that the technology coordinator for instructional networks should be included in Function 11.
Agency Response. The agency agrees and has moved the technology coordinator from the "Include" column to the "Exclude" column for Function 13 and added the technology coordinator to the "Include" column for Function 11. The change can be found in the Resource Guide adopted by reference in §109.41.
Comment. Concerning Module 1, Section 1.4.3 - Function Codes, the business manager at Hooks ISD commented that the "Exclude" column for Function 41 regarding costs related to the appraisal of property was not in agreement with the "Include" column for Function 99, which includes only the appraisal of property and not the collection of taxes.
Agency Response. The agency agrees and has deleted the language in the "Exclude" column for Function 41 related to the collection of taxes. The change can be found in the Resource Guide adopted by reference in §109.41.
Comment. Concerning Module 1, Section 1.4.9 - Expenditure/Expense Object Codes, a consultant with Statewide Educational Consulting & Counseling Associates, Inc. commented that object code 6112 included a reference to salaries or wages for substitute teachers and other professionals being used primarily with Function 13 and Function 11.
Agency Response. The agency agrees and has clarified the language to indicate that substitutes are coded to the function of the professional being replaced. The change can be found in the Resource Guide adopted by reference in §109.41.
Comment. Concerning Appendix 7 - Example Accounting Entries - Market Changes in Investments, the treasurer at Houston ISD commented that within the first paragraph of Illustration #1, the first sentence states that accounting entries under Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) 31 are ". . . (to be recorded at least quarterly). . . ." The commenter stated that entries under GASB 31 must be recorded at least annually on the financial statements. The commenter also stated that the Public Funds Investment Act requires that changes in Fair Value be reported at least quarterly. The commenter added that the distinction between recorded and reported should be noted, and that school districts can record the entries more frequently than annually if they so desire but are not required to do so.
Agency Response. The agency agrees and has updated the language in Illustration #1 to note that school districts may record accounting entries more frequently than annually. The change can be found in the Resource Guide adopted by reference in §109.41.
Comment. Concerning Appendix 7 - Example Accounting Entries - Market Changes in Investments, the treasurer at Houston ISD commented that the third sentence of the first paragraph in Illustration #1 states that, ". . .separate investment income codes need to be used to record realized and unrealized (market) changes (gain and losses)." The commenter noted that according to the Government Finance Officers Association publication Governmental Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting, ". . . governments are not permitted to distinguish realized gains and losses from unrealized gains and losses on the face of the financial statements." The commenter stated that Generally Accepted Accounting Principles does permit governments to disclose information on realized gains and losses in the footnotes to the financial statements if certain additional interpretive information is included. The commenter concluded that separate investment income codes may be used but are not required.
Agency Response. The agency agrees and has updated the language in Illustration #1 to specify that separate investment income codes may be used to record realized and unrealized market changes in separate accounts. The change can be found in the Resource Guide adopted by reference in §109.41.
The amendment is adopted under the Texas Education Code, §§7.055, 7.102(c)(32), 44.001, 44.007, and 44.008, which authorize the commissioner of education to establish advisory guidelines relating to fiscal management of a school district and the State Board of Education to establish a standard school fiscal accounting system in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
The adopted amendment implements the Texas Education Code, §§7.055, 7.102(c)(32), 44.001, 44.007, and 44.008.
§109.41.Financial Accountability System Resource Guide.
(a) The rules for financial accounting are described in the official Texas Education Agency publication, Financial Accountability System Resource Guide, dated June 2008, which is adopted by this reference as the agency's official rule. A copy is available for examination during regular office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., except holidays, Saturdays, and Sundays, at the Texas Education Agency, 1701 North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701.
(b) The commissioner of education shall amend the Financial Accountability System Resource Guide and this section adopting it by reference, as needed. The commissioner shall inform the State Board of Education of the intent to amend the Resource Guide and of the effect of proposed amendments before submitting them to the Office of the Secretary of State as proposed rule changes.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on July 11, 2008.
TRD-200803551
Cristina De La Fuente-Valadez
Director, Policy Coordination
Texas Education Agency
Effective date: July 31, 2008
Proposal publication date: April 18, 2008
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1497