Texas Classroom Teachers Association responses to the Sunset Review Questionnaire regarding the Texas Education Agency 2012

Texas Classroom Teachers Association responses to the Sunset Review Questionnaire regarding the Texas Education Agency 2012 1. What changes, if any, should be made to the mission or functions of the Texas Education Agency (TEA)? Are there any specific programs or functions that may no longer be needed? Over the years, TEA has changed from more of an oversight, quasi-enforcement agency to one with limited authority, due in part to statutory changes made by the legislature as well as diminished state funding. Consequently, the state of affairs is such that there s virtually no ability to enforce the bulk of Texas education law (absent narrowly prescribed appeal opportunities to the agency) or to ensure accountability for the local expenditure of state funds. For example, with regard to TEA s monitoring functions, due to lack of resources, TEA has had to resort to more desk audits and fewer on-site visits. We are concerned that a monitoring system in which on-site visits are prompted only by problems indicated by a select few indicators will not yield an entire or accurate picture to the Agency about the status of education in schools. We would therefore urge that the Agency consider combining a performance-based monitoring system with random, on-site visits to schools to look beyond the data to see what is really happening in schools. We are also concerned about the lack of systematic gathering of information from educators in the context of monitoring their particular school. For example, in special education monitoring, we have not seen formal measures established to gather input from the staff of a particular school, although such formal mechanisms have been in place to gather input from parents. Accordingly we urge that in the development and implementation of any monitoring system, the Agency give particular focus to implementing formal means of gathering input from staff. Regarding special education monitoring, TEA is using discretionary removals to disciplinary alternative education programs as an indicator in the performance-based monitoring system. Often, teachers who can t get help with implementing special education students individual education programs (IEP) end up with the student disrupting the classroom. The teacher may resort to removing the student from his/her class and refusing to allow the student to return under TEC section 37.002. One of the options would be to place the student in a DAEP. However, an ARD committee can override the teacher for various reasons and return the student to the teacher s class. Since districts that place special education students in DAEPs are more likely to be scrutinized by TEA because of this indicator in the new monitoring system, we believe that a probable result will be an increase in ARD committee overrides of teacher removals, and the underlying problem of lack of support for the teacher in implementing the IEP will never be addressed. Accordingly, we would like to see an indicator in the special education monitoring system flagging repeated ARD committee overrides of teacher removals. Section 89.1075 of TEA s rules requires districts to establish a procedure by which a teacher can request assistance in implementing a special education student s IEP. However, according to our members, very few districts have such a procedure in place. We believe that one of the

indicators in the special education monitoring system should be whether such a procedure is in place pursuant to 89.1075. Other indicators that should be included in TEA s special education monitoring system are: 1. An indicator regarding the number of certified teachers teaching special education students; 2. An indicator regarding class sizes of classes with special ed students in them; 3. An indicator regarding the number of complaints filed by staff (and other parties) against a district with TEA; and 4. An indicator showing the number of special education students assigned to each regular education teacher. In sum, we suggest that changes should be made to enhance TEA s enforcement, oversight, and monitoring abilities, as well as to act as a resource to school districts and educators with regard to implementing federal and state education laws and rules; to act as an information clearinghouse for education-related matters for the benefit of educators and the public at large; and to promote the advances made by public education. 2. Does TEA fairly and appropriately seek and incorporate input from stakeholders and the public? How well does TEA provide information to stakeholders and the public? Although various TEA divisions have been extremely inclusive of teachers as stakeholders in policymaking and rulemaking processes, we continue to note the need for the Agency as a whole to have a formal and consistent mechanism to involve teachers and representatives of teachers in these processes. Such a mechanism currently exists for superintendents in the form of the Commissioner s superintendents' advisory committee. Since the Commissioner has the authority to establish various advisory committees, and certainly with the precedent having been set to gather the input of certain educators via a formally established advisory committee, we recommend that the Agency establish a formal advisory committee composed of teachers and representatives of their organizations. We believe that it is particularly important for the Agency to be regularly advised by those often most directly impacted by its actions teachers. Another example of a restriction on input by educators is apparent in certain TEA rules. For example, current 19 TAC section 53.1001(b)(1) precludes educators from serving on the boards of Regional Education Service Centers (RESCs), which are regional subdivisions of TEA. RESCs are charged with providing an increasing level of services and resources for educators, and we believe that having classroom teachers on these boards will result in these boards having necessary input about what teachers want and need, thereby greatly enhancing RESC functioning in this capacity. Although we have requested TEA to eliminate this rule, our request was not granted. Another example can be found in TEA s rules on Administrator Appraisals. The rules ( 150.1022) provide that each school district may implement a process for collecting staff input for evaluating administrators. The rules further state that if a school district implements a process for collecting staff input to evaluate administrators, the input must not be anonymous. We are concerned that such a rule will inhibit frank and honest staff evaluations of their employers and thus not give the district accurate information about their administrators. The

statute does not require that staff input be anonymous, and we see no reason for TEA to put this restriction on the process. We have asked that TEA eliminate this restriction, but to no avail. Another area in which TEA could improve gathering input from stakeholders is in the context of Project Share, TEA s online platform for professional development for educators. Since Project Share is TEA s chief means of training teachers on content related to the new state assessment system, particularly the end of course exams, it is critical that the Agency employ a formal mechanism for gathering feedback from educators using Project Share, regarding the value and usability of the system. Such could be accomplished via an online survey. Additionally, at present, there is really no mechanism by which stakeholders can submit complaints to the Agency regarding problems occurring in schools. A meaningful, clear, and consistent process should be established by the Agency for this purpose. 3. What improvements could be made to the process for certifying educators? How well does TEA respond to complaints against educators? In cases of alleged educator misconduct, does TEA fairly and consistently investigate and apply sanctions? In its Self-Report, TEA recommends repealing state law requiring review and allowing rejection of State Board for Educator Certification rules by the elected State Board of Education, in an effort to expedite the SBEC rulemaking process (see Policy Issue 10). We oppose this recommendation for the following reasons: The current structure of elected SBOE oversight of SBEC rules serves as a good check and balance for rules promulgated by an appointed body. The current structure serves to ensure alignment between SBEC policies regarding certification of educators, and SBOE policies regarding the state adopted curriculum standards. This alignment is crucial given that state certification examination standards are aligned with and based upon state adopted curriculum standards. 4. Has TEA s development of the new Texas Student Data System been effective so far? If not, how could this development process be improved to ensure the system meets the needs of all users? TEA has made great strides in improving the state data system, including developing a more flexible information-system platform that offers smaller districts a shared, state-sponsored student-information system, and setting up a new data platform that serves as the hub for district-specific data, feeding relevant student, classroom, and campus information directly to educators while at the same time enabling seamless reporting of compliance data to the state. Additionally, the Agency is working toward being able to provide that information to educators in real time and in dashboard formats in order to be more useful to educators. 5. What improvements could be made to TEA s process for developing and administering the statewide student assessment system? Although the agency has proceeded in a thoughtful and thorough way in the incredibly demanding task of implementing a new statewide assessment student assessment system, due to

the high-stakes nature of the system, the resulting complexity, particularly of the technical aspects of the system, such as how scores are arrived at, makes it difficult for the average lay person (including parents) to understand and gain meaningful information from. 6. How effectively does TEA administer the state accountability system established by the Legislature, and what changes, if any, should be made to the agency s academic ratings process? As the Agency is still in the process of developing the new state accountability system, our comments relate to what changes should be made by TEA to the accountability as part of the development process. First, we recommend that the new system incorporate some sort of difficulty rating factor for use in determining campus and district ratings that incorporates the socioeconomic status of the student population and that can be validated. Additionally, we recommend structuring the system such that ratings aren t largely based on the lowest performing student subgroup of the campus or district (but still reporting the disaggregated data per student subgroup). This problem is currently compounded due to the fact that student results are included in more than one student subgroup for students who are members of several student subgroups. 7. How effectively does TEA assist local education agencies in need of improvement? In more serious cases, does TEA fairly and consistently apply interventions and sanctions to local education agencies? 8. What improvements could be made to the application process for new charter schools? How well does TEA ensure accountability of charter schools or take appropriate action against charter schools when necessary? Policy issue1: Streamlined Reports and Evaluations 1. Eliminate the requirement that the agency produce an annual evaluation of open-enrollment charter schools. The results from the 11 evaluations conducted since 1996-97 have been consistent, showing no significant change over time. We oppose this. 9. What changes, if any, should be made to the way TEA administers the school finance system, including the agency s collection of school finance related data, determination of funding estimates, and disbursement and reconciliation of funding to local education agencies? As pointed out by a recent report entitled No Financial Accountability, the reporting rules that school districts are required to follow preclude any financial transparency and/or accountability. We have pointed out a specific example of this to the Agency in the past, in which the term teacher used in TEA rule 19 TAC section 109.1002(f) is not aligned with the definition of teacher used in Texas Education Code section 5.001. Accordingly, district calculations of student to teacher ratios can include personnel who don t teach at least an average of four hours each day in an academic instructional setting or a career and technology instructional setting, thereby impeding the accuracy and transparency of this measure. Although we have requested this change of the Agency via the rulemaking process, the Agency has denied the requests, stating that The agency considers the number of personnel who do not teach at

least an average of four hours each day to not have a significant effect on the student-to-teacher ratio. Additionally, TEA s data system should provide for ways to validate the accuracy of district coding of PEIMS categories and the financial accountability system should provide for sanctions for districts submitting inaccurate data. Also of concern, TEA made a recommendation in its Self-Report that TEA s responsibility for complying with certain specific statutory requirements for the agency s monitoring and auditing of compensatory education funds be removed; also that statutory provisions be eliminated requiring school district boards of trustees to report the terms of superintendent severance payments to the commissioner and for the commissioner to reduce the district s Foundation School Program funds by any amount of the severance payment that exceeds one year s salary and benefits under the superintendent s terminated contract. (See TEA Self-Report Policy Issue #12). 10. How effectively does TEA administer state and federal education grant programs, including its processes for seeking applications, making awards, and monitoring for financial and programmatic compliance? 11. What changes, if any, should be made to the processes TEA uses to obtain input in the development of curriculum and adoption of instructional materials? 12. Should TEA continue to be responsible for regulating driver training schools, programs, and instructors? 13. Should TEA be continued for 12 years? Why or why not? 14. Please add any other comments about the Texas Education Agency. If you suggest any changes, please provide: Texas Education Code section 11.254(b), provides that TEA shall conduct an annual statewide survey of the types of district- and campus-level decision-making and planning structures that exist, the extent of involvement of various stakeholders in district- and campus-level planning and decision-making, and the perceptions of those persons of the quality and effectiveness of decisions related to their impact on student performance. To our knowledge, TEA does not conduct such an annual survey. This survey requirement was put in statute to ensure that the Site-Based Decision-Making (SBDM) process was meaningful. We continue to hear reports that SBDM committees operate perfunctorily, if at all, and we believe that the survey of stakeholders in the process would reveal important information to the agency in order to ensure that the process is working effectively. Interestingly, in TEA s Self-Report, one of the requirements it proposes to eliminate is this exact one, under the heading Policy Issue 12: Oversight of Certain School District Activities under which TEA states: Furthermore, the annual statewide survey required under subsection (b) includes elements such as the extent and involvement of various stakeholders in local planning processes and the perceptions of those stakeholders of the quality and effectiveness or decisions related to the impact on student performance. Should the agency be required to provide this level of oversight?...however, it is recommended that the state-level survey requirement be eliminated.

If feedback is necessary to improve the quality of a local school district s collaborative decisionmaking processes, a local survey or evaluation would be a more appropriate method to gather this information. We strongly object to the idea of removing TEA s oversight, particularly via a state-level survey, of local site-based decision-making processes. Since the district-and-campus-level decisionmaking committees are the statutorily-designated avenue for teachers and parents to give input on items of major importance in their schools, such as planning, budgeting, curriculum, staffing patterns, staff development, and school organization, we believe it is imperative for the Agency to assess the effectiveness of these committees in the way the current statute requires, via the annual statewide survey. We strongly object to the Agency s suggestion that a local survey would be a more appropriate method to gather this information, as districts could design the survey to yield the best possible results. With the current state of technology and online capability, we believe that any potential costs associated with distribution of a statewide survey could be greatly mitigated. Accordingly, we would strongly encourage retaining this requirement of the Agency. Paperwork burdens on educators? One of the most common complaints we receive from our members is the overwhelming amount of paperwork they are required to complete, which takes away from valuable instructional or planning time. We believe that in implementing new rules, TEA should be required to undergo an assessment of additional paperwork requirements the rule would potentially impose upon educators. If the rule does impose additional paperwork requirements, TEA should revise the rule to minimize such paperwork requirements. For example, in TEA rules regarding restraint of special education students, the rules require extensive documentation when restraint is used. We suggested at the time that the rules were proposed that the rules make clear that the documentation already required for disciplinary action under Chapter 37 of the Texas Education Code will suffice for this documentation with perhaps just a few modifications so that two separate forms do not now need to be completed. We suggested that if the rule did not make clear that teachers are not required to complete more paperwork than what is already required under Chapter 37, then the rule should at least include a provision that requires automatic review of the support services available to those teachers under Section 89.63(c)(1) each time they must file documentation of the need for restraint. Our request for these provisions in the rule was not granted, and we are now hearing complaints about too much paperwork. Note: TEA includes this category now in their cover letter accompanying proposed new rules: LOCALLY MAINTAINED PAPERWORK REQUIREMENTS: The proposed rule action would have no locally maintained paperwork requirements. Additionally, in its Self-Report, TEA recommends modifying the information that must be reported in the Comprehensive Annual Report, including a statement of the total number and length of reports that school districts and school district employees must submit to the agency, identifying which reports are required by federal statute or rule, state statute, or agency rule,

and a summary of the agency s efforts to reduce overall reporting requirements. We oppose this recommendation. TEA proposes to eliminate several reports and evaluations in its Self-Report, which we oppose. 1. First, the Agency proposes eliminating the requirement that it produce a campus report card for districts to distribute to parents in addition to the Performance Report for each campus. TEA s rationale for doing so is that The indicators reported on the campus report card are a subset of the indicators required to be included on the Performance Report (formerly known as the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) report). Further, federal regulations require that the NCLB Report Card, which contains detailed information about the academic performance of the campus, be distributed annually to the student s parent or guardian. We oppose this recommendation for several reasons: First, contrary to TEA s assertion, not all the indicators on the Campus Report Card are a subset of indicators on the Performance Report; in fact, key indicators contained in the Campus Report Card, including, average class size by grade level/subject, admin and instructional costs per student, district's instructional expenditures ratio and instructional employees ratios, and statewide averages of these ratios, do not appear to be included in the Performance Report. Additionally, unlike the Performance Report, which is prepared by local school districts, the CRC is prepared by TEA and requires the most current data to be included. Second, the Agency states that Further, federal regulations require that the NCLB Report Card, which contains detailed information about the academic performance of the campus, be distributed annually to the student s parent or guardian ; however, again, the NCLB Report Card does not contain the key indicators contained in the Campus Report Card which are listed in the preceding paragraph. Finally, there are important differences in the manner in which the Performance Report and the CRC are distributed. First, unlike the NCLB report card, which schools aren t required to send to parents, the CRC must be send to parents by schools within six weeks after it is received by the school from TEA. School districts are not required to send the Performance report to parents. 2. Second, the Agency proposed modifying the requirements for information to be included in the Comprehensive Annual Report (CAR), including eliminating information on key information which we oppose. The information proposed to be eliminated from the CAR includes: assessment performance of students in Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs (DAEPs), info on assessment performance of students at risk of dropping out of school, evaluation of the correlation between student grades and student performance on state assessments, number of students in DAEPs, average length of student placement in DAEPs, dropout rates of DAEP students, summary and analysis of the instructional expenditures ratios and instructional employees ratios of school districts, statement of the total number and length of reports that school districts and school district employees must submit to the agency, identifying which reports are required by federal statute or rule, state statute, or agency rule, and a summary of the agency s efforts to reduce overall reporting requirements, a list of each school district that is not in compliance with state special education requirements, summary of the information required by Section 38.0141 regarding student health and physical activity from each school

district, summary compilation of overall student performance under the assessment system developed to evaluate the longitudinal academic progress as required by Section 39.027(e). background information on the current situation and a description of what you would like to see changed, benefits of your recommendation, and any potential difficulties that may arise from implementing your recommendation. Please return to: Karen Latta Sunset Advisory Commission P.O. Box 13066 Austin, Texas 78711 Fax: (512) 463-0705 Phone: (512) 463-1300 Email: sunset@sunset.state.tx.us