Home ::
Legislation from the 2006 3rd called special legislative session implemented an entire new system of accreditation standards and sanctions for school districts under the state accountability system. The Commissioner of Education was charged with issuing rules on the new system and TEA has posted those on the agency’s web site. The rules address sanctions such as alternative management, reconstitution, and/or closure of campuses should a school continue to perform poorly in state evaluations. TCTA gave extensive input on the rules, questioning why the sanctions were mandatory under the rules but not in the legislation, and also asking for language to be included that would ensure decisions regarding reassignment or retention of educators at reconstituted campuses remain with the school board.
Background
In recent years, the long string of special legislative sessions on public school finance culminated in an omnibus education bill, HB 1, that had far-reaching implications for many aspects of education, including the state accountability system. HB 1 implemented an entire new system of accreditation standards and sanctions for school districts under the state accountability system. (for more information, see TCTA bill analysis of HB 1.
The Commissioner of Education was charged with developing rules to implement these changes, and proposed rules were issued for public comment on June 15, 2007. The proposed rules generated a high level of interest in the topic, in part because the rules give more detail about statutory provisions regarding alternative management, reconstitution, and closure of campuses. TCTA submitted extensive written comments, and the final rules were recently issued, effective January 6, 2008.
HB 1 requires the commissioner to annually determine the accreditation of a school district based on the academic accountability system and the financial accountability system. TEA’s final rules state that the accreditation status assigned to a district reflects performance beginning with the district's 2006 ratings; however, performance for earlier years would be considered for the purposes of accreditation sanctions.
The law states that other factors that the commissioner can consider in assigning an accreditation status are the district's compliance with reporting requirements via PEIMS, high school graduation requirements, extracurricular activities, health and safety, purchasing, elementary school class size limits, removal of a disruptive student from the classroom under Texas Education Code, Chapter 37, Subchapter A, at-risk programs, prekindergarten programs, the effectiveness of the district's program for special populations, and the effectiveness of the district's career and technology program.
Based on the district's performance on the factors listed above, the commissioner must either assign an accreditation status or revoke the accreditation of the district and order closure of the district. The proposed rules mirror much of this language, but omit some of the above-listed factors, such as effectiveness of special populations programs and career and technology programs. Accordingly, TCTA gave input that, since the Agency was exercising its statutory authority to add or subtract factors from the statutory list, another factor be added, that being “educator rights and benefits.” However, the Agency refused to add the requested language.
The law provides that the commissioner must assign a technical assistance team if a campus is acceptable but would be rated unacceptable the following school year. The commissioner can waive this requirement if the improvement in performance standards among all student groups over the preceding three years indicates that the campus is likely to be rated academically acceptable in the following school year. The commissioner must assign a campus intervention team if a campus is rated unacceptable. The campus intervention team must conduct a comprehensive on-site evaluation of the campus to determine the cause for the campus's low performance and lack of progress, recommend actions, and assist in the development of a school improvement plan for student achievement, and assist the commissioner in monitoring progress in the school improvement plan.
The campus intervention team must continue to work with the campus until it is rated acceptable for two years, or it is rated acceptable for one year but the commissioner determines that it will continue to operate in a manner to improve student achievement. Any time the commissioner determines that a campus is not fully implementing the intervention team's recommendations or the school improvement plan, the commissioner can order the reconstitution of the campus. If the campus continues to be unacceptable for a subsequent school year after reconstitution, the commissioner may order alternative management or closure of the campus. If a campus continues to be unacceptable for two consecutive years after the campus is reconstituted, the commissioner must order closure or pursue alternative management of the campus.
Alternative management is limited to qualified (as defined in the bill) non-profit entities, including a school district other than the district in which the campus is located that is within the same regional education service center boundaries as the campus is located. After one year, if alternate management is not working, the district can terminate the contract. If after two years of alternate management the arrangement is still not working, the district must terminate the contract. The commissioner can decide that a district can resume operation of the district at that point, but the commissioner must assign a technical assistance team. Districts can appeal the commissioner's decision to close the district/campus or pursue alternative management to the State Office of Administrative Hearings.
So the law leaves it up to the commissioner to decide whether to impose sanctions such as reconstitution, alternative management or closing a campus (with one exception being if a campus is rated academically unacceptable for two consecutive years after the campus is reconstituted, the commissioner must order closure or purse alternative management of the district).
However, TEA’s proposed rules required the commissioner to impose sanctions such as reconstitution and closing a campus. TCTA objected, stating that these sanctions are drastic measures and that the rules exceeded the statute by making these sanctions mandatory. TEA responded, stating that while it agreed that the statute does not mandate the commissioner to impose the sanctions, the mandatory rule language serves to provide “notice that the commissioner {will exercise} the authority to order closure or pursue alternative management when a campus fails to implement the improvement plan or recommendations of the {Campus Improvement Team} CIT.” The Agency did agree, however, to add language to the rule that would make the sanctions mandatory “only if needed to achieve the purpose of the statute” which partially responds to TCTA’s concerns.
The law requires that the campus intervention team will decide which educators may be retained at a reconstituted campus. A teacher of a TAKS-tested subject can only be retained if the campus intervention team determines that a pattern exists of significant academic improvement by students taught by the teacher. If an educator is not retained, the educator may be assigned to another position in the district.
The proposed rules stated that “A campus ordered to reconstitute shall use the current school year to plan the reconstitution, with the assistance of the district and CIT, and shall open the subsequent school year as a reconstituted campus regardless of the academic accountability rating assigned to the campus in that school year. The CIT shall decide which educators may be retained at the campus when it opens for the subsequent school year. If an educator is not retained, the educator may be assigned to another position in the district when the district opens for the subsequent school year.
TCTA requested that language be added to the rule to clarify that the CIT does not have the authority to decide whether an educator is retained as an employee of the district, nor the authority to decide the new assignment of any educator not retained at the reconstituted campus; that the authority lies solely with the district’s board of trustees. TCTA also requested that language be added which would clarify that reassignment within the district is an option if the CIT does not recommend retention of an educator. The Agency disagreed, stating that the rule language mirrored statutory language. (Note: TCTA understands that the rule language mirrors HB 1 language; however, a separate statute makes clear that the authority to decide whether to retain an educator within the district lies solely with the school district board of trustees, hence TCTA’s recommendation that the Agency clarify this in its rules in order to avoid confusion).
