18_05 Proposed New 19 TAC §97.1062
Commissioner's Rules
Proposed New 19 TAC Chapter 97, Planning and Accountability, Subchapter EE, Accreditation Status, Standards, and Sanctions, Division 1, Status, Standards, and Sanctions, §97.1062, Applicability of Intervention Pause under District Partnerships or Mathematics Innovation Zones
Attachments:
I. Statutory Citations (PDF)
II. Text of Proposed New 19 TAC Chapter 97, Planning and Accountability, Subchapter EE, Accreditation Status, Standards, and Sanctions, Division 1, Status, Standards, and Sanctions, §97.1062, Applicability of Intervention Pause under District Partnerships or Mathematics Innovation Zones (PDF)
SUMMARY: The rule action presented in this item was filed as proposed with the Texas Register under the commissioner's rulemaking authority. This item proposes new 19 TAC Chapter 97, Planning and Accountability, Subchapter EE, Accreditation Status, Standards, and Sanctions, Division 1, Status, Standards, and Sanctions, §97.1062, Applicability of Intervention Pause under District Partnerships or Mathematics Innovation Zones. The proposed new section would implement Senate Bill (SB) 1882 and SB 1318, 85th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2017.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY: Texas Education Code (TEC), §11.174, as added by SB 1882, 85th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2017; §28.020, as added by SB 1318, 85th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2017; §39.001; and §39A.115.
TEC, §11.174, as added by SB 1882, 85th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2017, authorizes school districts who enter into a partnership to operate the school district's campus to receive an exemption from intervention for the first two years of operation of the partnership (intervention pause). The partnership and participants must satisfy the requirements of the statute and associated rules. Eligibility for the exemption only applies if operation of the partnership begins in a year following a year that the campus earns an unacceptable performance rating. The exemption from interventions applies to interventions for campuses that result from the second consecutive year of unacceptable performance and the fifth consecutive year of unacceptable performance. The commissioner is authorized to adopt rules to implement the section.
TEC, §28.020, as added by SB 1318, 85th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2017, exempts school districts and open-enrollment charter schools designated as mathematics innovation zones from interventions that apply to campuses that result from the second consecutive year of unacceptable performance and the fifth consecutive year of unacceptable performance. The commissioner is authorized to adopt rules to implement the section. Decisions of the commissioner under this section are final and unappealable.
TEC, §39.001, authorizes the commissioner to adopt rules regarding accountability.
TEC, §39A.115, authorizes the commissioner to adopt rules regarding interventions that apply to campuses that result from the second consecutive year through the fifth consecutive year of unacceptable performance.
EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE OF ADOPTION: July 2, 2018.
PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE: August 15, 2018.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND JUSTIFICATION: Proposed new 19 TAC §97.1062, Applicability of Intervention Pause under District Partnerships or Mathematics Innovation Zones, would address the implementation of the exemption from intervention that applies to partnerships to operate school district campuses (partnerships) and designation of a campus of a school district or open-enrollment charter school as a mathematics innovation zone (MIZ).
Proposed new subsection (a) would clarify that §97.1062 discusses the application of intervention pauses for school district campuses pursuant to the district charter partnership statute (TEC, §11.174) and for campuses of school districts and open-enrollment charter schools pursuant to the mathematics innovation zone statute (TEC, §28.020). As the surrounding rules in Chapter 97, Subchapter EE, Division 1, apply to both open-enrollment charter school campuses as well as school district campuses, this explicit statement should remove doubt regarding the application of the proposed rule to open-enrollment charter campuses in connection with the district charter partnership statute.
As the intervention pause does not apply to interventions that result from the first year of unacceptable performance, proposed new subsection (b) would implement the statutory requirement that a district charter partnership must begin operation after a campus has been rated unacceptable in order to be eligible for an intervention pause. The subsection would clarify that the operation must be for an entire school year unless a special circumstance exists as defined by other rules implementing the district charter partnership. This would ensure school districts understand how and when the campus would be eligible for the intervention pause.
The MIZ statute does not contain the same intervention pause eligibility requirement as the partnership statute that the campus be rated unacceptable prior to taking the actions that make the campus eligible for the intervention pause. However, the intervention pause by statute does not apply to the interventions that stem from the first year of unacceptable performance. Proposed new subsection (c) would clarify that designation as an MIZ during a year that could count as the first year of consecutive years of unacceptable performance will not cease the resulting interventions. As the statute limits the pause to the first two years of designation, the subsection would make clear that being designated an MIZ for the first two years of unacceptable performance only results in one year of intervention pause. This would ensure school districts and open-enrollment charter schools understand how and when the campus would be eligible for the intervention pause.
As the intervention pause only applies to the first two years for which the campus operated under a partnership or was designated an MIZ, proposed new subsection (d) would clarify that orders of intervention will still issue that arise from the performance rating from the year prior to the start of the district charter partnership or designation as an MIZ. Accountability ratings issue in August upon the conclusion of the school year. Final accountability ratings will not be issued until the subsequent school year has started. The statutes authorizing the intervention pauses only apply the intervention pause for the school years in which the district charter partnership operates or receives designation as an MIZ. As a consequence, the intervention pause would not affect the requirement that interventions be ordered for the performance of the prior year. This would ensure that the statutory requirements for consequences of unacceptable performance harmonize with the intervention pause enacted by the legislature. Proposed new subsection (d), working in conjunction with proposed new subsection (e), would clarify that statutory orders of interventions will be issued for performance for the year prior to the operation of the partnership or designation of MIZ, though enforcement of the order in the subsequent year will be paused. As a corollary, once the intervention pause expires, the order previously issued would automatically resume its effect. This would ensure that school districts and open-enrollment charter schools understand that if the pause expires without removing the campus from being subject to interventions, then implementation of interventions previously ordered must be fulfilled without further action by the Texas Education Agency (TEA).
Proposed new subsection (e) would make clear that the TEA will cease to enforce the increasing interventions that arise from the second consecutive year of unacceptable performance (development of a turnaround plan) to the interventions that arise from the fifth consecutive year of unacceptable performance (campus closure or board of managers for the school district or open-enrollment charter school). This would fulfill the legislative intent in implementing the pause by maximizing the time periods for which the school district or open-enrollment charter school may take advantage of the intervention pause to improve student performance. The subsection would make clear that the intervention pause ceases on the conclusion of the second consecutive school year of operation or designation unless extended under the commissioner's statutory authority. This would align the expiration with the statutory directive that the pause applies to school years.
Proposed new subsection (f) would make clear that the TEA will continue to enforce interventions not covered by the pause. As the legislation only provides for the pause of certain interventions, this provision would eliminate any lack of understanding regarding whether other enforcement actions will persist.
Proposed new subsection (g) would make clear that, if a campus loses an MIZ designation or a partnership no longer operates or ceases to meet the eligibility requirements for a district charter partnership, then the campus loses its qualification for an intervention pause. This would prevent campuses from initiating an effort and then ceasing to fulfill the alternative educational arrangements incentivized by the Texas legislature.
Proposed new subsection (h) would indicate that the TEA will not pursue interventions if, while during the pause, the campus attains an acceptable or higher performance rating. This would ensure that proposed new subsection (e) is not read to resume interventions upon expiration of the pause even if the campus attains an acceptable or higher performance rating. The subsection would specifically remove TEC, §39A.010, from its application because that section imposes a continuing duty with regard to turnaround plans even if a campus attains an acceptable or higher performance rating.
Proposed new subsection (i) would clarify the counting rules for consecutive years of unacceptable performance accounting for the time when the intervention pause applies. The provision would make clear that the pause, while not counted in the number of consecutive years, does not break the consecutive year chain. This would align with the statutory requirement that the campus is exempt from intervention during the intervention pause. It would also make clear that in certain circumstances explained in other subsections in the rule, the intervention pause may only constitute one year, as the intervention pause only applies to certain interventions. The legislation was designed to encourage schools to try alternative educational arrangements to improve performance of students. This provision would implement the statutory requirements that the intervention pause does not restart the clock that may result in ultimate sanctions required by statute.
Proposed new subsection (j) would make clear that school districts and open-enrollment charter schools understand that a district charter partnership or designation as an MIZ that begins the year after the fifth consecutive year of poor campus performance does not pause the requirement that the campus be ordered closed or a board of managers take control of the school district or open-enrollment charter school. As the legislature applies the intervention pause to the years under which the district charter partnership operates or the MIZ designation applies, the intervention pause does not affect interventions that must result from the performance of the prior year. The law's requirement that the campus cease to exist or the board of trustees cede their authority was fixed prior to the district implementing the policies that allow access to the intervention pause. This rule would ensure school districts and open-enrollment charter schools can adequately plan when a campus needs to implement a partnership or MIZ to take advantage of the intervention pause.
Proposed new subsection (k) would make clear that a campus will receive an accountability rating even though it was eligible for an intervention pause. This would implement the statutory directive that MIZ campuses still receive accountability ratings, as the exemption from intervention does not apply to the assignment of a performance rating. This would fulfill the public policy of showing performance and change in performance at the campus.
Proposed new subsection (l) would make clear that performance of a campus that receives an intervention pause will still be included in the performance of the school district or open-enrollment charter school and does not extend to other campuses that have not implemented the actions necessary to receive the intervention pause. Both intervention pause statutes only exempt interventions for certain actions imposed on a particular campus. The statutes do not extend the intervention pause to the school district or open-enrollment charter school nor do they extend the intervention pause to any other campus that does not independently qualify for an intervention pause. This subsection would make clear that school districts and open-enrollment charter schools still retain responsibility for the performance of the campus and other campuses not initiating the necessary actions to receive an intervention pause and ensure fidelity in the development and implementation of the avenues that lead to an intervention pause.
Proposed new subsection (m) would replicate the TEC, §28.020, provision making commissioner determinations regarding implementation of MIZs, including the application of the intervention pause, final and unappealable.
Proposed new subsection (n) would provide a transition counting provision regarding implementation of an intervention pause. As a transition provision, 19 TAC §97.1077, School Year Under Contract to Operate a District Campus, authorizes operation of a district charter partnership for less than a year to count toward receiving an intervention pause. This provision would clarify that, if pursued, a district charter partnership will consume one full year of receipt of the intervention pause. The policy underpinning the intervention pause requires a school district to pursue alternative educational delivery to improve student performance. The most practical approach is to develop the alternative education model and implement it for two full school years to change performance. By requiring partial year operation to count for a full year, the rule would encourage school districts to implement a particularly effective alternative educational model in exchange for access to an intervention pause for which they would otherwise not qualify as they could not have implemented the necessary requirements in time.
FISCAL IMPACT: The TEA has determined that there are no additional costs to persons or entities required to comply with the proposed new rule. In addition, there is no direct adverse economic impact for small businesses, microbusinesses, and rural communities; therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis, specified in Texas Government Code, §2006.002, is required. There is no effect on local economy; therefore, no local employment impact statement is required under Texas Government Code, §2001.022. The proposed new rule does not impose a cost on regulated persons, another state agency, a special district, or a local government and, therefore, is not subject to Texas Government Code, §2001.0045.
GOVERNMENT GROWTH IMPACT: TEA staff prepared a Government Growth Impact Statement assessment for this proposed rulemaking. During the first five years the proposed rulemaking would be in effect, it would not create or eliminate a government program; would not require the creation of new employee positions or elimination of existing employee positions; would not require an increase or decrease in future legislative appropriations to the agency; would not require an increase or decrease in fees paid to the agency; would not create a new regulation; would not expand, limit, or repeal an existing regulation; would not increase or decrease the number of individuals subject to its applicability; and would not positively or adversely affect the state's economy.
PUBLIC AND STUDENT BENEFIT: The proposed new rule would ensure that school districts and open-enrollment charter schools and their students will understand the mechanics and effects of intervention pauses in connection with district charter partnerships and MIZs.
PROCEDURAL AND REPORTING IMPLICATIONS: The proposed new rule would have no procedural and reporting implications.
LOCALLY MAINTAINED PAPERWORK REQUIREMENTS: The proposed new rule would require school districts and open-enrollment charter schools to maintain records that reflect the statutory requirements for district charter partnerships and MIZs and intervention pause eligibility.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: The public comment period on the proposal begins June 1, 2018, and ends July 2, 2018.
ALTERNATIVES: None.
OTHER COMMENTS AND RELATED ISSUES: A public hearing on the proposed new rule will be held from 9:00 a.m. until the conclusion of testimony or not later than 11:00 a.m. on June 25, 2018, in Room 1-100, William B. Travis Building, 1701 North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701. Individuals who wish to testify at the hearing should sign in at the hearing site; no prior registration is necessary. Questions about the hearing should be directed to Lindsay Denman at (512) 463-5226.
Staff Members Responsible:
Joe Siedlecki, Associate Commissioner, System Support