PART 2. TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER AA. COMMISSIONER'S RULES CONCERNING DRIVER EDUCATION STANDARDS OF OPERATION FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, EDUCATION SERVICE CENTERS, AND COLLEGES OR UNIVERSITIES
19 TAC §§75.1001 - 75.1003, 75.1005
The Texas Education Agency adopts amendments to §§75.1001 - 75.1003 and 75.1005, concerning driver education. The amendments are adopted without changes to the proposed text as published in the November 14, 2008, issue of the Texas Register (33 TexReg 9174) and will not be republished. The sections address driver education standards of operation for public schools, education service centers, and colleges or universities. The adopted amendments update statutory references and incorporate changes to driver education course requirements.
The Texas Education Code (TEC), §7.021 and §29.902, require the TEA to develop a program of organized instruction in driver education and traffic safety for public school students. Rules in 19 TAC Chapter 75, Curriculum, Subchapter AA, Commissioner's Rules Concerning Driver Education Standards of Operation for Public Schools, Education Service Centers, and Colleges or Universities, were adopted to be effective January 1, 2000, to implement statutory requirements for the program. Subchapter AA sets forth requirements for driver education, including rules relating to administration and supervision, driver education teachers and teaching assistants, and course requirements. In accordance with statute and rule, the TEA also developed and made available sample instructional modules in a model course curriculum entitled the Texas Driver and Traffic Safety Education Master Curriculum Guide, dated October 2000.
The TEA conducted its statutorily-required review of rules in 19 TAC Chapter 75 in 2007 and identified the need for changes in Subchapter AA to update statutory references, including changes to reflect the re-codification of driver and traffic safety laws from Texas Civil Statutes to the TEC, Chapter 1001. In addition, from July 2006 to February 2007, input for updates to the program of organized instruction was solicited from instructors, teachers, parents, advocates, school districts, education service centers, colleges and universities, and other state agencies, including the Texas Department of Public Safety. The updated program of organized instruction, which incorporates input from stakeholders, is reflected in new instructional modules developed by the TEA entitled the Program of Organized Instruction for Driver Education and Traffic Safety, dated 2008.
The adopted amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 75, Subchapter AA, update statutory references and incorporate changes to driver education course requirements, as follows.
Section 75.1001, Administration and Supervision, is amended to delete references to specific sections within the Alcohol Beverage Code and the Health and Safety Code in subsection (b)(6).
Section 75.1002, Driver Education Teachers, is amended to delete references to specific sections within the Alcohol Beverage Code and the Health and Safety Code in subsection (d)(1). A technical edit is also made to correct word usage in subsection (d)(1).
Section 75.1003, Teaching Assistants, is amended in subsections (a)(1)(C), (a)(2)(B), and (d) to reference the TEC, Chapter 1001, rather than the Texas Civil Statutes due to the re-codification. References to specific sections within the Alcohol Beverage Code and the Health and Safety Code are deleted in subsection (g)(1). A technical edit is also made to correct word usage in subsection (g)(1).
Section 75.1005, Course Requirements, is amended to reflect the changes to the program of organized instruction and to ensure school district compliance with the revised standards. Specifically, subsection (c) is revised to incorporate the driver education instructional objectives established by the commissioner, which meet the requirements in the TEC, §7.021 and §29.902, while incorporating industry requests. The instructional objectives are established in rule and the specific module titles are updated accordingly. Sample modules may be obtained from the TEA.
The TEA determined that there may be adverse economic impact for small businesses and microbusinesses. The TEA estimates that between 101-500 small businesses and between 1-100 microbusinesses (businesses with fewer than 20 employees) would be impacted for expenses related to compliance costs. The estimated cost to each driver training school providing the course is $2,000 in fiscal year 2009, $1,000 in fiscal year 2010, and $500 each year in fiscal years 2011-2013. The estimated costs would be to revise driver education curriculum to comply with the revised standards in the Program of Organized Instruction for Driver Education and Traffic Safety. Approximately 294 driver training schools provide the driver education course. Microbusinesses would be no more adversely impacted than small businesses.
In accordance with Texas Government Code, §2006.002, the TEA assessed alternatives to the proposed rule action that would diminish the impact on small businesses and microbusinesses. The first alternative assessed was to not adopt the rule. This is not an option because establishment of standards is required by the TEC, §7.021 and §29.902. Another alternative considered was to exempt small businesses and microbusinesses from the rule. This is not an option because each student eligible to enroll in a driver education course must have the opportunity to receive equivalent instruction regardless of the driver education provider they choose. As all driver education providers are required to provide the driver education course standards as established in rule, the third alternative considered is the TEA development of sample instructional modules. Small businesses and microbusinesses may obtain the sample instructional modules from the TEA to diminish the impact on curriculum development. Therefore, the TEA has considered several alternative methods that would diminish the impact on small businesses and microbusinesses and that analysis resulted in one option, the third alternative, providing regulatory flexibility on this matter.
The public comment period on the proposal began on November 14, 2008, and ended December 15, 2008. No public comments were received regarding the proposed amendments.
The amendments are adopted under the TEC, §7.021 and §29.902, which authorize the TEA to develop a program of instruction in driver education and traffic safety for public school students.
The adopted amendments implement the TEC, §7.021 and §29.902.
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 February 6, 2009.
TRD-200900454
Cristina De La Fuente-Valadez
Director, Policy Coordination
Texas Education Agency
Effective date: February 26, 2009
Proposal publication date: November 14, 2008
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1497
SUBCHAPTER EE. COMMISSIONER'S RULES CONCERNING THE COMMUNITIES IN SCHOOLS PROGRAM
19 TAC §§89.1501 - 89.1503, 89.1505, 89.1507, 89.1509, 89.1511
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) adopts amendments to §89.1501 and §89.1502 and new §§89.1503, 89.1505, 89.1507, 89.1509, and 89.1511, concerning the Communities In Schools (CIS) program. Sections 89.1501, 89.1502, 89.1503, 89.1505, 89.1507, and 89.1511 are adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the August 8, 2008, issue of the Texas Register (33 TexReg 6261). Section 89.1509 is adopted without changes to the proposed text as published in the August 8, 2008, issue of the Texas Register and will not be republished. Sections 89.1501 and 89.1502 establish definitions and the funding formula for local CIS programs. The adopted amendments and new sections implement the requirements of the Texas Education Code (TEC), §33.154, as amended by House Bill (HB) 1609, 80th Texas Legislature, 2007, which requires the commissioner of education by rule to develop and implement policies concerning the program.
The CIS program is a statewide youth dropout prevention program that uses a case management model to serve students who are at risk of dropping out of school or engaging in delinquent conduct, including students who are in family conflict or emotional crisis. Through 19 TAC Chapter 89, Subchapter EE, adopted to be effective July 4, 2005, the commissioner exercised rulemaking authority to establish definitions and an equitable funding formula for local CIS programs, in accordance with the TEC, §33.156.
HB 1609, 80th Texas Legislature, 2007, amended the TEC, §33.154, requiring the commissioner to adopt rules to implement policies concerning the responsibility of the TEA in encouraging local businesses to participate in local CIS programs, the responsibility of the TEA in obtaining information from participating school districts, and the use of federal or state funds available to the TEA for programs of this nature.
The commissioner is also required to establish state performance goals, objectives, and measures for the program that include improvement in student behavior and academic achievement as well as promotion, graduation, retention, and dropout rates. TEC, §33.154, gives the commissioner authority to withhold funding from programs that consistently fail to achieve the performance goals, objectives, and measures.
In addition to rule action required by HB 1609, staff in the TEA division responsible for state funding identified changes needed to the current process for the allocation of financial resources. The recommended changes are included in the adopted revisions.
The revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 89, Subchapter EE, amend the two existing rules and add new rules as follows.
Section 89.1501, Definitions, was amended to add definitions for case-managed student, eligible student, and local CIS program. Definitions for fully-developed program and funding formula were deleted. Other existing definitions were modified for clarification. Technical edits were made at adoption to clarify the definitions for case-managed student and eligible student in paragraphs (1) and (4), respectively.
Section 89.1502, Funding, was amended to specify that the current funding formula would continue to apply to the CIS program prior to school year 2009-2010. This amendment provides clarification that the current funding process will be maintained for the 2008-2009 school year. The section title was also updated accordingly. Minor technical edits were made at adoption in subsections (e) and (f) to clarify wording.
Section 89.1503, Funding Beginning with School Year 2009-2010, was added to establish funding allocations to local CIS programs that include the distribution of financial resources in line with weighted average daily attendance (WADA).
In response to public comments, the following changes were made to §89.1503 at adoption.
Language was added to subsection (c)(3)(A) to clarify the calculation of the funding allocation and revised in subsection (c)(3)(B) to include the specific steps used to determine the financial resources allocation.
Language was deleted in subsection (c)(4) to minimize any disruption in services due to annual changes in estimated funding allocations.
Language was modified in subsection (d) to specify that should funds become available because of loss of program funding or grant revocation, the TEA may designate an amount of the increase to be reserved for replication and/or expansion.
Language was modified in subsection (d)(2) to clarify how the TEA may determine a funding amount for expansion and in subsection (d)(2)(A) to clarify how programs may use those funds when they are received.
A minor technical edit was made in subsection (g).
Adopted new sections were added to the subchapter to address provisions for grant application eligibility (§89.1505), determination of the number of case-managed students each local CIS program will serve (§89.1507), and provisions for encouraging local business participation and obtaining information from participating school districts (§89.1509). A new section was also added to establish performance standard expectations and revocation of grant award (§89.1511).
Technical edits were made at adoption to §89.1505, Eligibility and Grant Application, to correct wording in subsection (a)(1). Technical edits were also made in subsection (c) to correct wording and reflect a title change to another referenced rule.
In response to public comment, §89.1507, Case-Managed Students, was modified at adoption in subsection (c) by removing paragraph (3). Related language was added to §89.1503(c)(3)(B)(iii)(III) to clarify how the number of eligible students served will impact local program funding.
No changes were made to §89.1509, Other Provisions, since published as proposed.
In response to public comments, §89.1511, Performance Standards and Loss of State Grant Funding, was modified at adoption. New subsection (d)(4) was added to specify that the TEA may use funds that become available because of grant revocation for replication and/or expansion. New subsection (d)(5) was added to specify when a program whose grant has been non-renewed or revoked is eligible to reapply for replication funding. The section title was also updated accordingly at adoption for clarification.
Due to rule text changes made at adoption in response to public comment, the TEA re-assessed fiscal implications. The following fiscal impact statement has been updated since published as proposed.
The TEA has determined that there are no additional costs to the state or persons required to comply with the adopted rule action. While the overall statewide allocation has not changed, there will be a minor fiscal impact for local government. The amount of potential costs or savings for school districts is unknown. CIS programs are nonprofit organizations that partner with local school districts to provide services to help students stay in school. Amendments to the funding formulas align the formulas more closely with statute, and these amendments may cause increases or decreases to program funding. The factors in the formula that may impact funding amounts are the relative proportion of the number of case-managed students to be served by each local CIS program to the total number of case-managed students to be served by all local CIS programs, and the weighted financial resources of the individual communities and school districts. It is estimated that some school districts will see an increase or decrease of less than 25 percent of funds currently allocated. Language has been modified at adoption in 19 TAC §89.1503(c)(4) which describes steps the TEA may take to help minimize disruption in services as a result of changes in funding allocation. Although funds are not provided to school districts directly, school districts benefit from the services provided by CIS programs. School districts that are partnered with CIS programs that lose a portion of funding may choose to provide additional funding to the program by either raising funds locally or redirecting school district budget funds.
There is 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 proposed rules began August 8, 2008, and ended on September 8, 2008. Following is a summary of public comments received and corresponding agency responses regarding the proposed revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 89, Adaptations for Special Populations, Subchapter EE, Commissioner's Rules Concerning the Communities In Schools Program.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND LOSS OF FUNDING
Comment. CIS of East Texas, CIS of South Central Texas, and CIS of Texas Association commented that as the TEA promulgates rules related to accountability of CIS programs at the local level, the agency should take into account the type of students being served by CIS programs. The same entities also suggested that TEA should base its performance standards upon the performance expectations put forth by school districts for CIS programs, based on local needs and interests.
Agency Response. The agency agrees. As specified in §89.1511(b), all performance standards related to academic achievement, attendance, behavior, dropout rate, graduation, and promotion/retention will be established in each local CIS program's grant application each year. Each local CIS program will establish these standards, in coordination with the agency, based on the state's goals and objectives and the local program's prior year performance. One exception to this is the performance standard related to the number of case-managed students served. This performance standard is established by the Legislative Budget Board.
Comment. CIS of East Texas, CIS of South Central Texas, and CIS of Texas Association commented that the agency should clearly define how CIS program funds will be redistributed should a local program's grant award be revoked or non-renewed.
Agency Response. The agency agrees. Language in §89.1503(d) was modified at adoption to clarify that should funds become available because of loss of program funding or grant revocation, the TEA may designate an amount of the increase to be reserved for replication and/or expansion. In addition, §89.1511(d) was modified by adding new paragraph (4) to specify that revoked funds may be used for CIS program replication and/or expansion in accordance with §89.1503(d). Section 89.1511(d) was also modified by adding new paragraph (5) to specify that a program whose grant has been non-renewed or revoked is eligible to apply for replication funding in accordance with §89.1503(d) after one year from the fiscal year the grant was non-renewed or revoked.
FUNDING FOR EXPANSION OF PROGRAMS
Comment. CIS of Southeast Harris County, CIS of Bell-Coryell Counties, CIS of Brazoria County, CIS of Central Texas, CIS of the Heart of Texas, CIS of Northeast Texas, CIS of East Texas, and Copperas Cove Independent School District (ISD) commented that the funding method described in proposed §89.1503(d)(2)(A) related to funding for the expansion of CIS programs was an inequitable method for allocating expansion funding and favored those CIS organizations that serve districts with large populations of eligible students. CIS of the Heart of Texas also commented that this funding method would reward CIS programs that serve small numbers of schools in as many large districts as possible.
Agency Response. The agency disagrees. CIS programs that serve larger school districts have larger numbers of eligible students to be served and, therefore, warrant a larger amount of funding for expansion. However, several changes have been made to §89.1053 at adoption to help clarify how programs may use expansion funds when they are received. The agency has removed from subsection (d)(2)(A) the expansion funding calculation language regarding the relative proportion of the number of eligible students attending new school districts to be served because it is not possible to anticipate what new districts a program might serve. To address concerns that programs may receive funding for large districts they intend to serve but do not end up serving, the agency has added language in subsection (d)(2)(A) to clarify that funds provided to local programs for expansion must be used to serve the district(s) for which the program received expansion funding. The agency has also added language to subsection (d)(2) to clarify how the agency may determine and retain a funding amount for expansion of the CIS program.
Comment. CIS of Southeast Harris County, CIS of Bell-Coryell Counties, CIS of Brazoria County, CIS of Central Texas, CIS of Bay Area, and Copperas Cove ISD commented that funding for the expansion of CIS programs should not be awarded on a competitive basis.
Agency Response. The agency disagrees. There are several options under §89.1503(d) for distributing expansion funds, including basing the amount to be awarded to local CIS programs on either the relative proportion of eligible students attending school districts served, the relative proportion of total case-managed students, or the relative proportion of grant funding allocated to programs. Issuing a competitive request for applications is another option for distributing expansion funds. The competitive grant application process is an appropriate method for selecting local CIS programs to expand into underserved areas of the state. This process allows local CIS programs to develop proposals and budgets that demonstrate how they will provide services to the targeted population, including how they will implement special initiatives to serve specific populations, maintain grant compliance, and achieve local performance targets.
FUNDING ALLOCATION
Comment. CIS of Southeast Harris County, CIS of Bell-Coryell Counties, CIS of Brazoria County, CIS of Central Texas, CIS of East Texas, CIS of South Central Texas, CIS of Bay Area, and CIS of Texas Association commented that the base amount of funds received by local CIS programs should be increased to $300,000 for each program if the legislature appropriates additional funding for CIS.
Agency Response. The agency disagrees. An equal base amount of funds, as determined by the TEA, will be awarded each year to local CIS programs, as specified in §89.1503(c)(1). The exact dollar figure for this base amount of funding is not specified in rule since funding may increase or decrease if the state appropriation for CIS increases or decreases.
Comment. CIS of Bay Area commented that §89.1503(c) needs further clarification so that local CIS programs can have adequate data to develop a funding plan to ensure that level service is maintained. The commenter stated that the funding criterion appears to be based on both a weighted proportion of financial resources and on the entire district that is served by a CIS organization.
Agency Response. The agency agrees. Section 89.1503(c)(3) was modified at adoption to clarify the calculation of the funding allocation. The TEA will make available estimated funding allocations in June of each year. In addition, §89.1503(c)(4) was modified at adoption to specify that the agency may limit the increase or decrease from the prior-year funding to an amount no more than 25 percent to minimize the disruption in services.
Comment. CIS of Bay Area commented that §89.1503(c)(2), which relates to the percentage of funding based on the relative proportion of case-managed students to be served by each local CIS program, should be set at 80 percent.
Agency Response. The agency disagrees. Without an increase in funding, changing the calculation to 80 percent will significantly impact some local CIS programs' funding by more than 25 percent, causing a disruption in services. Providing a range between 50 and 80 percent allows the agency to respond to potential changes in state funding allocations for CIS without having to substantially change the base funding levels for local CIS programs. In addition, the agency has removed language relating to the ratio of grant funding allocation from §89.1507(c)(3) and added similar language to §89.1503(c)(3)(B)(iii)(III) to clarify how the number of eligible students served will impact local program funding.
Comment. CIS of Southeast Harris County, CIS of East Texas, CIS of Bell-Coryell Counties, CIS of Brazoria County, CIS of Central Texas, CIS of South Central Texas, CIS of Texas Association, and Copperas Cove ISD commented that the weighted financial resources allocation described in §89.1503(c)(3)(B) should not average the resources of all the communities within the CIS program area, as this method of calculation unfairly penalizes CIS programs that have one wealthy school district within an otherwise economically disadvantaged service area. Additionally, CIS of East Texas commented that 4 programs receive 70 percent of the funding set aside for the weighted financial resources allocation.
Agency Response. The agency disagrees that the averaging method delineated in rule is unfair. This calculation is based on the average taxable property value per weighted average daily attendance (WADA) in a program's service area. This calculation determines which local CIS programs are serving the poorest areas with the highest-need students.
Comment. CIS of Bay Area commented that §89.1503(c)(3) was not clear and that it was difficult to tell whether a program that serves a poor school district would receive funds.
Agency Response. The agency agrees. Additional language has been added at adoption to §89.1503(c)(3)(A) and (B) to clarify the calculation of the financial resources allocation. A local CIS program with a below-average wealth per WADA, as determined by taxable property values, WADA, and the number of eligible students at the campus level, will receive weighted financial resources.
The amendments and new sections are adopted under the TEC, §33.154, which authorizes the commissioner to adopt rules to implement policies concerning the Communities In Schools program, and §33.156, which authorizes the agency to develop and implement an equitable formula for the funding of local Communities In Schools programs.
The adopted amendments and new sections implement the TEC, §§33.151, 33.152, and 33.154-33.159.
§89.1501.Definitions.
The following words and terms, when used in this subchapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
(1) Case-managed student--A student who is assessed to be in need of Communities In Schools (CIS) services to address academic, attendance, behavior, retention, graduation, or social service needs according to the requirements in the grant application.
(2) Communities In Schools program--The statewide exemplary youth dropout prevention program authorized under the Texas Education Code (TEC), Chapter 33, Subchapter E (Communities In Schools Program).
(3) Developing program--An entity funded through the replication process for the purposes of establishing and implementing a local CIS program within a four-year period following the requirements in the grant application.
(4) Eligible student--A student at risk of dropping out of school as defined under the TEC, §33.151(4)(A)-(C), or a student who exhibits delinquent conduct as defined by the Texas Family Code, §51.03.
(5) Expansion--The process of a local CIS program establishing CIS services on a new school campus or in a new school district or expanding services to serve additional students on existing campuses, resulting in an increase of students served.
(6) Fiscal year--A one-year period beginning on September 1 of a calendar year and continuing through August 31 of the next calendar year.
(7) Local CIS program--A Communities In Schools 501(c)(3) non-profit organization established in accordance with the program model and state guidelines authorized by state law to operate for the purposes stated in paragraph (2) of this section and meeting all the requirements in the grant application for establishing a local CIS program.
(8) Replication--The process of establishing a new local CIS program in an area of the state designated by the Texas Education Agency to be an area of critical need for a local CIS program.
(9) Special initiative--The implementation of a specialized activity to address dropout prevention within the context of the CIS model.
§89.1502.Funding Prior to School Year 2009-2010.
(a) Equitable funding formula. As authorized by the Texas Education Code (TEC), §33.156, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) shall establish the funding of local Communities In Schools (CIS) programs in accordance with this section. The provisions of this section apply to funding of local CIS programs prior to school year 2009-2010. Local CIS program funding beginning with school year 2009-2010 shall be in accordance with provisions established in §89.1503 of this title (relating to Funding Beginning with School Year 2009-2010).
(b) Developing programs. Developing programs shall receive a specified funding amount each year for no more than four years, including the first-year start up funding, after which time they shall become fully-developed programs and their funding shall be determined by the funding formula established under subsection (c) of this section. Prior to the expiration of four years, a developing program may request to be considered as a fully-developed program in which the funding would then be determined under subsection (c)(1)-(3) of this section if approved by the TEA.
(c) Fully-developed programs. Fully-developed programs shall receive a specified funding amount each year to be allocated as set forth in paragraphs (1)-(3) of this subsection. The TEA may choose, for the purpose of minimizing disruption in services due to changes in funding allocation, to limit the annual amount of changes in funding allocation from one biennium to the next. This may include limiting the increase or decrease from the prior year funding to an amount no less than 5.0% and no more than 25% of the change produced by this subsection and/or establishing minimum and maximum funding amounts. The TEA shall allocate an amount of funds available for distribution based on the following criteria:
(1) an equal base amount of funds, as determined by the TEA;
(2) no less than 50% nor more than 80% of the specified funding amount based on a ratio of the relative proportion of students contracted by the program relative to the total number of students contracted by all fully-developed CIS programs; and
(3) no less than 5.0% nor more than 15% of the specified funding amount on the basis of the weighted financial resources of the individual communities and school districts, if less than the state average.
(A) Weighted financial resources will be determined using the following data elements for the first year of the preceding biennium:
(i) taxable property values determined in accordance with Government Code, Chapter 403, Subchapter M, for school districts listed in each program's contract;
(ii) students in membership, as reported by the school districts and verified by the TEA, in school districts listed in each program's contract; and
(iii) the number of economically disadvantaged students, as reported by the school districts and verified by the TEA, in school districts listed in each program's contract.
(B) Weighted financial resources of individual communities and school districts will be determined by:
(i) calculating the ratio of the number of economically disadvantaged students in each district divided by the total number of economically disadvantaged students in the program;
(ii) dividing the ratio of taxable property value of the district by the number of students in membership at the district;
(iii) multiplying the ratios calculated in clauses (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph for each district; and
(iv) summing the results of clause (iii) of this subparagraph for each program.
(d) CIS program replication and expansion. For program growth, the TEA may use any one or a combination of the following methods.
(1) Replication. The TEA may determine and retain a base funding amount for replication of the CIS program in areas of the state that are not served by a participating local CIS program. Replication funds shall be made available through a competitive request for application process. First-year replication funding may be a one-time planning grant for the development of a business plan. Any funds not used for replication may be used for expansion.
(2) Expansion. The TEA may determine and retain a funding amount for expansion of the CIS program using any one or a combination of the funding methods specified in subparagraphs (A)-(D) of this paragraph. Funds allocated for expansion will become part of the funding allocation.
(A) Proportion of at-risk students served. An amount determined by the TEA may be distributed to each individual CIS program based on the relative proportion of the number of at-risk students, as defined by the TEC, §29.081, attending school districts served or new districts contracted to be served by the respective program area compared to the number of at-risk students in all districts served by CIS.
(B) Proportion of total students contracted. An amount determined by the TEA may be distributed to each individual CIS program based on a ratio of the relative proportion of students contracted by the respective program relative to the total number of students contracted by all fully-developed CIS programs.
(C) Program allocation. An amount determined by the TEA may be distributed to each individual CIS program based on the ratio of the respective individual program's total allocation relative to the total amount allocated to all fully-developed CIS programs.
(D) Competitive process. Funds may be distributed through a competitive request for application process.
(e) Other funding. Should other funding sources become available for CIS, these funds may be made available for replication, expansion, and/or special initiatives and allocated through such processes as the TEA deems appropriate, to include the funding methods described in subsection (d) of this section.
(f) Special initiatives. The TEA may partner or contract with other agencies or entities for the purpose of CIS to implement specialized activities or programs that address dropout prevention. Selection of local CIS programs for participation in the initiative may be determined by the TEA and the partner, or contractor, depending on the variables of the initiative. Local CIS programs will have the discretion of whether to participate in the special initiatives.
(g) Funding plan. Each local CIS program shall develop a funding plan which ensures that the level of service is maintained if state funding is reduced.
§89.1503.Funding Beginning with School Year 2009-2010.
(a) Equitable funding formula. As authorized by the Texas Education Code (TEC), §33.156, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) shall establish the funding of local Communities In Schools (CIS) programs in accordance with this section. The provisions of this section apply to funding of local CIS programs beginning with school year 2009-2010.
(b) Developing programs.
(1) A developing program shall receive a funding amount each year for no more than four years, including the first-year start up funding.
(2) A developing program that has met all the requirements for establishing a local CIS program before the fourth year may request to be considered as a local CIS program for funding determined under subsection (c)(1)-(3) of this section if approved by the TEA.
(c) Allocation. Local CIS programs shall receive a funding amount each year to be allocated based on the following criteria:
(1) an equal base amount of funds, as determined by the TEA;
(2) no less than 50% nor more than 80% of the specified funding amount based on the relative proportion of the number of case-managed students to be served by each local CIS program to the total number of case-managed students to be served by all local CIS programs; and
(3) no less than 5.0% nor more than 15% of the specified funding amount based on the weighted financial resources of the individual communities and school districts, if less than the average financial resources of all school districts participating in the program.
(A) Data elements used for calculation of the financial resources allocation. Weighted financial resources will be determined using the following data elements for the first year of the preceding biennium:
(i) taxable property values determined in accordance with Government Code, Chapter 403, Subchapter M, for school districts listed in each program's current grant application;
(ii) weighted average daily attendance (WADA), as reported by the school districts and verified by the TEA, in school districts listed in each program's current grant application; and
(iii) the number of eligible students at the campus level, as reported by the school districts and verified by the TEA, in school districts listed in each program's current grant application.
(B) Method used for calculation of the weighted financial resources. Weighted financial resources of a local CIS program are calculated in the following way.
(i) The weighted average taxable property value per WADA (wealth per WADA) for all local CIS programs is determined by first multiplying the wealth per WADA for each district within the CIS program by the district's WADA, summing the results for all districts, and then dividing the resulting sum by the total WADA in the CIS program.
(ii) The average wealth per WADA for all CIS programs is then calculated.
(iii) A local CIS program with a below-average wealth per WADA receives weighted financial resources. The weighted financial resources for a local CIS program with a below-average wealth per WADA are calculated as follows.
(I) The weighted eligible students number is derived by dividing the eligible students number by the ratio of the local CIS program's wealth per WADA to the average program wealth per WADA.
(II) The weighted eligible students numbers for all programs with a below-average wealth per WADA are summed.
(III) The ratio of each individual program's weighted eligible students to the total weighted eligible students is applied to the total amount allocated for the financial resources allocation. This amount forms the program's financial resources allocation.
(4) The TEA may choose, for the purpose of minimizing disruption in services as a result of changes in funding allocation, to limit the annual amount of changes in funding allocation from one biennium to the next. This may include limiting the increase or decrease from the prior-year funding to an amount no more than 25% of the change produced by the provisions of this subsection and/or by establishing minimum and maximum funding amounts.
(5) If there is no increase in the funds appropriated by the General Appropriations Act for the state CIS program, the TEA may choose to maintain CIS program funding allocations at the current level.
(d) CIS program replication and expansion. Should the legislature authorize an increase in the funds appropriated for the state CIS program or should funds become available because of loss of program funding or grant revocation, the TEA may designate an amount of the increase to be reserved for replication and/or expansion.
(1) Replication. The TEA may determine and retain a funding amount for replication of the CIS program in areas of the state that are not served by a participating CIS program. Replication funds may be made available through a competitive request for application process or through any other process the TEA deems necessary. First-year replication funding may be a one-time planning grant for the development of a business plan. Any funds not used for replication may be used for expansion.
(2) Expansion. The TEA may determine and retain a funding amount for expansion of the CIS program using any one or a combination of the funding methods specified in subparagraphs (A)-(D) of this paragraph, in addition to allocation of funds in accordance with subsections (c)(1) and (c)(3) of this section. Funds allocated for expansion will become part of the funding allocation.
(A) Proportion of eligible students. An amount determined by the TEA may be distributed to each local CIS program based on the relative proportion of the number of eligible students attending school districts served by the respective program to the number of eligible students in all districts served by the CIS program. Funds provided to local programs for expansion must be used to serve the district(s) for which the program received expansion funding.
(B) Proportion of total case-managed students. An amount determined by the TEA may be distributed to each local CIS program based on the relative proportion of the number of case-managed students as identified in the current year's grant application for each local CIS program to the total number of case-managed students for all CIS programs.
(C) Program allocation. An amount determined by the TEA may be distributed to each local CIS program based on the ratio of the total amount of grant funding allocated to the local CIS program to the total amount of grant funding allocated to all local CIS programs.
(D) Competitive process. Funds may be distributed through a competitive request for application process.
(E) Decline of expansion funds. If a local CIS program declines to accept grant funds for the expansion of a program, the total amount of grant funding available for expansion will be redistributed in accordance with this paragraph among local CIS programs participating in expansion activities.
(e) Use of federal or state funds. Pursuant to the TEC, §33.154(a)(7)(C), the TEA will make available to local CIS programs and developing programs information regarding state and federal grant opportunities.
(f) Other funding. Should other funding sources become available for CIS, these funds may be made available for replication, expansion, and/or special initiatives and allocated through such processes as the TEA deems appropriate to include the funding methods in subsection (d) of this section.
(g) Special initiatives. If the TEA partners or contracts with other agencies or entities to implement special initiatives, activities, or programs that support dropout prevention efforts, local CIS programs will have the discretion of whether to participate in the special initiatives. Selection of local CIS programs for participation may be determined by the TEA and the partner, or contractor, depending on the variables of the initiative.
(h) Funding plan. Each local CIS program shall develop a funding plan that ensures that the level of service is maintained if state funding is reduced.
§89.1505.Eligibility and Grant Application.
(a) Applicants eligible to receive grant funds are:
(1) as specified in the Texas Education Code, §33.152, local Communities In Schools (CIS) programs established under the Texas Labor Code, Chapter 305, as it existed on August 31, 1999, and its predecessor statute, the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act (Article 5221b-9d, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes); and
(2) developing programs as defined in §89.1501(3) of this title (relating to Definitions).
(b) A local CIS program or a developing program must submit a grant application each year in accordance with procedures established by the commissioner of education.
(c) To remain eligible for grant funding, a local CIS program or a developing program must meet all deadlines and requirements set forth in §89.1511 of this title (relating to Performance Standards and Revocation of Grant Award) and in the grant application.
§89.1507.Case-Managed Students.
(a) Each local Communities In Schools (CIS) program is required to serve each year a specific number of case-managed students, as defined in §89.1501(1) of this title (relating to Definitions). The specific number of case-managed students to be served will be identified in each annual grant application.
(b) Each local CIS program may be required to serve an increased number of case-managed students if the Texas Education Agency (TEA) receives an increase in the funds appropriated in the General Appropriations Act for the CIS program and/or if the performance measure related to the number of case-managed students served is increased.
(c) To determine an increase in the number of case-managed students to be served by each local CIS program, the TEA will use the number of case-managed students as determined in the current year's grant application and apply one of the following calculations:
(1) the relative proportion of the number of eligible students attending school districts served or to be served by the respective local CIS program to the number of eligible students in all districts served or to be served by all CIS programs; or
(2) the relative proportion of the specified number of case-managed students for the respective local CIS program as identified in the current year's grant application to the total number of case-managed students for all CIS programs.
§89.1511.Performance Standards and Revocation of Grant Award.
(a) Performance standards for a local Communities In Schools (CIS) program regarding the number of case-managed students served.
(1) A local CIS program that fails to serve the number of case-managed students indicated in its grant application by the end of the school year of any given year will receive grant funding based only on the number of case-managed students the program actually served in that given year.
(2) Following the end of a given school year (Year 1), a local CIS program that fails to serve the number of case-managed students identified in its grant application must submit to the Texas Education Agency (TEA) a letter of explanation detailing the reasons the local CIS program did not serve the number of case-managed students indicated in its grant application. Additionally, a Program Improvement Plan (PIP) detailing how the CIS program will reach the Year 1 target by the end of the second school year (Year 2) is required. The PIP must include the following:
(A) local program contact information;
(B) the number of case-managed students listed in the grant application;
(C) the actual number of case-managed students served;
(D) a list of the proposed strategies and initiatives that will be implemented to meet the case-managed student target;
(E) a list of the timelines for each proposed strategy and initiative; and
(F) a list of fiscal, logistical, and human resources to be used to meet the case-managed student target.
(3) A local CIS program that fails to meet the Year 1 target for case-managed students in Year 2 will:
(A) receive payment only for the number of case-managed students the program actually served;
(B) have its grant application modified to reflect a decreased number of case-managed students and decreased funding for Year 3; and
(C) be placed on probation for Year 3.
(4) A local CIS program placed on probation:
(A) must update its PIP to show how it will modify its program to meet the Year 3 case-managed student target; and
(B) will not qualify for any increases in grant awards. The commissioner may waive this requirement if the local CIS program fails to meet its case-managed student target as a result of circumstances, such as a natural disaster, beyond the program's control.
(5) A local CIS program that fails to meet its Year 3 case-managed student target by the end of Year 3 may have its grant award non-renewed or revoked.
(6) A local CIS program that successfully reaches its Year 3 case-managed student target at the end of Year 3 will be removed from probation.
(7) A local CIS program may have its grant award non-renewed or revoked if it fails to meet its case-managed student target as identified in the grant application for four years out of a five-year period.
(b) Performance standards for a local CIS program regarding state targets in academic achievement, attendance, behavior, dropout rates, graduation, and promotion/retention.
(1) In accordance with the Texas Education Code (TEC), §33.154(a)(2), performance standards are established for local CIS programs in the objective areas of academic achievement, attendance, behavior, dropout rates, graduation, and promotion/retention.
(2) Each local CIS program must meet the performance standards stated in its grant application each year.
(3) The TEA shall notify local CIS programs that did not meet performance standards in any objective area, within a 5.0% variance, following the end of each school year.
(4) A local CIS program that fails to meet performance standard(s) in any objective area within a 5.0% variance must submit to the TEA a letter of explanation detailing the reasons the program was unable to meet state established performance standard(s). Additionally, a PIP detailing how the CIS program will reach the performance standard by the end of the next grant year period is required. The PIP shall include the following:
(A) local program contact information;
(B) a list of the objective area(s) and the performance standard(s) as listed in the grant application;
(C) a list of the actual standard(s) met for each objective area(s);
(D) a list of the proposed strategies and initiatives that will be implemented to meet the performance standard(s) that were not met;
(E) a list of the timelines for each proposed strategy and initiative; and
(F) a list of fiscal, logistical, and human resources to be used to reach the performance standard(s).
(5) The TEA will review PIPs within 30 days of receipt.
(6) A local CIS program that fails to meet performance standards for Year 2 or two consecutive years must submit an updated PIP for approval by the TEA and will be placed on probation for Year 3.
(7) A local CIS program placed on probation:
(A) must update its PIP to show how it will modify its program to meet the Year 3 performance standards; and
(B) will not qualify for any increases in grant awards. The commissioner may waive this requirement if the local CIS program fails to meet its performance standards as a result of circumstances, such as a natural disaster, beyond the program's control.
(8) A local CIS program that fails to meet its Year 3 performance standards by the end of Year 3 may have its grant award non-renewed or revoked.
(9) A local CIS program may have its grant award non-renewed or revoked if it fails to meet its performance standards as identified in the grant application for four years out of a five-year period.
(c) Performance standards for a developing program. A developing program that does not meet the requirements for establishing a local CIS program as specified in the request for application may have its grant funding non-renewed or revoked in accordance with subsection (d) of this section.
(d) Revocation of grant award.
(1) The commissioner may deny renewal or revoke the grant award of a local CIS program based on any of the following:
(A) failure to serve the number of case-managed students identified in its grant application for three consecutive years;
(B) failure to meet performance standards within a 5.0% variance as identified in the local CIS program's grant application for three consecutive years; or
(C) consistently failing to serve the target number of case-managed students and meet the performance standards within a 5.0% variance as identified in its grant application for four years out of a five-year period.
(2) The commissioner may deny renewal or revoke the grant award of a developing program based on any of the following:
(A) non-compliance with application assurances;
(B) lack of program success as evidenced by progress reports and program data;
(C) failure to meet performance standards specified in the application; or
(D) failure to provide accurate, timely, and complete information as required by the TEA to evaluate the effectiveness of the developing program.
(3) A decision by the commissioner to deny renewal or revoke authorization of a grant award is final and may not be appealed.
(4) Revoked funds may be used for CIS program replication and/or expansion in accordance with §89.1503(d) of this title (relating to Funding Beginning with School Year 2009-2010).
(5) A program whose grant has been non-renewed or revoked is eligible to apply for replication funding in accordance with §89.1503(d) of this title after one year from the fiscal year the grant was non-renewed or revoked.
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 February 6, 2009.
TRD-200900453
Cristina De La Fuente-Valadez
Director, Policy Coordination
Texas Education Agency
Effective date: February 26, 2009
Proposal publication date: August 8, 2008
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1497
SUBCHAPTER CC. COMMISSIONER'S RULES ON MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR OPERATION OF TEXAS DRUG AND ALCOHOL DRIVING AWARENESS PROGRAMS
19 TAC §§176.1201 - 176.1206, 176.1209 - 176.1211
The Texas Education Agency adopts amendments to §§176.1201 - 176.1206, 176.1209, and 176.1210, and new 176.1211, concerning driver training schools. The amendments and new section are adopted without changes to the proposed text as published in the November 14, 2008, issue of the Texas Register (33 TexReg 9179) and will not be republished. The sections establish minimum standards for operation of Texas drug and alcohol driving awareness programs. The adopted amendments and new rule update program requirements and statutory references and reflect changes requested by industry members.
Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes (VTCS), Article 4413(29c), §4A, relating to drug and alcohol driving awareness programs (DADAPs), was added by the 76th Texas Legislature, 1999. Rules in 19 TAC Chapter 176, Driver Training Schools, Subchapter CC, Commissioner's Rules on Minimum Standards for Operation of Texas Drug and Alcohol Driving Awareness Programs, were adopted to be effective December 26, 1999, to implement statutory requirements for the program. Subchapter CC sets forth requirements relating to general provisions, definitions, school licensure and responsibilities, instructor licenses, programs of instruction, student enrollment forms, facilities and equipment, records, and application fees and other charges. The rules have not been amended since adoption.
VTCS, Article 4413(29c), §4A, was codified in the TEC as §1001.103 by the 78th Texas Legislature, 2003. The TEA conducted its statutorily-required review of rules in 19 TAC Chapter 176 in the fall of 2007 and identified the need for changes in Subchapter CC to bring rules into alignment with the TEC, §1001.103, which specifies that a DADAP must be offered in the same manner as a driving safety course. Statutory authority citations and references within the rules must be updated to reflect the re-codification of driver and traffic safety laws to the TEC, Chapter 1001. In addition, informal stakeholder discussions were held during summer and winter of 2007 with current DADAP owners. Input was also solicited from all driver training industry members.
The following adopted revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 176, Subchapter CC, update program requirements and statutory references and include changes requested by the driver training industry. The adopted revisions are allowed under the provisions of the TEC, §1001.053 and §1001.103.
Section 176.1201, General Provisions, is amended to clarify the applicability of rules in 19 TAC Chapter 176, Subchapter BB, Commissioner's Rules on Minimum Standards for Operation of Licensed Texas Driving Safety Schools and Course Providers, to DADAPs.
Section 176.1202, Definitions, is amended to revise, add, and delete definitions. The adopted amendment clarifies what is meant by course provider, pre-program and post-program exam, driver training, clock-hour, program validation question, personal validation question, drug and alcohol driving awareness program, and drug and alcohol driving awareness school. The adopted amendment also adds language to the definition of "Good Reputation" that is consistent with driving safety rules and defines public and private schools for the purposes of Chapter 176, Subchapter CC.
Section 176.1203, Drug and Alcohol Driving Awareness School Licensure, is amended to update references and terms. The adopted amendment includes clarification regarding the effective date of licenses.
Section 176.1204, Drug and Alcohol Driving Awareness School Responsibilities, is amended to add new language to address provisions for course providers. The adopted amendment clarifies the responsibilities of the course provider and of the school that are consistent with the applicable driving safety rules. The section title is also updated.
Section 176.1205, Drug and Alcohol Driving Awareness Program Instructor License, is amended to incorporate updates to licensing requirements. The adopted amendment eliminates the requirement that a DADAP instructor maintain training or work experience within 36 months. This is consistent with the rules governing other driver training instructors. In addition, the adopted amendment specifies that instructors who want to add another DADAP endorsement to a license shall submit evidence of two additional hours of training from the course provider of the drug and alcohol driving awareness program curriculum that the instructor will be licensed to teach. The adopted amendment also includes a provision to allow the commissioner to revoke the license of an instructor who exhibits certain inappropriate behaviors. The section title is also updated.
Section 176.1206, Programs of Instruction, is amended to incorporate updates to standards for DADAPs and instructor development programs. The adopted amendment allows DADAP courses to be offered in languages other than English. The adopted amendment also increases the number of students in a DADAP class from 36 to 50. This class size is consistent with that approved for a driver safety course. In addition, the adopted amendment includes specific criteria for post-program exams. The section title is also updated.
Section 176.1209, Records, is amended to include reference to a course provider.
Section 176.1210, Application Fees and Other Charges, is amended to include the application, processing, and licensing fees for alternative delivery methods (ADMs).
New §176.1211, Alternative Delivery Methods of Drug and Alcohol Driving Awareness Program Instruction, is added to provide for ADMs for an approved DADAP course. This new section allows the commissioner to approve the method of delivery and instruction of drug and alcohol awareness program instruction electronically or over the Internet. ADM course providers will submit an application to the TEA for review and approval. The adopted new rule provides detailed criteria for an acceptable ADM program. The adopted criteria are consistent with the criteria already used for approval of ADMs of driving safety courses.
The TEA determined that there may be adverse economic impact for small businesses or microbusinesses. The TEA estimates that between 1-100 microbusinesses (businesses with fewer than 20 employees) could be impacted for expenses related to compliance costs. The estimated costs to the program owners and licensed schools are $20,000 in fiscal year 2009, $16,800 in fiscal year 2010, and $6,000 each year in fiscal years 2011-2013. The estimated costs are for application and approval costs that must be paid by program owners and licensed schools. In addition, there are annual costs associated with obtaining, assigning, tracking, and reporting certificates of program completion that will be borne by the program owners and licensed schools. The estimated costs for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 include the $9,000 application fee for an ADM plus ancillary costs involved in administration of such programs. Although the authority to assess and collect fees existed in the original and codified statutory language, the TEA had not previously proposed or collected such fees for ADMs for DADAP courses. Based on industry requests for closer regulation and the approval of ADMs for instruction, the TEA determined that it would be necessary to propose and collect fees for ADMs to ensure there would be no adverse fiscal impact on the state. The fees parallel those found in the driving safety industry, as required by language in the TEC, §1001.103, that reads, in part, "Except as provided by agency rule, a program must be offered in the same manner as a driving safety course." The TEA has determined that fees must be assessed to continue the mandate that the TEA division responsible for driver training be self-funded.
The TEA also determined that there may be further economic impact for small businesses or microbusinesses as a result of the rule action; however, there is not enough information available to determine whether there may be an increase in or loss of revenue because the concept of ADMs in DADAP courses is too new to make a determination. Some small and/or microbusinesses will experience losses or gains based on their business plan and follow through regardless of the rule action. The cost of compliance is less of a factor than the execution of a viable business plan. Microbusinesses would be no more adversely impacted than small businesses.
In accordance with Texas Government Code, §2006.002, the TEA conducted a regulatory flexibility analysis, assessed alternatives to the proposed new ADM rule to diminish the impact on microbusinesses, and determined the following. The changes are being made at the request of small businesses and microbusinesses. DADAP course providers will not be required to offer instruction through ADMs; therefore, the rule action will not affect small businesses or microbusinesses that do not choose to pursue ADMs. The rule actions will only affect businesses choosing to participate, and it is assumed that their costs will be covered by an income stream generated by the changes in the rule actions. Businesses involved will be allowed to provide classes over the Internet or other technology reducing labor costs by the amount paid normally to an instructor. This change also benefits students who currently do not have access to a school locally. Additionally, the TEA has not adopted all of the same fees as those that exist in driving safety in order to have the least possible impact on small businesses and microbusinesses in Texas.
The public comment period on the proposal began on November 14, 2008, and ended December 15, 2008. No public comments were received regarding the proposed amendments and new section.
The amendments and new section are adopted under the TEC, §1001.053, which authorizes the commissioner of education to adopt and enforce rules necessary to administer driver and traffic safety education and to adopt rules to ensure the integrity of approved driving safety courses and to enhance program quality. The TEC, §1001.103(b), authorizes the TEA to develop standards for a separate school certification and approve curricula for drug and alcohol driving awareness programs that include one or more courses. The statute also specifies that, except as provided by agency rule, a program must be offered in the same manner as a driving safety course. The TEC, §1001.103(e), provides that the commissioner may establish fees in connection with the drug and alcohol driving awareness programs that are reasonable and necessary to administer the agency's duties.
The adopted amendments and new section implement the TEC, §1001.053 and §1001.103.
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 February 6, 2009.
TRD-200900455
Cristina De La Fuente-Valadez
Director, Policy Coordination
Texas Education Agency
Effective date: February 26, 2009
Proposal publication date: November 14, 2008
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1497