TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY
STRATEGIC PLAN
For Fiscal Years 2003-2007
March 2003 Update
includes HUB Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLANNING FOR PROGRESS: The Texas State Government Vision,
Mission, and Philosophy .............................................................................................................3
STATEWIDE GOALS AND BENCHMARKS FOR EDUCATION PUBLIC SCHOOLS ................................................................................................... 5
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STATE BENCHMARKS AND TEXAS
EDUCATION AGENCY STRATEGIES...................................................................... 6
TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY MISSION ......................................................................................7
TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY PHILOSOPHY ............................................................................7
EXTERNAL/INTERNAL ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................13
Overview of Agency Functions................................................................................................ 14
Statutory Basis ......................................................................................................................................14
Historical Perspective ...........................................................................................................................14
Main Functions......................................................................................................................................15
Public Perception of the Texas Education Agency ...............................................................................16
Texas Education Agency 2002 Customer Satisfaction Survey ............................................................17
Organizational Aspects ............................................................................................................ 18
Fiscal Aspects ........................................................................................................................... 19
Budget Issues .......................................................................................................................................19
Historically Underutilized Business Plan...............................................................................................20
Service Populations .................................................................................................................. 23
Geographic Regions .............................................................................................................................24
School District Characteristics ..............................................................................................................25
Performance Benchmarking Data............................................................................................ 26
Current Year Activities - Challenges and Opportunities ....................................................... 30
High School Completion .......................................................................................................................30
Early Start .............................................................................................................................................32
Science .................................................................................................................................................32
Teaching Excellence.............................................................................................................................32
Technology............................................................................................................................................32
Statewide Student Assessment System ...............................................................................................33
Accountability Rating System ...............................................................................................................35
Impact of Federal Statutes ....................................................................................................... 37
FY 2003-2007 STRATEGIC PLAN STRUCTURE AND
PERFORMANCE MEASURES ..................................................................................................39
APPENDICES.........................................................................................................................................43
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Agency Strategic Planning Process......................................................................................................45
Organization Chart................................................................................................................................46
Strategic Plan Outcome Measure Projections ......................................................................................47
Performance Measure Definitions.........................................................................................................51
Workforce Plan......................................................................................................................................96
Survey of Organizational Excellence ..................................................................................................102
Information Resources Strategic Plan ................................................................................................103
1
PLANNING FOR PROGRESS
The Texas State Government Vision, Mission, and Philosophy
Vision Texas
Working together, I know we can accomplish our mission and achieve these priority goals for our
fellow Texans:
To assure open access to an educational system that not only guarantees the basic core knowledge
necessary for citizenship, but also emphasizes excellence in all academic and intellectual undertakings;
To provide for all of Texas’ transportation needs of the new century;
To meet the basic health care needs of all Texans;
To provide economic opportunities for individual Texans and provide an attractive economic climate
with which to attract and grow businesses; and
To provide for the safety and security of all within our border.
RICK PERRY
February 2002
The Mission of Texas State Government
Texas state government will be limited, efficient, and completely
accountable. It will foster opportunity, economic prosperity, and family.
The stewards of the public trust will be men and women who
administer the state government in a fair, just, and responsible manner.
To honor the public trust, state officials will seek new and innovative
ways to meet state government priorities within its financial means.
2
The Philosophy of Texas State Government
The task before all state public servants is to govern in a manner worthy of this great state. We are a great
enterprise, and as an enterprise we will promote the following core principles.
•
First and foremost, Texas matters most. This is the overarching, guiding principle by which we will
make decisions. Our state, and its future, is more important than party, politics, or individual
recognition.
•
Government should be limited in size and mission, but it must be highly effective in performing the
tasks it undertakes.
•
Decisions affecting individual Texans are best made by those individuals, their families, and the local
governments closest to their communities.
•
Competition is the greatest incentive for achievement and excellence. It inspires ingenuity and requires
individuals to set their sights high. And just as competition inspires excellence, a sense of personal
responsibility drives individual citizens to do more for their future, and the future of those they love.
•
Public administration must be open and honest, pursuing the high road rather than the expedient
course. We must be accountable to taxpayers for our actions.
•
Finally, state government should be humble, recognizing that all its power and authority is granted to it
by the people of Texas, and those who make decisions wielding the power of the state should exercise
their authority cautiously and fairly.
Aim high…we are not here to achieve inconsequential things!
3
STATEWIDE GOALS AND BENCHMARKS FOR EDUCATION PUBLIC EDUCATION
Priority Goal
To ensure that all students in the public education system are at grade level in reading and math by the
end of the third grade and continue reading and developing math skills at appropriate grade level through
graduation, demonstrate exemplary performance in foundation subjects, and acquire the knowledge and
skills to be responsible and independent Texans.
Benchmarks
• Percent of students from third grade forward who are able to read at or above grade level
• Percent of students who achieve mastery of the foundation subjects of reading, English language
arts, math, social studies, and science
• High school graduation rate
• Percent of students who demonstrate satisfactory performance on the Texas Assessment of
Academic Skills (TAAS)
• Percent of students who attend schools or districts rated as recognized or exemplary
• Percent of higher education freshmen from Texas high schools needing remediation
• Percent of eligible juniors and seniors taking Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate exams
• Number of students served under local governance or choice options (e.g., charter schools, openenrollment charts, home-rule districts, intra-district transfers, etc.)
• Percent of students from third grade forward who perform at or above grade level in math
4
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STATE BENCHMARKS
AND TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY STRATEGIES
The efforts of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) address each of the state education benchmarks. The
following table shows the TEA strategies impacting the state performance benchmarks in public
education.
State Benchmark
Percent of students from third grade forward
who are able to read at or above grade level
Percent of students who achieve mastery of
the foundation subjects of reading, English
language arts, math, social studies, and
science
High school graduation rate
Percent of students who demonstrate
satisfactory performance on the Texas
Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS)
Percent of students who attend schools or
districts rated as recognized or exemplary
Percent of higher education freshmen from
Texas high schools needing remediation
Percent of eligible juniors and seniors taking
Advanced Placement/International
Baccalaureate exams
Number of students served under local
governance or choice options (e.g., charter
schools, open enrollment charters, home-rule
districts, intra-district transfers, etc.)
Percent of students from third grade forward
who perform at or above grade level in math
A.2.2
A.2.3
B.1.1
B.3.1
B.3.3
A.2.2
A.2.3
B.1.1
B.3.1
B.3.3
A.1.1
A.1.2
A.2.1
A.2.2
A.2.3
A.2.4
A.2.5
A.2.6
B.1.1
B.2.1
B.2.2
B.2.3
B.2.4
B.3.1
B.3.2
B.3.3
B.1.1
B.3.1
B.3.3
B.1.1
B.3.1
B.3.3
B.1.1
B.3.3
A.2.1
B.3.3
TEA Strategy
Student Success
Achievement of Students at Risk
Assessment and Accountability System
Teaching Excellence and Support
Agency Operations
Student Success
Achievement of Students at Risk
Assessment and Accountability System
Teaching Excellence and Support
Agency Operations
Foundation School Program - Equalized Operations
Foundation School Program - Equalized Facilities
Academic Excellence
Student Success
Achievement of Students at Risk
Students with Disabilities
School Improvement and Support Programs
Adult Education and Family Literacy
Assessment and Accountability System
Instructional Materials
Educational Technology
Safe Schools
Child Nutrition Programs
Teaching Excellence and Support
Scientific Research - Best Practices
Agency Operations
Assessment and Accountability System
Teaching Excellence and Support
Agency Operations
Assessment and Accountability System
Teaching Excellence and Support
Agency Operations
Assessment and Accountability System
Agency Operations
Academic Excellence
Agency Operations
A.1.1 Foundation School Program - Equalized Operations
A.2.5 School Improvement and Support Programs
B.3.3 Agency Operations
A.2.2
A.2.3
B.1.1
B.3.1
B.3.3
5
Student Success
Achievement of Students at Risk
Assessment and Accountability System
Teaching Excellence and Support
Agency Operations
TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY MISSION
Fulfilling the promise for all Texas children
All Texas students will graduate with a world-class education. All Texas graduates will contribute to the
progress of their families, their communities, and our world.
Preparation for graduation from a world-class system of public education begins at home and on the first
day of the first year of school. The promise of the Texas public school system is that every student will be
challenged, and every student will have the instruction, opportunity, and support needed to succeed.
TEA has two roles in accomplishing its mission.
The first is to provide program leadership to Texas school districts and open enrollment charter schools
by implementing curriculum standards, an assessment system, and education programs to ensure
success for all Texas students.
The second is to attain excellence in its operations by ensuring school districts, policymakers, and the
public that funding is efficient, accountability is meaningful, and monitoring and accreditation visits are
efficient and aligned with state and federal regulations.
To achieve its mission, TEA must operate strategically, implementing the policy decisions of the Texas
Legislature, developing partnerships with educators and administrators to ensure that all students are
challenged and have the resources and support needed to achieve well-defined standards of success,
and working with the federal government to provide the public education system the flexibility needed to
support student achievement.
The agency must also operate tactically ensuring school districts, policymakers, and the public that it achieves
excellence and efficiency in its operations by maximizing funding to school districts, ensuring the accountability
system is a meaningful indicator of district, charter, and campus success, ensuring its business operations are
efficient, and ensuring its human resources are deployed effectively.
TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY PHILOSOPHY
A general diffusion of knowledge is essential for the welfare of the state and preservation of the liberties and
rights of citizens. Fulfilling the promise for all Texas children requires the coordinated efforts of the entire public
education system--TEA, the State Board of Education, regional education service centers, independent school
districts, campuses, charter schools, communities, educators, students, and families.
The philosophy of TEA is based on the idea that these parties can work together, and every agency
employee can work together, to fulfill the promise of a world-class education for all Texas children. The
agency's role in this effort is to provide program leadership to Texas schools and to attain operational
excellence in its business processes. In carrying out its role and responsibilities, the agency supports
Texas public education and is accountable to policymakers, educators, and the public.
Key to the agency’s philosophy is the idea that every employee’s job and every business process is tied
to achieving the mission of fulfilling the promise for all Texas children by ensuring that every child
graduates from high school with a world-class education. In this strategic plan, TEA has organized and
prioritized its functions to reflect this philosophy and achieve that priority goal.
6
Balanced Scorecard
TEA has developed a Balanced Scorecard to carry out and communicate its philosophy of leadership and
accountability. The Balanced Scorecard is a performance-based, results-oriented management tool that
allows employees, managers, stakeholders, and the public to focus on the agency's priority performance
outcomes and the relationship between the strategies that underlie and are deployed to achieve those
outcomes. The basic idea behind the Balanced Scorecard, as developed in the private sector, is that
indicators of financial performance, by themselves, are not enough to analyze and determine an
organization's ability to achieve its measures of success. In state government, this translates into the
idea that a narrow focus on program outcomes does not tell the full story of the agency's ability to achieve
policy.
In TEA, the Balanced Scorecard approach to performance management is grounded on two ideas. The
first is that a priority goal must be established to ensure focus among agency employees and functions.
The second is that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the achievement of that goal and the
quality of employees hired, business processes put in place, support for educators and students, and
accountability for performance.
The underlying principles of the agency's Balanced Scorecard are shown in the following chart.
TEA Balanced Scorecard
Mission: Attain
education goal
To achieve the mission,
how must TEA support
Texas educators?
To achieve the mission,
what are TEA’s standards
of accountability to Texas
policymakers?
To achieve the mission, at
what internal processes must
TEA excel?
To achieve the mission, how
must TEA configure its staff?
These cause-and-effect relationships define the goals, objectives, and strategies through which the
agency achieves policy goals. It helps managers and policymakers identify strengths and troubleshoot
potential problems. As an example of cause and effect in the area of program leadership, success in
achieving the priority policy outcome - increasing the high school completion rate - is tied to improved
student performance in programs that meet special needs, which is tied to availability and use of educator
professional development activities, which is tied to the agency's ability to fund the programs effectively.
If the outcome was not met, then managers and policymakers could track back to see if the component
causes and effects were meeting their performance targets. On the other hand, if one of the components
7
was not met, managers and policymakers could develop predictions of the impact of the missed
performance target on the high school completion rate.
As another example, in the area of operational excellence, increasing the high school completion rate is
tied to the number of high risk districts that improve their performance from the prior year, which is tied to
the ability of the agency to implement an effective monitoring system, which depends on the ability of the
agency to recruit and retain employees in the monitoring and information systems divisions.
Previous agency strategic plans did not support this level of detailed analysis. In those plans, it was
difficult to identify policy priorities or to determine how they would be achieved. In the Balanced
Scorecard, once the priority of increasing the high school completion rate has been identified, it becomes
easier to achieve alignment of strategies and measures to support the achievement of that priority. As a
result, the agency has streamlined its budget structure. This streamlining has added clarity, by describing
priorities, reducing the number of strategies, and eliminating measures that did not impact the priority
outcome. It also facilitated the tie between funding and function and function to employee focus on the
overarching goal.
The agency's role in education performance and policy is clearly described in the Balanced Scorecard
that follows. TEA submitted this scorecard as its structure for the 2003-2007 strategic plan.
8
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
I
P
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
% of Adult Learners Who Complete the Level in Which They are Enrolled
% of Students Who Drop Out of the Public School System Between 7th & 12th Grades
% High School Gradutes Needing Remediation
% Districts Rated as High Risk That Improve Their Ratings from Prior Year
TEA Turnover Rate
# Training Hours Purchased with State Program Dollars
% Teachers with Proper Certification
Turnover Rate for Teachers
9
% High Need Campuses That Receive a Master Teacher Grant
Strategies: Teaching Excellence and Support
Scientific Research - Best Practices
Central Administration
Information Systems - Technology
Measures:
Human Resources - Recruitment, Retention, and Support
% of Grant Applications Processed Within 60 Days
External PSF Managers: Performance in Excess of Assigned Benchmark Net of Management Fees
Internal PSF Managers: Performance in Excess of Assigned Benchmark
% of Districts Rated as Mid-Technology or Above the Texas Star Chart for Teaching and Learning with Technology
% of School District Annual Textbook Orders Processed by May 31st
Strategies: Instructional Materials and Technology
Agency Operations
Measures:
Effective Business Operations
% of Districts Rated Exemplary / Recognized
# Campuses Rated Low-Performing 2 of 3 Years
Annual Drug Use & Violence Rate / per 100 Students
% Charters Rated Low-Performing
% Students Passing TAKS Reading
% of Campuses Rated Exemplary / Recognized
% Title I Campuses Rated Exemplary or Recognized
% Students Passing TAKS Mathematics
% AP/IB Exams Qualifying for College Credit or Advanced Placement
% Students Retained in Grade 3
Annual Statewide Dropout Rate for All Students
% Students Graduating under Recommended or Distinguished Achievement Program
Measures:
% Passing All Tests (Race/Ethnic/Economic/Special Needs Groups)
Strategies: Foundation School Program - Funding
Accountability System and Monitoring
Accountability
Strategies: High Standards
Achievement of Students at Risk
Safe Schools
Measures:
Student Success and Achievement
Measure: % Completing High School (Race / Ethnic / Economic / Special Needs Groups)
Strategy: Student Success
Public Education Excellence
Balanced Scorecard
Texas Education Agency
E
X
C
E
L
L
E
N
C
E
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
Texas Education Agency Principles of Public Service
In carrying out its philosophy and achieving its mission, agency employees will conduct themselves according to
the highest standards of professionalism, ethics, accountability, efficiency, openness, and the agency’s stated
principles of public service.
The TEA Principles of Public Service are:
TRUSTWORTHINESS. Agency employees perform their duties with honesty and integrity in conduct and
communication. Employees conduct business with competence, fairness, impartiality, efficiency, and
effectiveness to enhance the education of public schoolchildren and the public trust.
RESPONSIBILITY. Agency employees take responsibility for actions, decisions, and statements that
impact the education community and the public. Employees effectively use the public resources
entrusted to the agency for the benefit of the public school students, the state, and the public good.
RESPECT. Agency employees treat others with professionalism, consideration, and courtesy.
Employees respect others’ opinions and beliefs, value individual differences, and seek to reach new
solutions based on consensus.
CARING. Agency employees build professional relationships with colleagues, peers, and the public
based on the highest standards of fairness and consideration. These standards are the foundation of a
caring professional environment that supports mutual respect, collaboration toward common goals, and
excellence in job performance.
CITIZENSHIP. Agency employees strive to be good stewards of the public trust and public resources.
They honor and abide by agency policies and the laws of the State of Texas and the United States.
FAIRNESS. Agency employees conduct business with the public and co-workers in an equitable,
impartial, and honest manner, without prejudice and favoritism. Decisions are based on objective and
balanced judgment and are in accordance with the agency’s mission, established rules, and procedures.
10
11
EXTERNAL/INTERNAL ASSESSMENT
Overview of Agency Functions
Statutory Basis
The commissioner of education and the agency staff comprise the Texas Education Agency (Texas Education
Code §7.002(a)). TEA is the administrative unit for primary and secondary public education. It is responsible
for guiding and monitoring activities related to public education in Texas. The agency is authorized to carry out
education functions specifically delegated under Sections 7.021, 7.055, or other provisions of the code.
Responsibilities not specifically assigned to the agency or the State Board of Education fall under the authority
of school districts and charter schools.
Historical Perspective
TEA was created as one component of the Central Education Agency in 1949 by the Gilmer-Aikin law.
Significant historical events relating to TEA reflect educational reform at the state and national levels.
1980s
House Bill 246, as passed by the Texas Legislature in 1981, mandated that all school districts provide a
uniform state-developed curriculum consisting of essential elements for every subject area. This
statewide curriculum was adopted by the State Board of Education in 1984.
House Bill 72, a comprehensive reform bill enacted by the Texas Legislature in 1984, mandated
sweeping changes in the Texas’ public education system. This legislation changed the state’s system of
school finance and called for an appointed State Board of Education, student mastery of the statemandated competency tests for high school graduation, the “no pass, no play” rule, local school board
training, teacher testing and career ladders, increased compulsory attendance requirements, and the fiveday per semester student absence rule.
1990s
The Central Education Agency, consisting of the employees of TEA, the commissioner of education,
regional education service centers, and the State Board of Education, underwent a sunset review in 1989.
Senate Bill 417, the sunset bill for the agency, was passed by the Texas Legislature in 1990. Specific
provisions of the bill included an agency performance audit in 1991; a process for approving innovative
educational programs; performance indicators for determining the quality of learning on each campus;
annual review of school districts to determine if they satisfy agency accreditation criteria; and provisions
for agency compliance monitoring functions.
Senate Bill 417 also provided districts with the ability to seek waivers from specific state laws and
regulations deemed to hinder student performance. Action in each subsequent legislative session has
broadened the scope and flexibility of the state’s waiver provisions and has streamlined the waiver
application process.
In 1991, the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 351, as amended by House Bill 2885, enacting school
finance and educational reform. The bill addressed the school finance litigation embodied in the
Edgewood lawsuits over state public education funding.
The Texas Supreme Court declared Senate Bill 351, as amended by House Bill 2885, unconstitutional. In
1993, the Texas Legislature enacted new school finance provisions in response to the court’s decision.
The Legislature passed Senate Bill 7, establishing equalized wealth level of $280,000 per student in
weighted averaged daily attendance (WADA) and gave districts above $280,000 per WADA five options
to reduce their wealth level down to $280,000.
12
Senate Bill 351 also made significant changes to the state’s system of school district accreditation,
mandating an accreditation system that provided reliable measurement of student performance, and
related that performance to state standards. In 1994, Texas school districts and campuses were given
accreditation ratings based on an integrated set of student performance, attendance, and school dropout
data. The ratings system included performance requirements for all students taking the Texas
Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) and for each student group. The performance requirements that
school districts and campuses must meet to achieve an acceptable or recognized rating have increased
each year since 1994.
1995 and the New Education Code
In 1995, the Texas Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the school finance provisions of Senate
Bill 7. The court ruled that the guaranteed yield provision in Senate Bill 7 reduced the disparities in
spending between property-rich and property-poor districts. The court also established that the
guaranteed yield provisions in the bill enabled every school district in the state to meet or exceed
requirements for accrediting education programs.
Also in 1995, the 74th session of the Texas Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1, an important overhaul of
the Texas Education Code. The new code emphasized excellence in core academic subjects, innovation
in local programs, increased local decision making, and accountability for student achievement. The
code streamlined the state’s waiver process, requiring the commissioner of education to reject, rather
than approve, waivers from school districts. It created the State Board for Educator Certification,
increased the minimum annual salaries for beginning teachers and for teachers with more than 20 years
experience, and tied minimum salary levels in future years to an appropriation within the Foundation
School Program. The new code also modified the “no pass, no play” rule, established a required and an
enriched curriculum for Kindergarten through Grade 12, and altered the state’s system of approving and
purchasing textbooks.
Senate Bill 1 established new roles and relationships between state, regional, and local educators and
strictly limited the powers of the agency, the State Board of Education, and regional education service
centers. In addition to limiting these entities to specifically delegated functions, the education code
sunsetted the public education rules in the Texas Administrative Code.
1996-1999
In 1996, the agency reduced the number of its full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) by 22 percent, from
a 1994 budgeted level of 1,144 to 889 in 1996. As part of this reduction, technical assistance functions
were decentralized to the regional education service centers. In 1997, with the transfer of educator
preparation and certification functions to the State Board for Educator Certification, the number of FTEs at
the agency was reduced to 834.
In 1997, the Texas Legislature addressed the state’s system of school funding in House Bill 4. The bill
provided significant property tax relief through increased exemptions, created a new program for funding
facilities, provided transition for a higher minimum salary schedule for teachers, and dedicated state
lottery proceeds to public education.
The State Board of Education completed adoption of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) in
1997. As the first major rewrite of state curriculum requirements since 1981, the TEKS set high standards
for the content and skills that students must know and be able to do. While the TEKS do not contain
teaching or time requirements, they are more rigorous and more detailed than the essential elements
adopted in 1981. School districts are to implement the TEKS beginning with the 1998-99 school year.
The 75th Texas Legislature funded the Texas Reading Initiative to improve fundamental reading skills in
the early grades. School districts were required to inventory and diagnose the reading ability of students
in Kindergarten through Grade 2 and to base subsequent instructional programs on their findings.
13
In 1999, the 76th session of the Texas Legislature enacted the Student Success Initiative. The initiative
phased in new standards for student promotion at Grades 3, 5, and 8. The legislation requires school
districts to enroll students who do not pass certain state assessments in programs of accelerated
instruction. The intent of the law is to eliminate the practice of social promotion. Grade-level retention is
regarded under the plan as the avenue of last resort.
In addition, the 76th Legislature mandated a new statewide student assessment program that must be
implemented no later than the 2002-03 school year. As specified in Senate Bill 103, the exit level
assessment required for graduation will be moved from Grade 10 to Grade 11. The assessment system
will encompass English language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science. The bill requires
assessment of skills both prerequisite to high school graduation and indicative of a readiness to enroll in
higher education institutions. This legislation also adds a number of tests in other grades and eliminates
some tests, such as the end-of-course examinations.
A further accomplishment of the 76th Legislature was that it fully funded the estimated amount to support
the statutory public school finance system. Effective September 1, 1999, Senate Bill 4 revised the
funding elements of the Foundation School Program to increase state aid to school districts by almost
$1.4 billion for the 2000-01 biennium via a $141 increase in the basic allotment. Significantly, Senate Bill
4 provided a $3,000 annual salary increase for every teacher, counselor, librarian, and nurse in Texas
public schools.
2000s
In 2001, the Legislature created a uniform group health insurance plan for public school employees. The
plan was mandatory for school districts with less than 500 employees and voluntary for school districts
with 500 to 1,000 employees. Districts with over 1,000 employees were not eligible.
The 77th Legislature changed the structure and operation of open enrollment charter schools with the
enactment of House Bill 6. New provisions included the strengthening of governance and financial
regulations and increased accountability.
Another achievement of the 77th Legislature was the creation of the Texas Mathematics Initiative. Similar to the
Reading Initiative, the Math Initiative trains teachers to instruct students with research-based strategies proven
successful for increased student performance. Current strategies that have proven to be effective include
homework services, diagnostic student assessment instruments, teacher resource support, and comprehensive
after-school and summer intervention programs.
Main Functions
Under the management of the commissioner of education, TEA performs the following main functions:
(1)
Administers and monitors education programs for compliance with state and federal regulations.
(2)
Directs research and information programs to improve teaching and training.
(3)
Conducts hearings regarding state school laws.
(4)
Establishes and implements pilot programs titled by the Education Code.
(5)
Carries out duties related to the administration of the investment capital fund, the purpose of which is to
assist eligible public schools implement procedures consistent with deregulation, in order to improve
student achievement.
(6)
Develops and implements a teacher recruitment program.
(7)
Administers the Texas Advanced Placement Incentive Program, the purpose of which is to recognize and
reward students, teachers, and schools that have demonstrated success in achieving the state’s
educational goal.
14
(8)
Develops and administers the adult community education programs.
(9)
Develops a program of organized instruction in driver education and driving safety for public schools.
(10)
Develops and administers a statewide plan for the education of children with visual impairments so that
their opportunity for achievement is equal to opportunities afforded their peers with normal vision.
(11)
Conducts duties related to regional day school programs for the deaf.
(12)
Engages in statewide development of technology and communication to prepare students for the 21st
century.
(13)
Serves as fiscal agent for the distribution of state and federal funds, to include an audit of the fiscal
information provided by the districts through the Public Education Information Management System
(PEIMS).
(14)
Cooperates with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board in connection with the Texas
Partnership Scholarship Program, the purpose of which is to advance the study of foreign languages and
culture.
Public Perception of the Texas Education Agency
“Hard statistics have proven that public education is alive and well…in Texas (where) strict accountability
measures have pushed the Lone Star State to the fore in the public education arena.”
(Reprinted with permission from the Oct. 2001 issue of Texas Lonestar Magazine,
copyright TASB 2001)
“Across Texas, student progress on the TAAS tests has been remarkable. Between 1994 and 1999, average
TAAS scores, the fraction of students passing each test, and the number of schools and districts receiving
improved accountability ratings all increased… What is clear is that schools in Texas have responded, and
dramatically, to the incentives of the state accountability rating system.”
(Reprinted with permission from Putting Schools to the Test: School Accountability,
Incentives, and Behavior, written by Donald Deere and Wayne Strayer of Texas A&M
University)
“Texas reforms have made a positive difference for students overall, and particularly for low-income and
minority children… Texas has seen dramatic increases in passing rates across all grade levels and subjects
on the state’s Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) exams, coupled with equally dynamic decreases in
racial and socioeconomic gaps on those tests.”
(Reprinted with permission from Real Results, Remaining Challenges: The Story of
Texas Education Reform, written by Craig D. Jerald of The Education Trust)
•
Texas was one of only five states to win a spot on the conservative Thomas B. Fordham
Foundation’s honor roll for strong academic standards and a strong accountability system.
•
An editorial in the Dallas Morning News heralded the collective creation of Texas’s student
testing program and school accountability system as one of the 10 defining moments that
helped shape the state in the 20th century.
•
Texas was one of 12 states honored by the bipartisan National Education Goals Panel for its
progress toward meeting the National Education Goals established in 1989. Texas was
particularly singled out for the gains it has made in student achievement.
15
∗
•
Five exemplary Texas public schools earned the National Title I Distinguished Schools Recognition
Award from the U.S. Department of Education in 2001. These five schools were lauded for the high
levels of student performance they achieved. Nationally, 95 schools were selected to receive this
award.
•
Texas was one of only two states, along with North Carolina, that was found to have a strong,
comprehensive school accountability system, according to Education Week’s Quality Counts
’99 report.
•
According to the RAND report, Texas’ score increases on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) were among the highest in the nation.
Texas was the only state to earn a grade of A in a study of teacher quality issues conducted by the
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, which is a private, conservative foundation for education reform. The
average grade for all states was D+.
Texas Education Agency 2002 Customer Satisfaction Survey
The findings from the Texas Education Agency 2002 Customer Satisfaction Survey can be used as an
indication of customer perceptions of the services provided by the agency.
TEA generally received favorable ratings from its customers. High percentages of customers either agreed or
strongly agreed with the statement that overall, they were satisfied with the services they receive. This
sentiment was strongest among superintendents (90.8 percent) and business managers (91.4 percent). Ninetypercent of the principals and 71.5 percent of the teachers and staff agreed or strongly agreed that overall, they
were satisfied with the services they receive from TEA. Agreement ratings were generally higher as
respondents had more contact with TEA. In the case of teachers and staff, 22.8 percent of the respondents
were neutral in their assessment of TEA, only 5.8 percent had negative ratings.
Over 95 percent of the superintendents (96.2 percent), business managers (96.4 percent), and principals (96.3
percent) either agreed or strongly agreed that staff members act in a professional manner. Eighty-seven
percent of teachers and staff agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. The statement, “Overall, I am
satisfied with my TEA contacts,” received agree or strongly agree ratings from 88.8 percent of the
superintendents, 90.1 percent of the business managers, 87.3 percent of the principals, and 70.6 percent of the
teachers and staff.
When asked to rate their agreement with the statement, “Overall, I am satisfied with information I receive from
TEA,” 83.3 percent of the superintendents, 81.8 of the business managers, 83.7 percent of the principals, and
65.1 percent of the teachers and staff either agreed or strongly agreed.
Even stronger ratings were observed for the statement, “Overall, I am satisfied with the TEA Web site.” Over 90
percent of the superintendents (92.2 percent), business managers (90.1 percent), and principals (92.1 percent)
either agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. Eighty-five percent of teachers and staff agreed or strongly
agreed with this statement.
When asked for additional comments or feedback about any aspect of TEA or its services, only 13.7 percent
had any comments or suggestions and over one-third of those comments were positive.
16
Organizational Aspects
TEA oversees elementary and secondary education in Texas. The commissioner of education and 858.5 fulltime equivalent (FTE) staffed positions administer TEA programs as mandated by the Texas Legislature. The
governor appoints the commissioner with the approval of the Texas Senate. The commissioner and agency
staff work together to assist in the operation of Texas public schools.
Within the agency, three deputy commissioners support the commissioner in directing operations in the areas of
Programs and Higher Education, Dropout Prevention and Initiatives, and Finance and Accountability. There are
five associate commissioners in the areas of Curriculum, Assessment, and Technology; Special Programs;
Quality, Compliance, and Accountability Reviews; Finance and Support Systems; and Accountability Reporting
and Research. These offices and their component divisions carry out the primary functions of the agency. An
organization chart is in Appendix B of this plan.
The agency’s main organization centers on six key functions:
(1)
Develop and administer student educational programs,
(2)
Provide funding to local districts while ensuring proper use of state and federal funds,
(3)
Manage the state accountability system using school performance data; conduct educational
research and provide useful information bases,
(4)
Promote teaching excellence, and
(5)
Support K-12 Higher Education partnership.
The FTE cap assessed by the Legislature for TEA is 858.5 positions for fiscal year 2002 and 860.5 for
fiscal year 2003. The agency has reduced its workforce by 25 percent from a high of 1,139 FTEs in 1994.
As part of the reduction, technical assistance functions have been decentralized to regional education
service centers.
The vast majority of job opportunities at TEA are classified as professional. The expertise required of
agency staff is appropriate and necessary to the work required by the Texas Legislature in pursuit of the
state’s priority education goals.
Texas Education Agency Workforce Composition
Technical
54
Clerical
60
Administrator
57
Professional
682
17
Fiscal Aspects
One of TEA's primary functions is to finance public education with funds authorized by the Texas
Legislature. The majority of the funds administered by TEA are passed from the agency directly through
to school districts. The agency is administering $14.4 billion in public education funds in fiscal year 2002,
or the 2001-02 school year, and $15 billion in fiscal year 2003, or school year 2002-03.
Major sources of financing for the $14.4 billion administered by the agency in fiscal year 2002 include
$9.3 billion from the Foundation School Fund, $866.6 million from Available School Fund, $687 million
from State Textbook Fund, $257 million from the General Revenue Funds, $2.7 billion from Federal
Funds, and $668 million from Other State Funds.
Revenue Sources Fiscal Year 2002
State Textbook
Fund 5%
Other State Funds
5%
Federal Funds
18%
General Revenue
Fund 2%
Foundation School
Program 64%
Available School
Fund 6%
Budget Issues
The agency’s anticipated budget in 2003 will be close to $15 billion. Well over 99 percent of these funds
flow through to school districts and charter schools. In the 1990s, TEA was ranked by the federal
General Accounting Office 48th and 49th, respectively, for the amount of federal and state funds retained
in the state education agency. In this case, ranking at the bottom of the list is a good thing.
Texas public education funding combines state funds, federal funds, and local property taxes. The vast
majority of funding is allocated to school districts and charter schools based on per-student formulas.
Students requiring specialized services are funded by different weights in the system. The current budget
meets the formulas and funds the programs established by the Legislature. Potential reductions in state
funds and local tax revenues, as well as a growing number of districts reaching the maximum of tax rate,
will challenge policymakers to maintain these formulas while balancing the state’s budget.
In 2002, the agency is staffed with a maximum of 858.5 FTEs, less than one employee for the nearly
1,200 school districts and charter schools in Texas. A key component of operational excellence in this
environment is the agency's extensive examination of its business processes and the full use of
technologies for funding, rating, and communicating with schools.
18
In the 76th Legislative session, TEA requested and received an increase of 5 FTEs to its FTE cap, in
order to improve reading skills in elementary students. In the 77th session, TEA requested an increase in
cap to improve monitoring and accountability of charter schools and school districts. In the 77th session,
the Legislature increased the cap, but not to the full amount requested. The agency is at the upper limit
of its cap and is aggressively exploring options for the outsourcing and privatization of certain functions.
The agency will rise to the challenge posed by new programs and legislation, such as the No Child Left
Behind Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 2002.
Historically Underutilized Business Plan (revised March 2003)
Mission Statement: In accordance with Section 111.11 of the Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 2161
of the Texas Government Code, and the State of Texas Disparity Study, TEA is dedicated and committed
to assisting Historically Underutilized Businesses (HUBs) in the full and equal opportunities to compete
for all procurement opportunities within the agency. TEA demonstrates a good faith effort to actively
educate vendors of HUB requirements by assisting them in obtaining the Texas Building and
Procurement Commission (TBPC) HUB certification. Additionally, when soliciting bids from the TBPC’s
Central Master Bidders List (CMBL), internally developed procedures are followed to ensure increased
HUB participation. Further, TEA requires non-HUB prime contractors to demonstrate they have solicited
bids from HUB subcontractors.
Goals: TEA will demonstrate its good faith effort to utilize HUBs by meeting or exceeding the targeted
goals in the applicable procurement categories identified below.
Procurement Category
Agency Goal
State Goal
Heavy Construction
0.0%
11.9%
Building Construction
0.0%
26.1%
Special Trade Construction
0.0%
57.2%
Professional Services
15.05%
20.0%
Other Services
20.0%
33.0%
Commodity Purchasing
20.0%
12.6%
Agency Use of HUBs by Procurement Category
Of the six procurement categories identified by TBPC for reporting purposes (Heavy Construction,
Building Construction, Special Trade, Professional Services, Other Services, Commodity Purchasing),
TEA has had the most success in the “Commodity Purchasing” category. In this area, the agency has
contracted with a high percentage of HUB vendors, and this has been a major contributor toward the
agency exceeding the State of Texas average for the percentage of total expenditures with HUBs.
The majority of agency spending occurs in “Professional Services” and “Other Services,” and these categories
offer the greatest opportunity for expanding TEA’s business partnerships with HUB prime contractors and
subcontractors. Although many of these agreements are with nationally- and internationally-based business
and investment firms, universities, school districts, ESCs, and other state agencies that generally do not qualify
as HUB vendors, in the future these contracts will be evaluated closely for competitive HUB prime contractor
and subcontractor opportunities. Also, through existing outreach activities, the agency will focus on encouraging
minority businesses that are not HUB certified to certify with the TBPC. TEA is committed to increase HUB
participation over the prior year and to continue its recruiting efforts of HUB vendors.
19
TEA rarely expends funds in “Heavy Construction,” “Building Construction,” or “Special Trade”. The mission of
the agency does not lend itself to expenditures for goods or services in these categories.
Programs to Increase HUB Participation
In all the procurement categories applicable to agency operations, TEA is active in community outreach
efforts to inform minority owned businesses of contracting opportunities with TEA and to link them, if
necessary, with the TBPC staff to complete the HUB certification process. These outreach venues
include, but are not limited to, Economic Opportunity Forums, Spot Bid Fairs, vendor presentations to
agency staff, and recruiting participants for the Mentor-Protégé program. In addition, the agency will take
special interest in conducting business with underutilized HUB groups.
In contracting activities, TEA encourages prime contractors to use HUBs as partners and subcontractors
whenever possible. For example, in contracting for money managers for the Permanent School Fund,
TEA has entered into an emerging manager program in which two investment firms are engaged to find,
hire, manage and assist small, minority and women-owned investment managers. This has resulted in
approximately $250,000 of expenditures annually with HUB vendors. Further, in the “good faith spirit” of
the program, TEA, through the State Board of Education, has encouraged all external contractors
providing investment services to the Fund to utilize HUB vendors to provide security brokerage services
to the Fund. Although these brokerage fees are not included as agency expenditures in the TBPC semiannual and annual report, they represented approximately $2 million in commissions to certified HUB
vendors. In other contracting areas, such as legal services and educational program consulting, TEA will
strive for increasing contracting opportunities for HUB prime vendors and subcontractors.
Objectives:
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
Implement good faith efforts related to identification, solicitation, and use of HUBs in contract
opportunities generated by TEA
Comply with all HUB planning requirements
Comply with all HUB outreach requirements
Comply with subcontracting good faith efforts in contracts generated by TEA
Comply with all HUB reporting requirements
Participate in the Mentor-Protégé program
Strategies:
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
Appoint and maintain a designated HUB Coordinator; provide the individual with adequate
resources to perform the necessary functions to effectively implement, monitor, and report on
TEA's HUB activities
Prepare/distribute information and train staff on procurement procedures to encourage all
businesses to bid for state contracts
Identify subcontracting opportunities in goods and services that meet established criteria for
subcontracting plans
Specify reasonable, realistic contract specifications, and terms and conditions consistent with
agency requirements to encourage maximum participation by all businesses
Provide potential contractors with referenced list(s) and/or sources of lists of certified HUBs
available for subcontracting opportunities identified in TEA procurement opportunities
Utilize available HUB directories to solicit bids
Host and participate in Economic Opportunity Forums and other business community
outreach educational efforts to inform the public of contracting opportunities with TEA
Maintain a monthly HUB procurement reporting system for all contracts and purchases that
include subcontracting activity
20
Output Measures:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Percent of total dollar value of contracts and subcontracts awarded to HUBs reflected in the
TBPC Semiannual and Annual HUB Report
Percent of contracts exceeding $100,000 that have documented compliance with provisions
relative to the identification of subcontracting opportunities
Percent of contracts exceeding $100,000 awarded which contain subcontracting plans and are
reflected in the provisions of the awarded contract
Number of agency staff trained
Number of TEA originated contracts with subcontracting plan provisions
Number of EOFs and HUB forums attended/sponsored
Agency Use of Historically Underutilized Businesses (HUB)
TEA promotes a good faith effort for full and equal opportunities for all qualified businesses—
including small, minority, and women owned historically underutilized businesses—to compete for
all procurement opportunities within the agency. TEA has established a number of initiatives
designed to provide these procurement opportunities for all Texas businesses. Examples of
these initiatives are categorized into the four major areas below:
•
PLANNING: Implemented a business plan and agency operating procedure formally adopting the
Texas Administrative Code and TBPC HUB rules.
•
OUTREACH:
a. Agency HUB Coordinator, appointed in November 1999, regularly participates in
quarterly HUB Coordinator meetings to share “best practices” among state agencies
and to remain apprised of legislative changes relating to the HUB Program;
b. Expanded the “HUB Opportunities” section of the TEA website to include a listing of
agency procurement practices/business needs, detailed Mentor-Protégé instructions, and
links to the TBPC website for HUB certification;
c. HUB Coordinator and procurement staff are active in Economic Opportunity Forums
throughout the state;
d. HUB Coordinator works closely with minority and women owned businesses in a variety of
outreach venues (phone, e-mail, mail, agency website, face-to-face meetings) to match
them with the appropriate agency staff for individual procurement opportunities and with
the TBPC staff to register as a certified HUB vendor;
e. Established a Balanced Scorecard key performance measure to record the “number of
HUB contacts made by the HUB Coordinator each month”;
f. Facilitated a Mentor-Protégé agreement in the agency investments department and
entered into an emerging manager program in which two investment firms are engaged to
find, hire, manage, and assist small, minority and women owned investment managers.
•
REPORTING: Implemented a “HUB Bid/Award Tracking” database management system as part
of the Integrated State Accounting System procurement module to record bids, proposals, and
contracts awarded to all vendors for monthly reports.
•
SUBCONTRACTING: Contracts Management Unit integrated the requirement for a full
subcontracting plan for all proposals over $100,000; all agency contract monitors are trained in this
area.
21
These consolidated efforts have contributed to the agency’s success in doing business with qualified HUB
vendors. For the past several years, TEA has exceeded the State of Texas average for the percentage of total
expenditures with HUB vendors. The chart below depicts this performance.
TEA
FY 99
FY 00
FY 01
FY 02
Estimated FY 03
Total Expenditures
$88.6M
$91.1M
$118.4M
$130M
$140M
Expenditures with HUBs
$9.4M
$14.7M
$16.1M
$15.3M
$21M
% of Expenditures with HUBs
10.6%
16.1%
13.5%
11.4%
15%
State of Texas Average
FY 99
FY 00
FY 01
FY 02
Total Expenditures
$6.9B
$7.8B
$8.3B
$8.7B
Expenditures with HUBs
$0.9B
$1.0B
$1.0B
$1.0B
% Expenditures with HUBs
12.9%
13.3%
13.1%
11.3%
Through sound execution of the various plans and programs cited above, TEA will continue to achieve solid
results in its good faith effort to provide full and equal opportunities for all qualified businesses to compete for the
procurement of agency goods and services.
Service Populations
There are approximately four million students in Texas public schools today. Since 1987, total enrollment has
increased by 24 percent. This rate of growth exceeds the rate of public school enrollment growth in the nation
as a whole, which was 17 percent over the same period.
Of all students enrolled for the 2000-01 school year, approximately 85 percent were served the previous
year in Texas public schools and the remaining 15 percent were newly enrolled students. This 15 percent
includes students entering school for the first time (e.g., pre-kindergarten and kindergarten enrollees) as
well as other students entering the Texas public education system, such as those from private schools or
residents new to the state. The majority of districts continue to show enrollment increases. In the 200001 school year, 52.6 percent of districts reported enrollment growth compared to 52.9 percent with
increases in 1999-00.
Districts classified as “non-metropolitan fast growing” and suburban districts of the state’s major urban
centers continue to demonstrate higher than average enrollment growth: 4.7 and 3.3 percent increases,
respectively, compared to the state average of 1.7 percent. In contrast, rural districts as a group
decreased 1.4 percent in size from the prior year.
The state’s trend toward increasing racial and ethnic diversity has figured prominently in the Texas public school
system’s growth and service patterns. A decade ago, minority student groups became the majority student
population in the state. This shift has impacted, and will continue to have, impact on the educational system.
The growth in the minority student population continues to exceed non-minority growth. Minority students in all
categories now comprise 58 percent of the public school population, compared with 56.9 percent in 1999-00. In
the fast-growing suburban districts, the number of African-American students increased by 72 percent and the
number of Hispanic students increased by 81 percent.
22
In the 2000-01 school year, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanics, and Native American students
made up 58 percent of the total students in the state's public education system. Hispanic students made up
40.6 percent of Texas public education enrollment. The number of Hispanic students enrolled in Texas public
schools increased 4.3 percent in one year. Although this rate of growth is not as fast as the growth rate of
Asian-American students, it is the most significant.
The percent of African-Americans among the total student population is 14.4 percent, the same
percentage as in the prior three years. In contrast, the White population declined by 0.9 percent or by
14,980 students. The percentage of White students statewide has shown a consistent decrease, falling
from 49 percent nine years ago to 42 percent this year.
Statewide, the percent of students participating in special education programs is 11.9 in 2000-01, a slight
decline from the 12.1 percent participating in these programs in the 1999-00 school year. Districts
identified slightly more students receiving some type of special education service, 483,442 compared with
482,427 that year.
2001 Student Population Ethnic Composition
Other 3%
African-American
14%
White 42%
Hispanic 41%
Geographic Regions
To carry out its mission, the agency serves all parts of the state, including the Texas-Louisiana and the
Texas-Mexico border regions. The Texas Education Code includes weighted funding to meet the special
needs of identified student populations and school districts. In addition, education service centers,
located in 20 regions across Texas, identify special needs for service within their areas.
While 52.6 percent of school districts have measurable growth, that growth is concentrated along the
corridors that connect Dallas-Houston-San Antonio-Brownsville. In contrast, other regions of the state, as
defined by regional education service centers, have seen enrollment decline. The chart that follows
illustrates areas with increased enrollment by education service center region.
23
Percent Increase in Students
1994-1995 to 1999-2000
18.8%
20%
16.2%
16.5%
16%
Decrease
Increase
11.6%
12.1%
12%
7.6%
7.1%
8%
4.5%
4.9%
4%
0.9%
1.1%
0%
Kilgore
VII
Mount
Pleas ant
VIII
El Pas o
XIV
Waco
XII
San
A ntonio
XX
Edinburg
I
Houston
IV
Hunts ville
VI
Dallas
X
Fort Worth
A us tin
XI
School District Characteristics
Texas’ 4 million students attend public schools in a variety of settings. Size, growth rates, student economic
status, and proximity to urban areas are factors that determine a district’s classification. A defining feature of
state district composition is the inverse relationship between the number of districts and the number of enrolled
students. In 2000-01, the thirteen largest districts served 25.6 percent of the students. The smallest districts
(fewer than 500 students each) enrolled 2.6 percent of the students but represented 29.95 percent of all
districts.
The ethnic distribution of students varies greatly across the state and depends in part on geography, size of the
district, and type of community served. Statewide, nearly 60 percent (58 percent) of all students are from
minority ethnic groups. A minority student is defined as a member of the African-American, Hispanic, Native
American, or Asian/Pacific Islander ethnic groups. Districts in major urban areas serve an 80.5 percent minority
student population while districts in rural areas serve a population that is 34.1 percent minority.
The largest minority student group within the state is the Hispanic student population, which represents 40.6
percent of all students. The highest percentages of Hispanic students are found in Region 1 Education Service
Center in Edinburg with 95.6 percent, and in Region 19 Education Service Center in El Paso at 85.8 percent.
The largest percentage of African-American students, 31.1 percent, is in Region 5 Education Service Center in
Beaumont. The northeastern and north central parts of the state have the highest percentages of White
students with the greatest percentage, 74.1 percent, in Region 9 Education Service Center in Wichita Falls.
24
XIII
Performance Benchmarking Data
TEA performance can be benchmarked to national data. Following is a comparison of Texas performance to
the national data in these areas: student proficient level in reading, math, and science; high school completion;
and AP/IB participation.
Performance: Percent of students reading at grade level
Benchmark Data Source: NAEP 1998 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States
Authorized by Congress and administered by the National Center for Education Statistics, the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is the only ongoing national survey of student performance
in various academic areas. While Texas students are not tested at Grade 3, results from testing at other
grades demonstrate that Texas students are improving their performance in reading. Differences in state
performance can be attributed to different populations, different levels of economic support, different
curriculum, and different methods of teaching.
The National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) designated three achievement levels: basic,
proficient, and advanced. NAGB identified the proficient level, which represents solid academic
performance, as the achievement level that all students should attain. Shown below are results for Texas
and select other states with similar demographics. Additionally, North Carolina was included due to its
recent achievements in public education.
Percentage of Grade 4 Students at
or above Proficient Level
California
Florida
New York
North Carolina
Texas
National Average
1992
19
21
27
25
24
27
1994
18
23
27
30
26
28
1998
20
23
29
28
29
29
California
Florida
New York
North Carolina
Texas
National Average
Hispanic
29
32
39
37
43
38
8
17
11
13
15
12
1998
22
23
34
28
28
31
California
Florida
New York
North Carolina
Texas
National Average
Percentage of Grade 8 Students at or above
Proficient Level by Race/Ethnicity
Percentage of Grade 4 Students at or
above Proficient Level by Race/Ethnicity
White
Percentage of Grade 8 Students at
or above Proficient Level
AfricanAmerican
7
9
9
11
11
9
California
Florida
New York
North Carolina
Texas
National Average
White
Hispanic
36
32
46
40
40
38
9
14
13
12
15
14
1998: Percentage of Economically Disadvantaged
Students at or above Proficient Level
Grade 4
Grade 8
California
7
7
Florida
12
12
New York
12
16
North Carolina
14
15
Texas
14
13
National Average
13
15
25
AfricanAmerican
12
8
12
13
12
11
Performance: Percent of students at or above the proficient level in math
Benchmark Data Source: NAEP 2000 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States
Percentage of Grade 4 Students at
or above Proficient Level
1992
Percentage of Grade 8 Students at or
above Proficient Level
1996
2000
1992
1996
2000
16
17
18
-
-
-
California
12
11
15
Florida
-
-
-
New York
17
20
22
New York
20
22
26
North Carolina
13
21
28
North Carolina
12
20
30
Texas
15
25
27
Texas
18
21
24
National Average
17
20
25
National Average
20
23
26
California
Florida
Percentage of Grade 4 Students at or above
Proficient Level by Race/Ethnicity
White
California
Florida
25
Hispanic
Percentage of Grade 8 Students at or above
Proficient Level by Race/Ethnicity
African-
Asian-
American
American
2
25
5
White
California
Florida
-
-
-
-
New York
34
7
5
47
North
Carolina
38
13
9
-
Texas
41
14
12
48
National
Average
33
10
5
-
Hispanic
27
AsianAmerican
4
33
-
-
-
-
New York
36
12
10
42
North
Carolina
41
18
7
-
Texas
37
14
6
42
National
Average
34
9
5
40
2000: Percentage of Economically Disadvantaged
Students at or above Proficient Level
California
7
AfricanAmerican
Grade 4
5
Grade 8
4
Florida
-
-
New York
8
12
North Carolina
12
13
Texas
13
11
National Average
9
10
26
Performance: Percent of students at or above the proficient level in science
Benchmark Data Source: NAEP 2000 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States
Percentage of Grade 4 Students at
or above Proficient Level
Percentage of Grade 8 Students at or
above Proficient Level
2000
2000
14
California
15
California
-
Florida
-
Florida
New York
26
New York
29
North Carolina
24
North Carolina
26
Texas
24
Texas
24
National Average
33
National Average
30
Percentage of Grade 8 Students at or above
Proficient Level by Race/Ethnicity
Percentage of Grade 4 Students at or above
Proficient Level by Race/Ethnicity
White
Hispanic
African-
Asian-
American
American
Texas
39
12
10
38
National
Average
37
10
6
-
White
Hispanic
African-
Asian-
American
American
Texas
36
12
7
40
National
Average
40
11
6
36
Performance: Percent of students completing high school
Benchmark Data Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 121st Edition
According to the 2000 Statistical Abstract of the United States, U.S. Census Bureau, Texas improved its high
school graduation rate. However, room for improvement remains as performance lags behind the national
average and with states with comparable demographics. The chart below indicates graduation rates for state
populations as a whole at selected years.
Educational Attainment
IN PERCENTAGE, HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE OR MORE (AS OF MARCH 2000,
MARCH 1998, AND APRIL 1990)
California
Florida
New York
North Carolina
Texas
National Average
1990
76.2
74.4
74.8
70.0
72.1
77.6
27
1998
80.1
81.9
81.5
81.4
78.3
82.8
2000
81.2
84.0
82.5
79.2
79.2
84.1
Performance: Percent of eligible juniors and seniors taking Advanced Placement/International
Baccalaureate exams
Benchmark Data Source: 2000 Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Examination
Results in Texas
In 2000, a total of 60,405 students in 1,015 Texas schools (public and non-public) took 107,640
Advanced Placement (AP) examinations. This put Texas third in the nation, behind California and New
York, in the number of AP examinees and examinations. Texas, at 63.1 percent, also was above the
national average (57.3 percent) in the percentage of schools with AP examinees.
In addition to increases in program participation, Texas students demonstrated an increase in
performance in 2000. The percentage of high scoring AP examinations earned by Texas students,
however, remained below the national percentage (54.8 percent in Texas compared to 63.8 percent
nationally).
Similarly on a much smaller scale, 843 Grade 11-12 students in 12 Texas public schools took 2,085 IB
examinations in 1999-00. Texas students earned scores of 4, 5, 6, or 7 on 79.1 percent (1,649) of 2,085
examinations taken in 1999-00 - up from 74.7 percent (or 680 examinations) in 1994-95.
1999-00 AP Examination Results
State
# of AP
% of Total
Grade 11-
Total AP
% of Enrollees
1999-00 %
Total AP
% Exams
Schools
Schools in
12
examinees
Taking >=1 AP
Change:
Exams
Scored
AP
Enrollment
Exam
Examinees
Taken
3-5
1,156
74.7
795,718
131,361
16.5
10.1
229,310
63.2
Florida
435
64.8
290,609
45,234
15.6
11.1
78,222
58.0
New York
969
76.7
387,333
74,578
19.3
6.2
123,103
64.9
North Carolina
364
67.7
150,581
21,871
14.5
8.4
37,337
57.6
Texas
1,015
63.1
480,957
60,405
12.6
17.9
107,640
54.8
Nation
12,558
57.3
6,425,520
747,922
11.6
9.0
1,242,324
63.6
California
28
Current Year Activities - Challenges and Opportunities
TEA's progress in providing program leadership and operational excellence to the state’s public education
system can be charted in five primary areas: High School Completion, Early Start, Science, Teaching
Excellence, and Technology.
High School Completion
High school completion rates in Texas schools have increased steadily since 1994. For the first time in
three years, the annual dropout rate decreased in the 1999-00 school year. However, there is still much
work to be done. A gap exists in completion and dropout rates among student racial, ethnic, and
economic groups. This gap must be overcome if the Texas public education system is to fulfill the
promise for all Texas children.
The largest number of students, 7,630, dropped out in Grade 9 in the 1999-00 school year. This dropout rate
for 9th graders held steady (2.0 percent) between the 1998-99 and 1999-00 school year. Two key programs
that seek to increase the high school graduation rate by lowering the dropout rate in Grade 9 were created by
the 76th session of the Legislature and funding was reappropriated by the 77th Legislature.
The Basic Skills Program for High School Students helps school districts implement special programs for
students in Grade 9 who have not earned sufficient credit to advance to Grade 10. In the 1999-00 school year,
94,493 students earned sufficient credit in the program to advance to Grade 10.
The Texas After School Initiative helps school districts serving middle school students in certain high juvenile
crime zip codes implement quality after-school programs that include an academics-based curriculum, character
education, and mentoring. From the 1999-00 to the 2001-02 school years, 96,932 middle grade students were
served in these after-school programs.
An important step in fulfilling the promise for all Texas children is the creation of a new deputy
commissioner for Dropout Prevention and Initiatives. The deputy will report directly to the commissioner
of education and will manage the integration of Texas curriculum and assessment, major federal
programs serving disadvantaged students, Texas initiatives in reading and mathematics, and traditionally
students served in adult education and general education development programs.
In addition, the agency has a new strategy, Scientifically-Based Research, in this strategic plan, which will
help identify best practices for keeping students in school and support the state system of accountability.
Completion Rates
Students are considered to have completed high school if they have graduated, earned a General
Education Development (GED) certificate, or are still enrolled in the year after their expected graduation
date. The agency reports high school completion data in frequent Reports on High School Completion
Rates.
In the class of 2000, 212,925 students had graduated, were continuing high school, or had received a
GED. The 2000 statewide completion rate, tracking a Grade 9 cohort since the 1995-96 school year, was
92.8 percent. The rate includes 80.7 percent of students graduating from high school, 4.8 percent
receiving a GED certificate, and 7.3 percent continuing school. It represents a steady increase from 85.3
percent for the class of 1994.
White students had a graduation rate of 86.7 percent, African-American students had a graduation rate of
76.9 percent, and Hispanic students had a graduation rate of 72.8 percent. Hispanic and AfricanAmerican students have narrowed the gap since 1994. The percentage point improvement for Hispanic
and African-American students was more than twice as large as the improvement for White students for
29
the same period. Likewise, the completion rates for economically disadvantaged students improved
faster than rates for non-economically disadvantaged students.
The 76th session of the Texas Legislature created and the 77th session reappropriated funds for two key
programs that help close the gap and increase achievement for all students. The Basic Skills Program for
High School Students targets and remediates ninth grade students - the grade with the highest dropout
rate - who do not have sufficient credit to advance to the tenth grade.
Dropout Rates
There are two methods of tracking the number of student dropouts in Texas. An annual rate is used to calculate
the dropout rate for a single year. A longitudinal dropout rate is used to calculate the dropout rate over a period
of years by following a class, or cohort, through their secondary school career. The Texas After School
Program provides middle grade students at risk of school failure who live in high-crime zip codes with after
school instruction, and character and citizen education mentoring.
The annual dropout rate for the 1999-00 school year was 1.3 percent. Out of 1,794,521 students who attended
Grades 7-12 in Texas public schools, 23,457 students were reported to have dropped out, down from 27,592 in
the 1998-99 school year. The 1999-00 rate represented a decrease of 15 percent in the number of student
dropouts over the prior school year, the first decline in the dropout rate in three years.
Dropout rates for African-American and Hispanic students remained more than twice the rate for White students
statewide. The gap between the student groups is decreasing, however. The dropout rate for African-American
students decreased from 2.3 percent to 1.8 percent between the 1998-99 and 1999-00 school years. The
dropout rate for Hispanic students decreased from 2.3 percent to 1.9 percent over the same period. The
dropout rate for White students held relatively steady at 0.7 percent.
The longitudinal secondary school series tracks a class of students over five to seven years, from the time they
enter Grade 9 or Grade 7 until the fall following their anticipated graduation. Out of 244,777 students in the
class of 2000 Grade 9 cohort, 80.7 percent graduated, 4.8 percent received a GED certificate, and 7.3 percent
continued school the following school year. The four-year longitudinal dropout rate was 7.2 percent.
Student Success
The 76th session of the Texas Legislature passed the Student Success Initiative. The initiative ends social
promotion in the state public education system. Beginning in the 2002-03 school year, it requires students in
Grade 3 to pass the reading section of the statewide student assessment before being promoted to Grade 4.
Beginning in the 2004-05 school year, students in Grades 5 will have to pass both the reading and mathematics
sections of the assessment before being promoted to Grade 6. Students in Grade 8, beginning in 2007-08, will
have to pass both tests before being promoted to Grade 9.
The initiative includes extensive transition planning. Before they are retained, students who fail the tests will
have two additional opportunities to retest and pass before the start of the next school year. All Texas
Kindergarten, Grades 1, 2, and 3 teachers are provided professional development in reading. Teachers
diagnose the reading skills of primary students, and all students who are at-risk of not reading on grade level are
provided accelerated instruction.
The initiative clearly states Texas lawmakers' high expectations of students, educators, and administrators. It
also presents several challenges. The first year of the initiative will coincide with the first administration of the
Texas Assessment of Academic Skills, or TAKS. TAKS is tied to a curriculum based on the Texas Essential
Knowledge and Skills. It is a more rigorous test than the prior assessment, TAAS. The increased difficulty of
the TAKS may have a strong impact on students in Grade 3. To mitigate any potential impact, the state has
devoted extensive resources to training and programs. The State Board of Education will set the passing
standards for the TAKS in November 2002.
30
Early Start
TEA continues to carry out legislative initiatives in support of the idea that preparation for graduation from
high school with a world-class education begins at home and on the first day of school. The State Board
of Education has adopted Pre-Kindergarten curriculum guidelines for Texas schools aligned with the
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills requirements.
The 77th session of the Texas Legislature appropriated $200 million in the 2002-03 biennium for
Kindergarten and Pre-Kindergarten programs. The funding supports full-day Kindergarten and the
creation of Pre-Kindergarten programs. Legislators also appropriated funds for state Head Start and
Ready-to-Read programs. Funds are used to provide an educational component and pre-reading
instruction in government-funded early childhood programs.
Science
In the 2002-03 school year, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills will include science as one of
the subjects tested in Grade 5, Grade 10, and Grade 11. Limited English-Proficient students may take a
Spanish version of the Grade 5 science assessment. Over the period covered by this strategic plan,
policymakers, program leaders, and educators will examine ways to strengthen science education with
initiatives focusing on teachers, materials, and content. The state will be challenged by the shortage of
certified science teachers in the public education system.
Teaching Excellence
In the 75th, 76th, and 77th legislative sessions, the Texas Legislature addressed the issue of teacher pay
and benefits. In the 76th session, the Legislature raised the state minimum salary schedule by $3,000 at
every step. The 77th session established a teacher health insurance program for certain teachers and
school employees and provided every teacher in the state a $1,000 medical account.
The Legislature also mandated Master Teacher programs in reading and mathematics in which stipends
are paid to designated master teachers who serve as mentors on high-need campuses. Another
mentoring program is TxBESS, which was set up under a federal grant by the State Board for Educator
Certification. The evidence shows that this program is successful in retaining more teachers new to the
profession.
To better support teachers in the classroom, TEA is developing better and more accessible professional
development for teachers. The agency supports multiple high quality professional development efforts,
pertaining to the state curriculum, at Centers for Educator Development throughout Texas.
In conjunction with universities and professional associations, TEA is exploring the feasibility of creating a
centralized clearinghouse of information about the teaching profession and collaboratively compiling a
long-range plan for current and projected teacher supply and demand issues. The agency is working with
the Texas Workforce Commission to develop an online application and a job matching system for school
districts and educators.
During the period covered by this strategic plan, policymakers, program leaders, and educators will be
challenged by teacher shortages in critical areas, high turnover among new teachers, and ways to more
completely fund initiatives already in place. In addition, federal No Child Left Behind legislation raises the
bar for teacher certification and standards by requiring a highly qualified teacher in every classroom by
the 2005-06 school year.
Technology
The 77th session of the Texas Legislature established a Virtual School Pilot program The pilot project
supported the use of electronic and online courses in rural and urban school districts with a higher than
31
average dropout rate, higher than average number of at-risk students, and higher than average number of
underserved gifted and talented students. The findings of the pilot program will be reported in December
2002.
In an effort to ensure that online courses comply with the rigorous content standards established by
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, TEA initiated the Investigating Quality of Online Courses (IQ) Pilot
Project. The pilot, which will conclude in 2002, will present findings and make recommendations
concerning the quality of online education.
The TEA website includes a Teacher's Tool bag, which is a compendium of information for teachers for all
grade levels from around the state.
In addition, TEA provides an online library and reference catalog, as well as an online union catalog of
Texas school library holdings to districts and campuses within the state. Students and teachers may
download citations and full text articles from numerous national and state sources with this initiative.
In conjunction with The University of Texas Health Science Center, TEA developed software for Personal
Digital Assistants (PDAs) in 2002 that teachers can use to diagnose the reading skills of early elementary
grade students.
Technology is far-reaching and quick-moving. Policymakers, program leaders, and educators face
challenges relating to the accessibility of these applications for everyone across the state, training
teachers in the use of technology, and ensuring the quality of online and electronic courses. As the use
of technology in education has expanded, the technology allotment provided by the Legislature to schools
has remained flat. Educational technology is an area that will see tremendous growth and potential, and
this same growth presents additional challenges in the years covered by this strategic plan.
Statewide Student Assessment System
The 76th session of the Texas Legislature directed TEA to develop a new statewide student assessment
program. The new series of tests are called the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) and
will replace the TAAS.
More rigorous than TAAS, TAKS brings more subjects to be tested, tests will be given in Grade 9, the exit
exam will move from Grade 10 to Grade 11, and the new tests will be aligned with the Texas Essential
Knowledge and Skills, a statewide curriculum which was passed into law by the Texas Legislature,
adopted by the State Board of Education in 1997, and became effective during the 1998-99 school year.
In addition to the reading, mathematics, and writing skills that TAAS evaluated, TAKS will test students’
knowledge of science at Grade 5; social studies at Grade 8; and biology, integrated chemistry, physics,
and early-American and United States history in high school. The State Board of Education will set the
TAKS passing standards in November 2002.
In order to be promoted, third graders must pass the reading portion of the TAKS beginning in 2003. In 2005,
fifth graders must pass the reading and mathematics portions to be promoted, and in 2008, eighth graders must
pass the reading and mathematics portions to be promoted. TEA will work with school districts and
policymakers to ensure that all students are prepared to pass the TAKS in these critical grades.
Beginning with the class of 2005, students in the eleventh grade must pass the TAKS in order to graduate
from high school.
32
Student Assessment 2003-2005
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
English
Language
English
Language
Arts
Arts
Math
Math
Science
Science
Social
Studies
Social
Studies
Grade 12
English-Version Assessment
Reading
Reading
Reading
Reading
Writing
Math
Reading
Reading
Reading
Writing
Math
Math
Math
Math
Math
Math
Science
Social
Studies
Spanish-Version Assessment
Reading
Reading
Reading
Reading
Math
Math
Writing
Math
Math
Science
Reading Proficiency Tests in English for LEP Students
RPTE
RPTE
RPTE
RPTE
Alternative Assessment for Special Education Students
Reading
Reading
Reading
Reading
Writing
Reading
Reading
Reading
Writing
English
Language
Arts
Math
Math
Math
Math
Math
Math
Math
Math
Despite improvements, disparities remain in student performance. TEA must prioritize its efforts to help schools
and districts close the achievement gap.
The development, communication, and implementation of the new statewide student assessment system in
2003 present several challenges during the period covered by this strategic plan. To meet these challenges,
educators and policymakers must provide leadership to ensure that schools have the support, programs, and
resources necessary to ensure high standards of achievement and equity for all students.
2001-2002 Preliminary Assessment
for All Grades, Student Groups, All Reading, All Math
All Students
African-American
Hispanic
White
Econom. Disadvantaged
Limited English Proficient
Reading
Math
All Tests Taken
91%
86%
87%
96%
86%
69%
92%
86%
90%
96%
88%
79%
85%
76%
79%
92%
78%
58%
33
Accountability Rating System
For the first time ever, rising scores on the TAAS and declining dropout rates have caused Texas as a
whole to reach the equivalent of the Recognized rating in the state’s accountability rating system in the
2000-01 school year.
To reach a Recognized rating, Texas demonstrated that 80 percent of its public school population and
each of its major student groups (Whites, African-Americans, Hispanics, and economically
disadvantaged) passed each student group.
TEA's accountability system is the basis for evaluating and reporting the extent to which the educational system
is achieving state goals for student performance. Since the inception of the state’s accountability system in
1993, performance ratings have steadily improved while the standards have toughened.
The accountability system is based on a set of mandated indicators for all levels of ratings:
• Scores on the TAKS, replacing the TAAS in the 2002-03 school year. Accountability ratings
are based on overall student performance, as well as performance of student groups
(African-American, Hispanic, White, and Economically Disadvantaged).
• Dropout Rate
• Attendance Rate
Individual campuses can earn ratings of exemplary, recognized, acceptable, low-performing, or
acceptable: data issues. Alternative education campuses and programs can apply for and be evaluated
under the alternative accountability system. Districts can earn ratings of exemplary, recognized,
acceptable, academically unacceptable, unacceptable: SAI (special accreditation investigation) or
unacceptable: data quality.
All charter schools are accountable for student performance on TAAS. Open enrollment charter schools
are not rated for the first full year of operation. In subsequent years, charter schools are rated through
the regular accountability or alternative procedures as appropriate.
A record number of public school districts and campuses earned the state’s prestigious Exemplary rating
in 2001. This top rating was earned by 1,571 schools, compared to 1,296 campuses in 2000. The state’s
highest rating was also earned by 178 school districts, compared to 168 in 2000. To earn an Exemplary
rating, a district or campus must demonstrate a TAAS passing rate of 90 percent or better for all students
and for each student group. The annual dropout rate for that campus or district had to be one percent or
less for all students and for each student group.
In 2001, 54 percent of Texas students were enrolled in public schools that achieved one of the top two
ratings - Exemplary or Recognized - in the state’s accountability system. Almost 56 percent of Texas’
7,395 public schools and 61.6 percent of the state’s 1,041 school districts achieved a Recognized or
Exemplary rating.
Despite improvements, disparities in student performance remain. TEA must prioritize its efforts to help schools
and districts close the achievement gap.
TEA has developed a multi-year sanction and intervention framework for academically unacceptable districts
and low-performing campuses. Some of those strategies include issuance of public notice of low-performance;
onsite peer review; education service center support; and assignment of a monitor, a master, or a management
team.
34
ACCOUNTABILITY RATINGS
CAMPUS RATINGS
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Exemplary
Recognized
Acceptable
Acceptable: Data Issues
Low-Performing
255
1,004
4,347
394
1,309
4,127
683
1,617
3,679
1,048
1,666
3,365
267
108
67
59
1,120
1,843
3,148
36
95
1,296
2,009
2,912
N/A
146
1,571
2,327
2,469
N/A
100
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
157
106
285
46
316
67
354
24
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
14
137
860
34
37
209
788
8
2
65
321
650
4
3
120
329
585
6
2
122
383
524
7
3
168
439
428
5
1
0
178
471
390
1
0
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
0
1
7
2
5
2
2
3
7
3
5
1
5
7
31
20
8
24
5
9
40
42
23
37
ALTERNATIVE CAMPUS RATING
Acceptable
Needs Peer Review
DISTRICT RATINGS
Exemplary
Recognized
Acceptable
Academically Unacceptable
Unacceptable: SA1
Unacceptable: Data Quality
4
CHARTER SCHOOL RATINGS
Exemplary
Recognized
Acceptable
Low-Performing
AE: Acceptable
AE: Needs Peer Review
For 2003 through 2007, the accountability system will evaluate the results from the new assessment
system--TAKS, the results of the alternative assessment for special education students, and other criteria
if mandated by the Legislature.
35
Impact of Federal Statutes
In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), a sweeping reform of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The law provides states, districts, and charter schools more
flexibility in spending discretionary funds. It also requires that states develop improvement plans that
ensure all students reach the state’s education goals and increases requirements for teacher aids.
New programs are added, and federal funding for education is increased, under NCLB, primarily in
formula and competitive funding to school districts and charter schools. The funding is focused on
improving student achievement, improving early reading skills, improving teacher quality, and
implementing education technology. Much of NCLB is based on the Texas model of accountability for
student performance. At the state level, TEA’s ability to use the funds is restricted by federal rules
regarding supplement and supplant. Federal funds are intended to supplement what the state is currently
spending on its education programs, not supplant it. As an example, under these rules, TEA cannot use
NCLB funds earmarked for student assessment to supplant a portion of the state cost of that program. In
addition, the agency must change the state’s accountability rating system to add new student groups
specified in the law.
At the time of this writing, TEA is working with the U.S. Department of Education to clarify implementation
issues regarding the No Child Left Behind Act.
In 2003, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act will be reauthorized. This legislation governs
federal special education funding and programs. The new law may have implications for special
education.
36
37
FY 2003-2007 STRATEGIC PLAN STRUCTURE AND
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Goal 1
Program Leadership: To fulfill the promise for all Texas children, the Texas Education
Agency will provide program leadership to the state public education system, ensuring
all students achieve the state’s public education goals and objectives.
Objective 1.1
Public Education Excellence: All students in the Texas public education system will
graduate from high school with a world-class education.
Strategy 1.1.1 Foundation School Program - Equalized Operations: Ensure all
Texas students graduate from high school with a world-class education
funded by an efficient and equitable school finance system; ensure that
formula allocations support the state’s public education goals and
objectives and are accounted for in an accurate and appropriate
manner.
Strategy 1.1.2 Foundation School Program - Equalized Facilities: Operate an
equalized school facilities program by ensuring the allocation of a
guaranteed yield of existing debt and disbursing facilities funds.
Objective 1.2
Student Success and Achievement: The Texas Education Agency will provide the
state’s public education system with program leadership to ensure all students are
challenged, perform at grade level or above, and demonstrate strong performance in
reading and the foundation subjects of mathematics, English language arts, science,
and social studies.
Strategy 1.2.1 Academic Excellence: Plan and implement challenging academic,
advanced academic, career and technology education, and
bilingual/English as a second language educational programs to ensure
that all Texas students graduate from high school with a world-class
education.
Strategy 1.2.2 Student Success: Build the capacity of school districts to ensure that
all Texas students have the skills they need to succeed; that all that all
third grade students read at least at grade level and continue to read at
grade level; and that all secondary students have sufficient credit to
advance and ultimately graduate on time with their class.
Strategy 1.2.3 Achievement of Students at Risk:
Develop and implement
instructional support programs that take full advantage of flexibility to
support student achievement and ensure that all at-risk students
graduate from high school with a world-class education.
Strategy 1.2.4 Students with Disabilities: Develop and implement programs that
ensure all students with disabilities graduate from high school with a
world-class education.
Strategy 1.2.5 School Improvement and Support Programs: Encourage educators,
parents, community members and university faculty to improve student
learning and develop and implement programs that meet student
needs. Develop and implement the support programs necessary for all
students to graduate from high school with a world-class education.
38
Strategy 1.2.6 Adult Education and Family Literacy: Develop adult education and
family literacy programs that encourage literacy and ensure that all
adults have the basic education skills they need to contribute to their
families, communities, and the world.
Goal 2
Operational Excellence: The Texas Education Agency will fulfill the promise for all
Texas children through challenging assessments, supportive school environments, and
high standards of student, campus, district, and agency performance.
Objective 2.1
Accountability: The Texas Education Agency will sustain high levels of accountability
in the state public education system.
Strategy 2.1.1 Assessment and Accountability System: The state’s assessment
and accountability systems will continue to provide a basis for
evaluation and reporting the extent to which students, campuses, and
districts achieve high standards.
Objective 2.2
Effective School Environments: Support school environments that ensure educators
and students have the materials they need to succeed.
Strategy 2.2.1 Instructional Materials:
Provide students equitable access to
instructional materials and technologies supporting the Texas Essential
Knowledge and Skills.
Strategy 2.2.2 Educational Technology: Implement educational technologies that
increase the effectiveness of student learning, instructional
management, professional development, and administration.
Strategy 2.2.3 Safe Schools: Reduce the number of criminal incidents on school
campuses, enhance school safety, and ensure that students in the
Texas Youth Commission and disciplinary and juvenile justice
alternative education programs are provided the instructional and
support services needed to graduate from high school with a worldclass education.
Strategy 2.2.4 Child Nutrition Programs: Implement and support efficient state child
nutrition programs.
Strategy 2.2.5 Windham School System: Work with the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice to ensure that students have the basic education skills
they need to contribute to their families, communities, and the world.
Objective 2.3
Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Support: Recruit, retain, and support
educators in school districts, charter schools, and the Texas Education Agency to
ensure that all students in the Texas public education system graduate from high school
with a world-class education.
Strategy 2.3.1 Teaching Excellence and Support: Ensure educators have access to
quality training tied to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills;
develop and implement professional development initiatives that
encourage K-16 partnerships. Ensure that the regional education
service centers facilitate effective instruction and efficient school
operations by providing core services, technical assistance, and
program support based on the needs and objectives of the school
districts they serve.
39
Strategy 2.3.2 Scientific Research - Best Practices: Ensure that Texas public
education policy and programs are supported by world-class scientific
research.
Strategy 2.3.3 Agency Operations: Develop and implement efficient and effective
business processes and operations that support the state’s goals for
public education and ensure all Texas students graduate from high
school with a world-class education.
Strategy 2.3.4 Central Administration: The Commissioner of Education shall serve
as the educational leader of the state.
Strategy 2.3.5 Information Systems - Technology: The Texas Education Agency
will purchase, develop, and implement information systems that
support students, educators, and stakeholders.
40
41
APPENDICES
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Agency Strategic Planning Process
Organization Chart
Strategic Plan Outcome Measure Projections
Performance Measure Definitions
Workforce Plan
Survey of Organizational Excellence
Information Resources Strategic Plan
42
43
Agency Strategic Planning Process
The Texas Education Agency Strategic Plan for 2003-2007 is closely aligned with the Texas Education
Code. The plan has two goals: Program Leadership and Operational Excellence. These two goals, and
the strategies within them, communicate the agency’s roles and responsibilities to policymakers,
educators, the public, and agency employees. The plan is focused increasing the high school completion
rate as a way of strengthening the public education system and fulfilling the promise for all Texas
children.
In January 2000, the agency began work on developing a Balanced Scorecard approach to performance
management to improve the communication of strategies and the tracking of performance measures.
Implementing the Balanced Scorecard enabled the agency to identify and manage the major performance
measures for public education and define relationships between them.
In December 2001, agency senior managers were briefed on agency performance measures and the
Balanced Scorecard.
In February 2002, agency senior staff and a focus group of agency customers and stakeholders held a
series of workshops to:
•
•
•
Update the mission of the agency;
Identify and discuss the primary issues impacting education; and
Identify and discuss strategies, aligned with the mission, for addressing these issues.
A steering committee was appointed to clarify and consolidate the ideas originally presented during the
initial round of workshops.
In March 2002, agency division, unit, and team managers participated in a series of workshops in which
they were asked to develop strategies and discuss implementation issues concerning the agency’s efforts
to address the issues identified by senior staff.
Also in March 2002, the campus advisory committee at Anderson High School in the Austin Independent
School District made up of teachers, administrators, students, parents, and community members were
asked to identify issues and strategies.
In April 2002, the agency presented changes to its strategic plan structure and performance measures to
the Legislative Budget Board and the Governor’s Office of Budget, Planning, and Policy. The agency
worked with the LBB and GOBPP to develop the current strategic plan.
Agency staff conducted an assessment of performance measure targets and definitions. A key issue
impacting the plan is that a new statewide student assessment, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and
Skills will be administered to students for the first time in the 2002-03 school year. Performance targets
relating to passing rates on the assessment and district and campus ratings in the accountability rating
system are left “To Be Determined” in this plan. They will be established once the State Board of
Education sets a passing standard for the assessment in November 2002.
44
45
1.2.3
1.2.2
1.2.1
1.1.11
1.1.10
1.1.9
1.1.8
1.1.7
1.1.6
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
1.1.1
1.1.2
Code
Goal 1: Program Leadership: To fulfill the promise
for all Texas Children, The Texas Education Agency
will provide program leadership to the state public
education system, ensuring all students achieve the
state’s public education goals and objectives.
Percent of Students Completing High School
Percent of African-American Students Completing
High School
Percent of Hispanic Students Completing High School
Percent of White Students Completing High School
Percent of Asian-American Students Completing High
School
Percent of Native American Students Completing
High School
Percent of Economically Disadvantaged Students
Completing High School
Percent of Equalized Revenue in the Foundation
School Program
Percent of Students in Districts with Substantially
Equal Access to Revenue
Average Local Tax Rate Avoided From State
Assistance for Debt Service
Percent of Eligible Districts Receiving Funds From the
Instructional Facilities Allotment
Percent of Students Graduating Under the
Recommended or Distinguished Achievement High
School Program
Percent of Students with Auditory Impairment in
Regional Day Schools for the Deaf Who Graduate
from High School
Percent of Students With Disabilities Who Complete
High School
Goal/Outcome Measure
FY 2003-2007 Projections
88.0%
88.58%
38.5%
88.0%
New
90.11%
96.94%
86.9%
93.4%
86.9%
95.0%
95.9%
91.5%
88.4%
2000
Actual
46
87.9%
90.7%
51.4%
74.0%
New
89.47%
94.43%
88.5%
92.1%
88.8%
96.0%
96.5%
92.8%
90.1%
2001
Actual
83.0%
87.0%
51.0%
72.0%
13.25%
90.0%
98.0%
90.1%
91.6%
90.4%
96.5%
96.9%
93.8%
91.6%
2002
Projected
85.0%
87.0%
51.0%
72.0%
14.0%
90.0%
98.0%
90.1%
91.6%
90.4%
96.5%
96.9%
93.8%
91.6%
2003
Projected
86.0%
88.0%
54.0%
72.0%
14.0%
90.0%
98.0%
90.3%
92.0%
91.0%
96.9%
97.1%
94.2%
91.8%
2004
Projected
88.0%
89.0%
57.0%
72.0%
14.0%
90.0%
98.0%
90.5%
92.3%
91.8%
97.0%
97.2%
94.5%
91.8%
2005
Projected
STRATEGIC PLAN OUTCOME MEASURE PROJECTIONS
89.0%
90.0%
60.0%
72.0%
14.0%
90.0%
98.0%
90.7%
92.6%
92.0%
97.1%
97.3%
95.0%
92.0%
2006
Projected
90.0%
90.0%
63.0%
72.0%
14.0%
90.0%
98.0%
90.7%
92.6%
92.0%
97.1%
97.3%
95.0%
92.0%
2007
Projected
Percent of Eligible Students Taking Advanced
Placement / International Baccalaureate Exams
Percent of AP/IB Exams Qualifying for College Credit
or Advanced Placement
Percent of Career and Technology Students Placed
on the Job or in a Postsecondary Program
Percent of Students Exiting Bilingual/English as a
Second Language Programs Successfully
Percent of Students Retained in Grade 3
Percent of Students Retained in Grade
Percent of Students Participating in the Ninth Grade
Basic Skills Program Who Attain Sufficient Credit to
Advance to Grade Ten
Percent of Districts Receiving After-School Initiative
Funds Showing a Decrease in DAEP Referrals
Percent of Special Education Students Administered
the Statewide Alternative Assessment
Percent of Students in State-Funded Optional
Extended-Year Programs Promoted to the Next
Grade Level as a Result of the Programs
Percent of Adult Learners Who Complete the Level in
Which They are Enrolled
Percent of Campuses Receiving Investment Capital
Fund Grants Showing Texas Learning Growth in
Reading
Goal 2: Operational Excellence: The Texas
Education Agency will fulfill the promise for all Texas
children through challenging assessments, supportive
school environments, and high standards of student,
campus, district, and agency performance.
Percent of Students Passing All Tests Taken
Percent of African-American Students Passing All
Tests Taken
Percent of Hispanic Students Passing All Tests Taken
1.2.4
Percent of White Students Passing All Tests Taken
Percent of Asian-American Students Passing All
Tests Taken
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.3
2.1.1
2.1.2
1.2.15
1.2.14
1.2.13
1.2.12
1.2.11
1.2.8
1.2.9
1.2.10
1.2.7
1.2.6
1.2.5
Goal/Outcome Measure
Code
90.01%
88.68%
71.82%
79.48%
67.02%
New
42.0%
89.2%
69.0%
New
New
4.7%
New
80.0%
83.0%
New
2000
Actual
13.0%
47
91.15%
89.71%
75.30%
81.61%
70.62%
New
61.38%
89.5%
72.0%
New
New
4.7%
New
83.0%
82.7%
New
2001
Actual
14.0%
94.0%
94.0%
80.0%
85.0%
80.0%
50.0%
61.5%
79.0%
75.0%
60.0%
New
4.2%
49.0%
75.0%
74.0%
50.0%
2002
Projected
15.0%
94.0%
94.0%
80.0%
85.0%
80.0%
*TBD
63.0%
81.0%
*TBD
60.0%
*TBD
4.2%
49.0%
76.0%
74.5%
50.0%
2003
Projected
15.0%
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
64.0%
82.0%
*TBD
62.0%
*TBD
*TBD
52.0%
*TBD
74.75%
49.0%
2004
Projected
16.0%
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
66.0%
83.0%
*TBD
64.0%
*TBD
*TBD
55.0%
*TBD
75%
49.0%
2005
Projected
17.0%
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
68.0%
84.0%
*TBD
66.0%
*TBD
*TBD
57.0%
*TBD
75.25%
50.0%
2006
Projected
18.0%
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
70.0%
85.0%
*TBD
68.0%
*TBD
*TBD
60.0%
*TBD
75.5%
50.5%
2007
Projected
18.0%
Percent of Native American Students Passing All
Tests Taken
Percent of Economically Disadvantaged Students
Passing All Tests Taken
rd
Percent of Students Reading at Grade Level (3
Grade Only)
Percent of Students Passing TAKS Reading
Percent of Students Passing TAKS Mathematics
Percent of Students Whose Assessment Results are
Included in the Accountability System
Percent of Special Education Students Who are
Tested and Included in the Accountability System
Percent of Limited English-Proficient Students Who
are Tested and Included in the Accountability System
Annual Statewide Dropout Rate for All Students
2.1.6
Percent of Campuses with Upgraded Ratings
Percent of Districts Rated Below Academically
Acceptable
Percent of Campuses Rated Low-Performing
Percent of Charter Schools Rated Low-Performing
Percent of Graduates Who Take the SAT or ACT
Percent of Districts Rated as High-Risk in the
Program Analysis System the Prior Year That
Improve Their Rating in the Current Year
Percent of High School Graduates Needing
Remediation
Percent of Districts Rated as Mid-Technology
Prepared or Above on the Texas Star Chart for
Teaching and Learning with Technology
Annual Drug Use and Violence Incident Rate on
School Campuses, per One Hundred Students
2.1.19
2.1.20
2.2.2
2.2.1
2.1.25
2.1.21
2.1.22
2.1.23
2.1.24
2.1.18
2.1.16
2.1.17
Percent of Students Who Drop Out of the Public
School System Between the Seventh and Twelfth
Grades
Percent of Districts Rated Exemplary or Recognized
Percent of Campuses Rated Exemplary or
Recognized
Percent of Districts with Upgraded Ratings
2.1.15
2.1.14
2.1.13
2.1.12
2.1.9
2.1.10
2.1.11
2.1.8
2.1.7
Goal/Outcome Measure
Code
New
New
New
2.3%
New
61.8%
New
70.2%
.5%
92.3%
57.8%
47.7%
8.1%
1.56%
71.6%
44%
87.28%
87.02%
85.5%
87.3%
69.84%
2000
Actual
80.13%
New
New
New
48
1.5%
New
62.2%
New
81.8%
.1%
100%
61.6%
55.8%
7.2%
1.3%
69.6%
41.22%
88.76%
89.69%
85%
86.2%
73.29%
2001
Actual
81.76%
3.0%
45.0%
New
7.7%
25.0%
63.0%
77.0%
50.0%
6.0%
50.0%
30.5%
46.7%
8.6%
1.6%
75.0%
90.0%
93.0%
90.0%
88.0%
93.0%
78.0%
2002
Projected
88.0%
3.0%
55.0%
*TBD
TBD*
20.0%
63.0%
80.0%
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
30.5%
46.7%
6.8%
1.6%
75.0%
90.0%
93.0%
90.0%
92.0%
95.0%
78.0%
2003
Projected
88.0%
3.0%
60.0%
*TBD
TBD*
TBD*
63.0%
TBD*
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
6.6%
1.5%
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
2004
Projected
*TBD
2.8%
70.0%
*TBD
TBD*
TBD*
63.0%
TBD*
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
6.6%
1.5%
TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
2005
Projected
*TBD
2.8%
75.0%
*TBD
TBD*
TBD*
63.5%
TBD*
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
6.6%
1.4%
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
2006
Projected
*TBD
2.6%
80.0%
*TBD
TBD*
TBD*
63.5%
TBD*
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
6.6%
1.3%
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
*TBD
2007
Projected
*TBD
Percent of DAEPs Meeting All Accountability
Standards
Percent of Incarcerated Students Who Complete the
Level in Which They are Enrolled
Percent of Eligible Windham Inmates Served by a
Windham Education Program in the Past Five Years
Percent of High-Need Campuses that Receive a
Master Reading Teacher Grant
Percent of Teachers with Proper Certification
Turnover Rate for Teachers
Percent of Teachers Participating in the Teacher
Reading and Math Academies
Percent of Grant Applications Processed within 60
Days
Percent of School District Annual Textbook Orders
st
Processed by May 31
TEA Turnover Rate
2.2.3
2.3.4
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
90.8%
32.7%
2000
Actual
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
New
91.7%
37.1%
2001
Actual
New
New
New
New
77.0%
83.1%
New
37.0%
92.0%
42.0%
2002
Projected
67.0%
10.0%
92.0%
75.0%
81.0%
83.2%
15.9%
37.0%
93%
44%
2003
Projected
67.0%
10.0%
95.0%
78.0%
83.0%
83.3%
16.2%
49.5%
93%
44%
2004
Projected
*TBD
10.0%
97.0%
81.0%
85.0%
83.4%
16.6%
62.0%
93%
44%
2005
Projected
*TBD
10.0%
98.0%
84.0%
87.0%
83.5%
17.0%
74.5%
93%
44%
2006
Projected
*TBD
10.0%
98.0%
87.0%
89.0%
83.6%
17.3%
87.0%
93%
44%
2007
Projected
*TBD
49
* The State Board of Education will determine the passing standard for the TAKS Passing Rates, and District / Campus Accountability Ratings in November 2002.
The actuals reported for the tests are related to the TAAS test. The TAKS test will be administered for the first time in 2003.
2.3.7
2.3.6
2.3.5
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.1
2.2.5
2.2.4
Goal/Outcome Measure
Code
Performance Measure Definitions
Goal 1
Program Leadership: To fulfill the promise for all Texas children, the Texas Education
Agency will provide program leadership to the state public education system, ensuring
all students achieve the state’s public education goals and objectives.
Objective 1.1
Public Education Excellence: All students in the Texas public education system will
graduate from high school with a world-class education.
OUTCOME MEASURES
1.1.1
Percent of Students Completing High School
DEFINITION: The percentage of students out of a 9th grade cohort who, in four years' time, either
already have or are completing high school.
PURPOSE: To report high school completion rate.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS. PEIMS submissions from districts: 101 (demog) records; 110
(enrollment) records; 201 (dropouts) records; 202 (grads) records; and, as they become
available, 203 (leaver) records and GED test files. From the 1997-1998 school year, graduate
and dropout records were replaced by leaver records (RT 203).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Completion is expressed as a percentage. The numerator includes all
students out of a final cohort who graduate early, on time, earn a GED, or are finishing high
school. The final cohort is comprised of all entering first-time 9th grade students, plus those who
move in, minus those who move out, over a four-year period.
DATA LIMITATIONS:
Refinements in methodology are expected as more comprehensive
withdrawal data become available in PEIMS.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.2
Percent of African-American Students Completing High School
DEFINITION: The percentage of African-American students out of a 9th grade African-American
cohort who, in four years' time, either already have or are completing high school.
PURPOSE: To report high school completion rate.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS. PEIMS submissions from districts: 101 (demog) records; 110
(enrollment) records; 201 (dropouts) records; 202 (grads) records; and, as they become
available, 203 (leaver) records and GED test files. From the 1997-1998 school year, graduate
and dropout records were replaced by leaver records (RT 203).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Completion is expressed as a percentage. The numerator includes all
African-American students out of a final cohort who graduate early, on time, earn a GED, or are
finishing high school. The final cohort is comprised of all African-Americans entering first-time 9th
grade students, plus those who move in, minus those who move out, over a four-year period.
DATA LIMITATIONS:
Refinements in methodology are expected as more comprehensive
withdrawal data become available in PEIMS.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.3
Percent of Hispanic Students Completing High School
DEFINITION: The percentage of Hispanic students out of a 9th grade Hispanic cohort who, in four
years' time, either already have or are completing high school.
PURPOSE: To report high school completion rate.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS. PEIMS submissions from districts: 101 (demog) records; 110
(enrollment) records; 201 (dropouts) records; 202 (grads) records; and, as they become
available, 203 (leaver) records and GED test files. From the 1997-1998 school year, graduate
and dropout records were replaced by leaver records (RT 203).
50
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Completion is expressed as a percentage. The numerator includes all
Hispanic students out of a final cohort who graduate early, on time, earn a GED, or are finishing
high school. The final cohort is comprised of all Hispanics entering first-time 9th grade students,
plus those who move in, minus those who move out, over a four-year period.
DATA LIMITATIONS:
Refinements in methodology are expected as more comprehensive
withdrawal data become available in PEIMS.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.4
Percent of White Students Completing High School
DEFINITION: The percentage of White students out of a 9th grade White cohort who, in four years'
time, either already have or are completing high school.
PURPOSE: To report high school completion rate.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS. PEIMS submissions from districts: 101 (demog) records; 110
(enrollment) records; 201 (dropouts) records; 202 (grads) records; and, as they become
available, 203 (leaver) records and GED test files. From the 1997-1998 school year, graduate
and dropout records were replaced by leaver records (RT 203).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Completion is expressed as a percentage. The numerator includes all
White students out of a final cohort who graduate early, on time, earn a GED, or are finishing high
school. The final cohort is comprised of all Whites entering first-time 9th grade students, plus
those who move in, minus those who move out, over a four-year period.
DATA LIMITATIONS:
Refinements in methodology are expected as more comprehensive
withdrawal data become available in PEIMS.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.5
Percent of Asian-American Students Completing High School
DEFINITION: The percentage of Asian-American students out of a 9th grade Asian-American
cohort who, in four years' time, either already have or are completing high school.
PURPOSE: To report high school completion rate.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS. PEIMS submissions from districts: 101 (demog) records; 110
(enrollment) records; 201 (dropouts) records; 202 (grads) records; and, as they become
available, 203 (leaver) records and GED test files. From the 1997-1998 school year, graduate
and dropout records were replaced by leaver records (RT 203).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Completion is expressed as a percentage. The numerator includes all
Asian-American students out of a final cohort who graduate early, on time, earn a GED, or are
finishing high school. The final cohort is comprised of all Asian-Americans entering first-time 9th
grade students, plus those who move in, minus those who move out, over a four-year period.
DATA LIMITATIONS:
Refinements in methodology are expected as more comprehensive
withdrawal data become available in PEIMS.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.6
Percent of Native American Students Completing High School
DEFINITION: The percentage of Native American students out of a 9th grade Native American
cohort who, in four years' time, either already have or are completing high school.
PURPOSE: To report high school completion rate.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS. PEIMS submissions from districts: 101 (demog) records; 110
(enrollment) records; 201 (dropouts) records; 202 (grads) records; and, as they become
available, 203 (leaver) records and GED test files. From the 1997-1998 school year, graduate
and dropout records were replaced by leaver records (RT 203).
51
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Completion is expressed as a percentage. The numerator includes all
Native American students out of a final cohort who graduate early, on time, earn a GED, or are
finishing high school. The final cohort is comprised of all Native Americans entering first-time 9th
grade students, plus those who move in, minus those who move out, over a four-year period.
DATA LIMITATIONS:
Refinements in methodology are expected as more comprehensive
withdrawal data become available in PEIMS.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.7
Percent of Economically Disadvantaged Students Completing High School
DEFINITION: The percentage of economically disadvantaged students out of a 9th grade
economically disadvantaged cohort who, in four years' time, either already have or are
completing high school.
PURPOSE: To measure student high school completion.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS submissions from districts: 101 (demographic) records; 110 (enrollment)
records; 203 (leaver) records, and GED test files.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Completion is expressed as a percentage. The numerator includes all
economically disadvantaged students out of a final cohort who graduate early, on time, earn a
GED, or are finishing high school. The final cohort is comprised of all economically
disadvantaged students entering economically disadvantaged first-time 9th grade students, plus
those who move in, minus those who move out, over a four-year period.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Refinements in methodology are expected as more comprehensive
withdrawal data become available in PEIMS.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.8
Percent of Equalized Revenue in the Foundation School Program
DEFINITION: Equalized revenue reflects the level to which the state has provided districts with
equal access to funds, independent of wealth, and the extent to which districts have taken
advantage of that equal access.
PURPOSE: To measure equal access to revenue for school funding.
DATA SOURCE: The most current annual revenue data are extracted from the agency's district
planning estimate (DPE) model from the FSP master file. Data for charter schools are included.
Revenue estimates are based on projected pupil counts and budgeted tax collections unless final
year-end pupil count data are available in time for reporting. The most current data for recapture
costs are extracted from the agency's Chapter 41 computation model. Estimates are used unless
final year-end data are available in time for reporting.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Unequalized revenue includes funds raised by tax effort above the
state funding formulae cap. For M&O taxes, the cap is $1.50. For debt taxes, the cap depends
on the amount of old debt funded by the Existing Debt Allotment and new debt funded by the IFA.
Unequalized revenue also includes excess Tier I revenue in budget balanced districts (where LFA
exceeds FSP costs less ASF). It also includes excess Tier II funds in districts that raise revenue
above the guaranteed yield (wealth level below $295,000 and above Tier II guarantee times
$10,000). Finally, it includes profit to partners of districts contracting to educate nonresident
students in order to reduce wealth according to TEC Chapter 41. Equalized revenue is the sum
of state and local funds from both tiers of the FSP and net recapture from wealth equalizations.
To compute, equalized revenue is summed across districts and the sum divided by total state and
local revenue. The final ratio is multiplied by 100 to create a percentage.
DATA LIMITATIONS: PEIMS data.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
52
1.1.9
Percent of Students in Districts with Substantially Equal Access to Revenues
DEFINITION: This measure reflects the percentage of students in districts that generate revenue at
or below the state guaranteed minimum.
PURPOSE: To measure the percentage of students in districts with equal access to revenues.
DATA SOURCE: The most current applicable annual data are extracted from the agency's DPE
model from the FSP master file. Data for charter schools are included. Computations are based
on projected pupil counts unless final year-end pupil count data are available in time for reporting.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: This measure is computed by determining which districts have
revenue levels per weighted ADA (WADA) that are at or below that to which the state will
equalize funds. First, in each district, the yield per penny of tax rate per weighted pupil is
computed by dividing the district's WADA into its taxable property value. If the result is equal to
or less than the state guarantee level, that district has access to revenue that is considered equal
to the access of other districts. The numbers of students in average daily attendance (ADA) that
reside in these districts are then summed and divided by the total number of statewide ADA. The
resultant ratio is then multiplied by 100 to convert it to a percentage.
DATA LIMITATIONS: PEIMS data.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.10 Average Local Tax Rate Avoided From State Assistance for Debt Service
DEFINITION: Average Local Tax Rate Avoided From State Assistance for Debt Service is a
measure of the degree to which school districts are able to avoid higher debt service tax rates by
using state assistance for debt service for a portion of debt service payments.
PURPOSE: To provide a measure of the principle effects of allotments in TEC Chapter 46.
DATA SOURCE: State debt service assistance is maintained in spreadsheet form for the IFA and
in the payment records for the Foundation School Program (foundation master file). Property
values are stored in the foundation master file.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Payment amounts are calculated according to the formulas in TEC
Chapter 46. Debt service requirements of school districts are taken from applications submitted
by school districts for the IFA, and from Bond Review Board data for the EDA. Debt service tax
collections are taken from data submitted as part of the final actual financial data submitted in
PEIMS. The calculation of tax rate avoided is the result of dividing the statewide total of Chapter
46 state aid by the property value of districts that receive the assistance, then multiplying the
result by 100.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The computed tax rate for this measure uses the comptroller's property tax
division property values for the preceding school year, which are the values used in calculating
state aid. If a district has been awarded a decline in property values under TEC §42.2521, then
the reduced values are used.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.11 Percent of Eligible Districts Receiving Funds From the Instructional Facilities Allotment
DEFINITION: This will measure the degree to which districts that are eligible to receive funds
actually participate in the IFA program. Districts that issue bonds or enter lease-purchase
agreements to finance the construction of qualified facilities and apply for funding prior to
issuing/entering their debt are considered eligible for participation in the program.
PURPOSE: To measure the degree to which districts that are eligible to receive funds actually
participate in the IFA program.
DATA SOURCE: The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) must review and approve bond issues
and lease-purchase contracts for real property that are entered into by school districts and
municipalities. An OAG approval letter will be used to determine which districts issued eligible
debt. The IFA application data will identify which districts are eligible for the IFA program.
Districts receiving IFA awards will be compared to the eligible district list to determine the
53
percentage of eligible districts that participate in the IFA program. The data in State Funding are
maintained electronically as well as manually.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: This measure will compare the number of districts that participate in
the IFA program to the number of districts that issue eligible debt and have property wealth of
$280,000 per student or less. This comparison will be reported as a percentage of eligible
districts receiving funds from the IFA program. Districts that issue more than one debt will be
counted only once for this measure. Percentage of eligible districts receiving IFA funds = number
of districts that received IFA funds divided by the number of districts that issued eligible debt and
have < $280,000/student.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported only once per year in the last quarter, reflecting prior year activity.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
Strategy 1.1.1
Foundation School Program - Equalized Operations: Ensure all Texas
students graduate from high school with a world-class education funded by
an efficient and equitable school finance system; ensure that formula
allocations support the state’s public education goals and objectives and are
accounted for in an accurate and appropriate manner.
OUTPUT MEASURES
1.1.1.1
Total Average Daily Attendance (ADA)
DEFINITION: The estimated number of students that are in attendance statewide.
PURPOSE: To measure the number of students that are in attendance statewide.
DATA SOURCE: Attendance data are reported to PEIMS on attendance reports by all
school districts. If available in time for reporting, final actual data are extracted from
PEIMS. Data include charter schools but exclude non-foundation districts (Windham,
the University of North Dallas, and county districts). If final data are unavailable, nearfinal data are extracted from the agency's DPE model from the FSP master file.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: For each student, ADA is computed as the number of days
present divided by the number of days taught. The result is then summed for all
students in all districts statewide.
DATA LIMITATIONS: PEIMS data.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.1.2
Total Average Daily Attendance (ADA) of Open Enrollment Charter Schools
DEFINITION: The estimated number of students in open enrollment charter schools that
are in attendance statewide.
PURPOSE: To measure the number of students that are in attendance at open
enrollment charter schools statewide.
DATA SOURCE: Attendance data are reported to PEIMS on attendance reports by all
open enrollment charter schools. If available in time for reporting, final actual data are
extracted from PEIMS. If final data are unavailable, near-final data are extracted from
the agency's DPE model from the FSP master file.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: For each student, ADA is computed as the number of days
present divided by the number of days taught. The result is then summed for all
students in all districts statewide.
DATA LIMITATIONS: PEIMS data.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
54
1.1.1.3
Number of Students Served by Compensatory Education Programs and Services
DEFINITION: Compensatory education programs and services are used to benefit
students identified as being in at-risk situations.
PURPOSE: To report the number of at-risk students served.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS fall (first) submission, at-risk student indicator.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: A count of the number of identified at-risk students which is
collected in the PEIMS fall (first) submission.
DATA LIMITATIONS: It is available to report only once a year, at the end of the second
quarter.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
EFFICIENCY MEASURES
1.1.1.1
Average Cost of Instructional Program Per Student
DEFINITION: The statewide average expenditure on classroom instruction per student.
PURPOSE: To report the statewide average expenditure on classroom instruction per
student.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS (P.ACTUAL).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Using most recent expenditure data reported via PEIMS,
aggregate the annual expenditures of all districts on objects 61XX through 64XX from
funds other than adult basic education and capital outlay in function 11 (instruction).
Divide this amount by that year's statewide average daily attendance.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Because of its dependency on expenditure data, this measure will
always refer to prior year performance, will not be available until the third quarter of the
year, and will not vary in the remaining quarter of that year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
1.1.1.2
Percent of Operating Funds Spent on Instruction
DEFINITION: The percentage of annual operating expenditures spent on classroom
instruction and functions that directly support classroom instruction.
PURPOSE: To report the operating expenditures spent on classroom instruction.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS. (P.ACTUAL).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Using most recent expenditures data reported via PEIMS,
aggregate annual district expenditures on objects 61XX through 64XX from funds other
than adult basic education and capital outlay in functions other than debt service,
facilities acquisition, construction, and community services. Calculate instructional
expenditures as sum of all expenditures in functions 10 (instructional service) and 20
(instructional-related services). Available for prior fiscal year in third quarter of
subsequent fiscal year.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Because of its dependency on expenditure data, this measure will
always refer to prior year performance, will not be available until the third quarter of the
subsequent year, and will not vary in the remaining quarter of that reporting year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
EXPLANATORY MEASURES
1.1.1.1
Percent of Foundation School Program Provided by the State
DEFINITION: This calculation will compare state aid for the year to the sum of state aid
and local tax revenue.
PURPOSE: To determine the amount of state aid provided by the state.
55
DATA SOURCE: Foundation School Program payment system, PEIMS, and agency
surveys of tax collection information.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Initial reports will be based on projections of both state aid
and local taxes. For the second quarter, state aid will be updated to reflect current
estimates of cash disbursement, and local taxes will be revised based on PEIMS
budgeted tax collection. For the third quarter, state aid will be updated to reflect
current estimates of cash disbursement, and local taxes will be reported based on
second quarter figures. For the fourth quarter, local taxes will be updated to the
projected tax collection information supplied annually by districts in a summer survey,
and state aid will reflect the final cash disbursed for the year.
DATA LIMITATIONS: For this purpose, state aid will include all cash disbursements made
during the year for purposes of funding the allotment in TEC Chapters 42 and 46.
State aid will not include any funds for the technology allotment, and will also exclude
cash derived from funds recaptured under Chapter 41. Any adjustments to state aid
from previous years (settle-up) will also be included in the cash disbursement
calculation. State aid will also include funds that are set aside for statewide purposes
from the compensatory education allotment and the gifted and talented allotment.
Local taxes will include any tax collection, but not include penalty, interest, or taxes
paid into a tax increment fund.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.1.2
Amount of State Aid Per Pupil
DEFINITION: State aid per pupil is money paid to a school district by the state with funds
from the Foundation School Fund, the Available School Fund, and the Textbook Fund
based on a set of formulae in statute for all tiers of the FSP. Recapture funds from
districts required to reduce wealth per weighted pupil in accordance with the provisions
of TEC Chapter 41 are included as state aid. When a district is contracting for the
education of some of its students with a district required to reduce wealth, the portion of
the funds paid to the lower-wealth partner as an offset to its FSP entitlement is
considered to be state aid. Recapture funds from districts reducing wealth through the
purchase of attendance credits from the state are also included. The resultant state aid
estimate is expressed on a per pupil basis.
PURPOSE: To report the state aid per pupil.
DATA SOURCE: The most current state aid data are extracted from the agency's DPE
model from the FSP master file and the separate database for the IFA. Data for
charter schools are included. For the first three reporting periods, state aid estimates
are based on projected pupil counts and budgeted tax collections. For the third
quarter, final year-end pupil count data are used in computations if available in time for
reporting. The most current data for recapture costs are extracted from the agency's
Chapter 41 computation model. Estimates are used for the first three reporting
periods. Final, year-end data are used for the fourth quarter if available in time for
reporting.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: For each district, an estimate of state aid is computed using
the state finance formulae established in statute for all tiers of the FSP and the
appropriate input data required of the formulae via the agency's FSP computer
databases. These estimates are summed across districts and divided by the total
number of students in ADA in the state. Charter schools are included in the estimate.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data used is based on reporting period noted in data source above.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
56
1.1.1.3
Amount of Local Revenue Per Pupil
DEFINITION: Local revenue per pupil is money raised by a school district through its
combined maintenance and operations (M&O) tax rate plus its Interest and Sinking
Fund (I&S or debt service) tax rate levied against its property wealth (tax base). The
resultant local revenue estimate is expressed on a per pupil basis.
PURPOSE: To report the local revenue per pupil.
DATA SOURCE: The most current local revenue data are extracted from the agency's
DPE model from the FSP master file. ADA data for charter schools are included in
statewide ADA estimates. For the first three reporting periods, local revenue per pupil
calculations is based on projected pupil counts and budgeted tax collections. For the
third quarter, final year-end pupil count data are used in computations if available in
time for reporting.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: For each district, an estimate of local revenue is available
on the applicable data file. These estimates are summed across districts and divided
by the total number of students in the ADA in the state. Charter schools, which have
no tax bases or local revenues, are included in the estimate of ADA.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Charter schools, which have no tax bases or local revenues, are
included in the estimate of ADA.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.1.4
Compensatory Education ADA
DEFINITION:
The estimated number of students that are counted for funding
compensatory education programs (which are not necessarily the same students that
are receiving the services).
PURPOSE: To measure the ADA of compensatory education students.
DATA SOURCE: Data are extracted from the agency's DPE model from the FSP master
file. Data include charter schools but exclude non-foundation districts (Windham, the
University of North Dallas, and county districts).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: For each district, the pupil count used to fund compensatory
education is based on the monthly average of the best six months of students eligible
for the free and reduced price lunch program in the prior federal year.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data used is based on the reporting period noted in the data
source.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.1.5
Bilingual Education/ESL ADA
DEFINITION: The estimated number of students in ADA that are being served in a
bilingual/ESL education program.
PURPOSE: To estimate the number of students that are served in a bilingual/ESL
education program.
DATA SOURCE: Attendance data are reported to PEIMS on attendance reports by all
school districts operating bilingual/ESL education instructional programs. If available in
time for reporting, final actual data are extracted from PEIMS. Data include charter
schools but exclude non-foundation districts (Windham, the University of North Dallas,
and county districts). If final data are unavailable, near-final data are extracted from
the agency's DPE model from the FSP master file.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: For each six-week reporting period, the number of eligible
days present for those students counted for funding is divided by the number of days
taught. An average of all six weeks is then computed.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data used is based on the reporting period noted in the data
source.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
57
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.1.6
Gifted and Talented ADA
DEFINITION: The estimated number of students that are funded for gifted and talented
programs statewide.
PURPOSE: To report the number of students funded for gifted and talented programs
statewide.
DATA SOURCE: Attendance data are reported to PEIMS on attendance reports by all
school districts operating approved gifted and talented programs. If available in time
for reporting, final actual data are extracted from PEIMS. Data include charter schools
but exclude non-foundation districts (Windham, the University of North Dallas, and
county districts). If final data are unavailable, near-final data are extracted from the
agency's DPE model from the FPS master file.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: For each district, the estimate reflects either the number
enrolled in its gifted and talented program or 5% of its ADA, whichever is smaller.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data used is based on the reporting period noted in the data
source.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.1.7
Career and Technology Education FTEs
DEFINITION:
The estimated number of full-time equivalent students that are
participating in an approved career and technology education program.
PURPOSE: To report the number of students participating in an approved career and
technology education program.
DATA SOURCE: Attendance data are reported to PEIMS on attendance reports by all
school districts operating approved career and technology education instructional
programs. If available in time for reporting, final actual data are extracted from PEIMS.
Data include charter schools but exclude non-foundation districts (Windham, the
University of North Dallas, and county districts). If final data are unavailable, near-final
data are extracted from the agency's DPE model from the FSP master.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: For each six-week reporting, the number of eligible days
present for each career and technology "v-code" (instructional program) is multiplied by
the corresponding assigned contact hour to convert to the number of contact hours by
six weeks. An FTE count is then produced by dividing the number of contact hours by
the number of days taught multiplied by six. An FTE average for all six weeks for the
entire career and technology program is then computed.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data used is based on the reporting period noted in the data
source.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.1.8
Special Education Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs)
DEFINITION: The estimated number of full-time equivalent students that are receiving
special education services.
PURPOSE: To measure the number of students who receive special education services.
DATA SOURCE: Attendance data are reported to PEIMS on attendance reports by all
school districts operating approved special education instructional programs. If
available in time for reporting, final actual data are extracted from PEIMS. Data include
charter schools but exclude non-foundation districts (Windham, the University of North
Dallas, and county districts). If final data are unavailable, near-final data are extracted
from the agency's DPE model from the FSP master.
58
METHOD OF CALCULATION: For each six-week reporting period for each special
education instructional arrangement, the number of eligible days present for all
students counted for funding is converted to contact hours by multiplying the number of
days present by the assigned contact hour value for that instructional arrangement.
Contact hours are then converted to FTEs by dividing contact hours by the number of
days taught in the district multiplied by six. An average of all six weeks is then
computed for each instructional arrangement.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data used is based on the reporting period noted in the data
source.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.1.9
Number of Students Served by Special Education Services
DEFINITION: The number of students reported on Federal Child Count (IDEA-B) who
are indicated as receiving special education services.
PURPOSE: To report the number of students who receive special education services.
DATA SOURCE: Child Count (IDEA-B 3-21). (PEIMS data will be used if the federal
child count is eliminated.)
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Total number of students reported by districts on federal
child count. (The PEIMS count will be used if federal child count is eliminated.)
DATA LIMITATIONS: It is possible that over the next two years the federal child count
may be eliminated. If this happens, the PEIMS database will be used. If the PEIMS
database is used, year-end performance may be lower than projected performance.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.1.10
Number of Students Served by Career and Technology Education Courses
DEFINITION: The number of secondary students who are participating in career and
technology education courses during the reported school year.
PURPOSE: To report the number of secondary students who chose career and
technology education courses.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS student data records (P.vocserv(yr)f).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Data are reported by all school districts operating approved
career and technology education instructional programs.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data are available during the first quarter of the year following the
students' participation.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.1.11 Number of Students Served by Bilingual Education/English as a Second
Language Programs
DEFINITION: The number of identified LEP students reported at the end of October on
PEIMS student data records who are indicated as participating in bilingual education or
ESL programs during the reported school year.
PURPOSE:
To report the number of students who are served by bilingual
education/ESL programs.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS (P.enroll(yr)F).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Count is taken of LEP students who participate in bilingual
or ESL programs as reported on PEIMS.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported at the end of October on PEIMS student data records.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
59
1.1.1.12 Number of Students Served by Gifted and Talented Programs
DEFINITION: The number of students identified according to 19 TAC §89.51 who are
served in the gifted and talented program.
PURPOSE: To report the number of students who are served by gifted and talented
programs.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Use data reported to PEIMS.
DATA LIMITATIONS: PEIMS data.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
Strategy 1.1.2
Foundation School Program - Equalized Facilities: Operate an equalized
school facilities program by ensuring the allocation of a guaranteed yield of
existing debt and disbursing facilities funds.
OUTPUT MEASURES
1.1.2.1
Number of Districts Receiving IFA
DEFINITION: A count of school districts receiving funding through the IFA program
during the period.
PURPOSE: To report the number of districts who receive an IFA.
DATA SOURCE: Allotment payments are maintained in an automated database within
the State Funding Division. Manual records are also maintained.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: IFA funds are defined as those authorized by TEC Chapter
46. Participating districts will be counted only once annually.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.2.2
Total Amount of State and Local Funds Allocated for Facilities (Billions)
DEFINITION: All funds allocated by the state specifically dedicated to pay debt on bonds
issued for school facilities will be counted, along with all local funds which can be
identified as raised to pay those debts.
PURPOSE: To identify the funds allocated for debt service on bonds issued for school
facilities.
DATA SOURCE: Agency Accounting records; PEIMS budget detail.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: State funds will include only the amounts actually paid to
districts during the fiscal period. Local funds will be reported as an estimate from the
winter submission of budgeted financial information in PEIMS, and will include only
revenues from debt service taxes.
DATA LIMITATIONS: PEIMS data.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
Objective 1.2
Student Success and Achievement: The Texas Education Agency will provide the
state’s public education system with program leadership to ensure all students are
challenged, perform at grade level or above, and demonstrate strong performance in
reading and the foundation subjects of mathematics, English language arts, science,
and social studies.
60
OUTCOME MEASURES
1.2.1
Percent of Students Graduating Under the Recommended or Distinguished Achievement
High School Program
DEFINITION: The recommended high school program is an academically rigorous program that
prepares students for college or technical careers after high school. The distinguished
achievement high school program is the advanced high school program that recognizes students
that perform at a collegiate level while currently enrolled in high school. Districts are not required
to offer these optional programs, which each consist of 24 credits; the distinguished achievement
program includes 4 advanced measures.
PURPOSE:
To report participation of students in the recommended and distinguished
achievement high school programs.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS database.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of students graduating from the recommended and
distinguished achievement high school programs will be collected through PEIMS. This number
collected will be divided by the total number of students graduating who receive a diploma.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Districts are not required to offer these optional programs.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.2
Percent of Students with Auditory Impairment in Regional Day Schools for the Deaf Who
Graduate from High School
DEFINITION: The percent of auditorially impaired (AI) students who graduate from the regional day
school program for the deaf will be identified using data from the annual Texas Survey of Deaf
and Hard-of-Hearing Students.
PURPOSE: To report the performance of students who graduate from the regional day school
program for the deaf.
DATA SOURCE: Annual Texas Survey of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The percent will be calculated by dividing the total number of
graduates and dropouts into the number of students who graduate.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Survey data; reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.3
Percent of Students With Disabilities Who Complete High School
DEFINITION: The percentage of students with disabilities out of a 9th grade cohort who, in four
years' time, either already have or are completing high school.
PURPOSE: To report the high school completion rate of students with disabilities.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS submissions from districts: 101 (demographic) records; 110 (enrollment)
records; 201 (dropouts) records; 202 (grads) records; and, as they become available, 203
(leaver) records and GED test files.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Completion is expressed as a percentage. The numerator includes all
students with disabilities out of a final cohort who graduated early, on time, earn a GED, or are
finishing high school. The final cohort is comprised of all entering first-time 9th grade students
with disabilities, plus those who move in, minus those who move out, over a four-year period.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Refinements in methodology are expected as a more comprehensive
withdrawal data become available in PEIMS.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
61
1.2.4
Percent of Eligible Students Taking Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate
Exams
DEFINITION: The percent of public school 11th and 12th graders taking college board Advanced
Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) examinations.
PURPOSE: To measure how many 11th and 12th graders take the AP/IB exams.
DATA SOURCE: College Board (CB) and International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The CB and IBO administer the examinations. All data are compiled
by CB and IBO and submitted to TEA.
DATA LIMITATIONS: CB and IBO data.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.5
Percent of AP/IB Exams Qualifying for College Credit or Advanced Placement
DEFINITION: Students who score a 3 and above on an Advanced Placement (AP) exam or 4 and
above on an International Baccalaureate (IB) exam have indicated they can do college level work
while in high school and have the potential to earn college credit. Institutions of higher education
make the final determination as to whether or not the college credit is earned and how much
college credit is awarded.
PURPOSE: Performance on this indicator indicates the amount of college credit that could be
earned by a student while in high school and reflects the amount of potential savings to the state.
DATA SOURCE: The College Board (CB), International Baccalaureate North America (IBNA), and
the TEA Division of Research and Evaluation.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The CB and IBNA report the exam scores to TEA. The amount of
college credit earned is determined by the institution of higher education that the student will
attend.
DATA LIMITATIONS: AP and IB examinations are administered in May. Examination data is not
available from CB or IBNA until after the end of the fiscal year (August 31).
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.6
Percent of Career and Technology Students Placed On the Job or in a Postsecondary
Program
DEFINITION: Percent of secondary students pursuing a coherent sequence in career and
technology education, who are employed or are continuing their education at a higher level (re:
TEC §29.181).
PURPOSE: To determine employment and/or educational status of students with a concentration
in career and technology education.
DATA SOURCE: (1) Follow-up information for secondary and adult students is collected annually
through the Automated Student and Adult Learner Follow-up System by the Texas State
Occupational Information Coordinating Committee (SOICC). SOICC uses data from PEIMS,
postsecondary institutions, and various employment sources to determine former students'
employment and education status. (2) Estimates from other education and occupational
databases.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: SOICC follows up on students for the first year, after completion of an
occupationally specific career and technology education program or after exiting the institution, to
determine employment and/or educational status.
DATA LIMITATIONS: SOICC follow-up does not currently capture more than 75% of the eligible
population. To provide a more complete analysis of program performance, the agency will use
statistically valid estimation methods for the part of the population that SOICC is not able to reach
with its first-year follow-up analysis.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
62
1.2.7
Percent of Students Exiting Bilingual/English as a Second Language Programs
Successfully
DEFINITION: Percent of students exiting bilingual/English as a second language (ESL) programs
successfully.
PURPOSE: To report performance of bilingual/ESL programs.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS. (P.ENROLL(yr-1)F, P.ENROLL(yr)F, P.DEMOG DOB(yr)F) and studentlevel datatapes.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Percentage will be calculated by comparing the number of former LEP
students in the current year who pass all sections of the English TAKS to the number of LEP
students served the previous year. Students in Grades 3-12 will be matched by student ID
numbers submitted by local districts.
DATA LIMITATIONS: PEIMS data.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.8
Percent of Students Retained in Grade 3
DEFINITION: The percentage of students repeating Grade 3
PURPOSE: Promotion from Grade 3 to Grade 4 is evidence that a student has mastered the
knowledge and skills required in Grade 3. Students who master the knowledge and skills required
in Grade 3 are prepared to be successful in Grade 4. Retention rates, disaggregated by grade
level, are required by TEC §39.182(a).
DATA SOURCE: All data are submitted by school districts to the agency through the Public
Education Information Management System (PEIMS). The following PEIMS views are accessed:
P.ATTEND_STUDENT01, P.ATTEND_DEMOG01, P.DEMOG01, P.SPECED_STUDENT01.F,
P.ATTEND_SPECED01,
P.DISTRICT01F,
P.GRADUATE<yr>,
DS.PEI.STU.DET.DEMOG.DOB.YR<yr>.V8,
P.ENROLL<YR+1>F,
P.NONENR(YR+1>F,
P.DISTRICT<yr>
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Student data for two years are required. Students enrolled in both
years and students who graduate at the end of the first year are included in the total student
count (the denominator). Students found to have been enrolled in the same grade in both years
are counted as retained (numerator). The rate is calculated by dividing the number of students
retained by the total student count.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The calculations require that student records be matched for two successive
years. Students who leave Texas public schools for reasons other than graduation, and students
new to Texas public schools cannot be included in the calculations. In addition, student records
with identification errors that prevent matching in two years cannot be included in the calculations.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
1.2.9
Percent of Students Retained in Grade
DEFINITION: The statewide retention rate for Grades K-12 is reported. The retention rate reflects
the percentage of students repeating a grade, and is reported in response to requirements in TEC
§§39.053 (d)(1) and 39.182 (a)(8).
PURPOSE: To determine the percent of students who are retained in grade.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS. PEIMS views accessed: P.ATTEND_STUDENT (yr-1), P.DEMOG(yr-1),
P.ENROLL(yr-1)F,
P.MIGRANT_STUD(yr-1)F,
P.SPECED_STUDENT(yr-1)F,
P.ATTEND_SPECED(yr-1), P.ENROLL(yr)F, P.GRADUATE (yr-1), and P.NONENR(yr)F.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of students retained is divided by the total number of
students.
DATA LIMITATIONS: PEIMS data reported once annually. Prior year data reported.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
63
1.2.10 Percent of Students Participating in the Ninth Grade Basic Skills Program Who Attain
Sufficient Credit to Advance to Grade Ten
DEFINITION: Measures the percentage of students participating in the 9th grade initiative programs
that received the number of course credits necessary to advance to the 10th grade.
PURPOSE: To accurately measure the primary purpose of the 9th grade initiative to provide a
means for credit deficient students to earn credit and be on course for graduation.
DATA SOURCE: The evaluation component of the program requires each participating campus to
identify students who have earned enough credits to advance to the 10th grade.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Divide the total number of students earning credits to advance to the
10th grade by the total number of students participating in the program.
DATA LIMITATIONS: New measure; self-reported data.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.11 Percent of Districts Receiving After-School Initiative Funds Showing a Decrease in DAEP
Referrals
DEFINITION: Percentage of after-school initiative districts which see a decrease in a referrals to a
juvenile justice alternative education program (JJAEP), referrals to a disciplinary alternative
education program (DAEP), or students expelled without placement in a (JJAEP or DAEP) from
the previous year.
PURPOSE: To identify those programs that positively impacted the disciplinary behavior of
participating students and their peers.
DATA SOURCE: Grant list in program office; PEIMS.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Count districts participating in the after-school initiative for the entire
fiscal year. Access which of those districts have seen a decrease in referrals of 6th, 7th, and 8th
graders to JJAEPs or DAEPs since the previous fiscal year. Divide the number which saw a
decrease by the total number participating, and multiply by 100.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data is self reported. The measure only tracks the disciplinary aspect of the
program. The program also contains academic and parental involvement components that are
not measured.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.12 Percent of Special Education Students Administered the Statewide Alternative
Assessment
DEFINITION: The number of special education students administered the statewide alternative
assessment.
PURPOSE: To report the number of special education students administered the statewide
alternative assessment.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS and student-level datatapes.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Number of special education students administered an alternative
assessment as a percent of the total number of special education students based on PEIMS.
This measure is based on students tested in reading, mathematics, and writing at Grades 3-8 and
10.
DATA LIMITATIONS: PEIMS data, based on local ARD decisions.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
64
1.2.13 Percent of Students in State-Funded Optional Extended-Year Programs Promoted to the
Next Grade Level as a Result of the Programs
DEFINITION: Percent of students promoted to the next grade level as the result of the approved
state-funded optional extended-year program (OEYP) which meets the requirements of TEC
§29.082.
PURPOSE: To report the achievement of students participating in the OEYP.
DATA SOURCE: Dis tr ic t r eports. Data is reported on a final expenditure report and final
evaluation report. The final expenditure report is due 45 days after the project ends. The
deadline for revisions to the final expenditure report is 30 days after the initial due date.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Percentage of students promoted to the next grade level as a result of
the approved state-funded OEYP. The percent will be obtained by dividing the total number of
students promoted by the total number of students enrolled.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data reported once annually. Prior year data reported. Self-reported by
school districts.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.14 Percent of Adult Learners Who Complete the Level in Which They are Enrolled
DEFINITION: Students are enrolled in adult education programs at twelve federally defined levels.
Adult education uses an open-entry/open-exit system (i.e., students are enrolling and exiting
throughout the year, not just at semesters). This measure counts the percent of students who
complete their level(s) during the year.
PURPOSE: The measure progress of students in the aggregate, thus to measure success of
programs in the aggregate.
DATA SOURCE: Program data which adult education providers enter year-round into the adult and
community education management information system (ACES).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Count the number of adults who completed the requirements for their
level(s). Divide by the total number of adults who took the baseline assessment, attended
instruction, and took the progress assessment. Multiply by 100.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The measure includes only completion of a level: progress within a level is not
reflected in this measure.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.15 Percent of Campuses Receiving Investment Capital Fund Grants Showing Texas Learning
Index Growth in Reading
DEFINITION: Percent of campuses receiving investment capital fund (ICF) grants which
demonstrate TLI growth in reading.
PURPOSE: To determine the gains in TLI growth for students participating in the program.
DATA SOURCE: Student-level datatapes for students participating in programs funded by the ICF
grants.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Data from campus reports of student performance results from
nearest TAKS administration prior to the beginning of the grant period will be compared to data
gathered from the farthest TAKS administration within the first calendar year of the grant period.
The number of campuses showing a gain in the average reading TLI score between the current
year and the previous year will be counted for this measure. The campuses showing a gain will
be divided by the total number of campuses participating in the grant program for the funding
year.
DATA LIMITATIONS: No direct link between ICF grants and TLI growth in reading.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
65
Strategy 1.2.1
Academic Excellence:
Plan and implement challenging academic,
advanced academic, career and technology education, and bilingual/English
as a second language educational programs to ensure that all Texas
students graduate from high school with a world-class education.
OUTPUT MEASURES
1.2.1.1
Number of Students Eligible for Awards Under the Texas Advanced Placement
Incentive Program
DEFINITION: Students who receive a 3 or above on advanced placement examinations
or 4 or above on the international baccalaureate examinations may receive
reimbursement for the testing fee.
PURPOSE: To reflect the goal of quality education that enables students to meet
potential.
DATA SOURCE: CB and IBO.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: CB and IBO administer the exams. All data are compiled by
CB and IBO.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data is available in October after the close of the fiscal year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.1.2
Number of Students in Tech-Prep Programs
DEFINITION: The number of students in a coherent sequence of courses for Tech-Prep.
PURPOSE: To report the number of students participating in Tech-Prep programs.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Data are reported for secondary students by all school
districts operating approved Tech-Prep career and technology education instructional
programs.
DATA LIMITATIONS: PEIMS data.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.1.3
Number of Students Served in Summer School Programs for Limited EnglishProficient Students
DEFINITION: Number of LEP students who will be in Kindergarten or 1st grade in
September who are served in summer school programs as reported to TEA on the
Request for Approval of Bilingual or Special Language Summer School Program form.
PURPOSE: To determine the number of LEP students served in summer school
programs.
DATA SOURCE: Data collection instrument submitted to the Bilingual Education Unit.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Count of LEP students who are served in summer school
programs as reported on the form.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Report data once at the beginning of the fiscal year. Data is from
the prior school year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
Strategy 1.2.2
Student Success: Build the capacity of school districts to ensure that all
Texas students have the skills they need to succeed; that all that all third
grade students read at least at grade level and continue to read at grade
level; and that all secondary students have sufficient credit to advance and
ultimately graduate on time with their class.
66
OUTPUT MEASURES
1.2.2.1
Number of Students Served in Kindergarten and Pre-Kindergarten Grant
Programs
DEFINITION: Number of Kindergarten students served in grant programs exclusive of
Optional Extended Year Program which is funded by State Compensatory funding.
Number of students ages 3-5 participating in discretionary grants.
PURPOSE: Represents supplementary funding that targets the kindergarten and prekindergarten students. These grants target a high percentage of economically
disadvantaged students. Research states that many of the students in the identified
group enter school not ready to learn; therefore supplementary instruction targeted at
diminishing the gap in the readiness of a large group of students increases chances of
their academic success upon entering first grade and during subsequent years in
school.
DATA SOURCE: District reported through activity/progress reports.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Add the number of students in each grant and enter the
cumulative number from all discretionary grants serving this age group.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.2.2
Number of Students Participating in the Student Success Initiative Accelerated
Reading Program
DEFINITION: The number of students administered a reading assessment instrument
and referred to the accelerated reading program.
PURPOSE: Students are administered a reading test to help teachers to develop an
aggressive reading program for each child referred to the accelerated reading program.
DATA SOURCE: Report received by TEA.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Divide the total number of students referred for accelerated
instruction by the total number of children in K-2 administered a reading test.
DATA LIMITATIONS: School district reporting. Schools are not required to adopt a
specific assessment.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
Strategy 1.2.3
Achievement of Students at Risk: Develop and implement instructional
support programs that take full advantage of flexibility to support student
achievement and ensure that all at-risk students graduate from high school
with a world-class education.
OUTPUT MEASURE
1.2.3.1
Number of Title I Campuses Rated Exemplary or Recognized
DEFINITION: Campuses are rated exemplary or recognized because their performance
met or exceeded the established accountability standard for exemplary or recognized
ratings. Title I campuses rated exemplary or recognized will be counted for this
measure.
PURPOSE: To report performance of campuses receiving Title I funds.
DATA SOURCE: Accountability system files and Title I, Part A campus file.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of Title I campuses receiving the exemplary or
recognized ratings in the statewide public school accountability system is included in
this measure. Campus ratings will be obtained from the accountability system files and
compared to the Title I, Part A campus file.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data is available in the fourth quarter.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
67
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
EXPLANATORY MEASURE
1.2.3.1
Number of Migrant Students Identified
DEFINITION: The number of Texas children identified and recruited as migratory as
defined by current federal law and regulations. Recruited children have been certified
according to federal rules to have migrant status. Children identified and recruited
under ESEA migrant education provisions are provided an array of supplemental
education and support services from various funding sources.
PURPOSE: To identify and certify migrant students and target appropriate services.
DATA SOURCE: New Generation System (NGS), a federal database for identified and
encoding migrant student data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Schools districts and ESCs identify and recruit eligible
migrant students between September 1 and August 31. Depending on their grade level
and educational needs, these students are provided supplemental education and
support services from various funding sources. The purpose of the migrant education
program is to provide students identified recruited, and certified as having migrant
status access to a range of services.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data limited to period reported.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
Strategy 1.2.4
Students with Disabilities: Develop and implement programs that ensure
all students with disabilities graduate from high school with a world-class
education.
OUTPUT MEASURES
1.2.4.1
Number of Students Served by Regional Day Schools for the Deaf
DEFINITION: The number of Auditorially Impaired (AI) students served by the Regional
Day Schools for the Deaf will be identified.
PURPOSE: To identify AI students served by the Regional Day Schools for the Deaf .
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS, December 1 Child Count, and the annual Texas Survey of
Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students. One PEIMS view will be used to report special
education AI students information and then another for RDSPD student information.
For special education, use P.SPECED_STUDENTyrF, DISABILITY1, DISABILITY2,
DISABILITY3, and for RDSPD, use REGIONAL_DEAF.="1" or "2."
METHOD OF CALCULATION: A manual comparison will be made of the number of
students from the available data sources. The highest count will be used and reported.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The highest count will be used and reported. Data is available in
the third quarter.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.4.2
Number of Deaf Students Served in the Public School System
DEFINITION: Students with auditory impairments served in the public school system will
be identified.
PURPOSE: To report the number of students with auditory impairments served by the
public school system.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS, December 1 Child Count, and the annual Texas Survey of
Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students. One PEIMS view will be used to report special
education AI students information and then another for RDSPD student information.
For special ed., use P.SPECED_STUDENTyrF, DISABILITY 1, DISABILITY 2, or
DISABILITY 3. For RDSPD, use REGIONAL_DEAF="1" or "2".
68
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of AI students who are not served by regional
day schools and the highest count of students served by regional day schools from
available data sources will be summed and reported.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data limited to period reported.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.4.3
Number of Students Served by Statewide Programs for the Visually Impaired
DEFINITION: A count of the total number of students with visual impairments in Texas.
PURPOSE: To report the use of statewide programs for students with visual
impairments in Texas.
DATA SOURCE: Annual January Statewide Registration of Visually Impaired Students.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number is taken from the Annual January Statewide
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data is available in the third quarter.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
Strategy 1.2.5
School Improvement and Support Programs: Encourage educators,
parents, community members and university faculty to improve student
learning and develop and implement programs that meet student needs.
Develop and implement the support programs necessary for all students to
graduate from high school with a world-class education.
OUTPUT MEASURES
1.2.5.1
Number of Pregnant Teens and Teen Parents Served by Teen Pregnancy and
Parenting Programs
DEFINITION: This is the total number of students served by a school district with a state
and locally funded teen pregnancy and parenting program grant per TEC §42.152(f).
The students served by the program may be pregnant, parenting, or both during the
school year. The program serves both male and female parenting students. The
students will be counted one time only per year.
PURPOSE: To report the participation of students in the program.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS data file.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: This will be an annual PEIMS count of students served.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The students will be counted one time only per year. Data is
available in the fourth quarter.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.5.2
Number of Districts with After-School Initiative Funds
DEFINITION: The number of districts with campuses that are participating in the Texas
After-School Initiatives for Middle Schools.
PURPOSE: The number of zip code eligible campuses in districts reflects participation in
a program that has a three required components: (1) Academic Texas Essential
Knowledge and Skills (TEKS)-based curriculum, (2) Character education/ citizenship,
and (3) a plan for parent and or mentor involvement. All three required components
have the opportunity to impact student achievement, to reduce referrals to the juvenile
justice system, and to increase familial support.
DATA SOURCE: District reports and Notice of Grant Awards (NIOGA).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Addition of all districts represented with current fiscal year.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
69
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.5.3
Number of Students Served by State-Funded Optional Extended-Year Programs
DEFINITION: A count of the number of students served in an approved state-funded
OEYP which meets the requirements of TEC §29.082.
PURPOSE: To identify the number of students participating in OEYP programs.
DATA SOURCE: District reports. Data are reported by the school district on a final
expenditure report. The final expenditure report is due 45 days after the project ends.
The deadline for revisions to the final expenditure report is 30 days after the initial due
date.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: A tally of the number of students served in the districts
state-funded OEYPs that has been approved by the commissioner in a given fiscal
year.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Districts report students served.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.5.4
Number of Schools with Approved State-Funded Optional Extended-Year
Programs
DEFINITION: A count of the number of schools receiving services through an approved
state-funded optional extended-year program (OEYP) which meets the requirements of
TEC §29.082.
PURPOSE: To report the number of schools with approved OEYPs.
DATA SOURCE: District reports. Data are reported by the school district on a final
expenditure report. The final expenditure report is due 45 days after the project ends.
The deadline for revisions to the final expenditure report is 30 days after the initial due
date.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: A tally of the number of schools in districts that receive
services through a state-funded OEYP that has been approved by the commissioner in
a given fiscal year.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
EXPLANATORY MEASURE
1.2.5.1
Number of Open Enrollment Charter Schools
DEFINITION: Open Enrollment Charter (OEC) schools are authorized by statute and
approved by the SBOE.
PURPOSE: To report the number of OEC schools in the state.
DATA SOURCE: SBOE minutes.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: RFP process is used by SBOE.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
Strategy 1.2.6
Adult Education and Family Literacy: Develop adult education and family
literacy programs that encourage literacy and ensure that all adults have the
basic education skills they need to contribute to their families, communities,
and the world.
70
OUTPUT MEASURES
Goal 2
1.2.6.1
Number of Students Served Through State Adult Education Cooperatives
DEFINITION: The number of students served by state adult education cooperatives.
Local adult education providers maintain enrollment records of students.
PURPOSE: To determine the number of students served by state adult education
cooperatives.
DATA SOURCE: Annual individual student data submitted by adult education providers
in August through TEA's adult education management information system.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Using individual student data submitted by adult education
providers in August of each year, the agency computes the total number of adults
enrolled in both state- and federally-funded programs. State education funds represent
about one-third of combined state and federal adult education funds used for direct
instructional services.
DATA LIMITATIONS: A report is compiled at the end of the program year. Data is
available at the end of the fiscal year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.6.2
Number of Families Served by Even Start Family Literacy Programs
DEFINITION: Number of families served by Even Start family literacy programs. Even
Start projects maintain enrollment records of participants.
PURPOSE: To report the number of families served by Even Start family literacy
programs.
DATA SOURCE: Annual report submitted by Even Start projects in October.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Using a manual count of annual reports submitted by Even
Start projects in October of each year, the agency computes the total number of
families that participated.
DATA LIMITATIONS: A report is compiled at the end of the program year. Data is
available at the end of the fiscal year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.6.3
Number of Families Served by AVANCE Programs
DEFINITION: A count of the number of families served by local AVANCE parenting
education programs.
PURPOSE: To report the number of families served by AVANCE programs.
DATA SOURCE: Each local AVANCE office will collect data and report it to the national
office quarterly.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of families served by AVANCE programs will
be calculated annually by each local office. The sum of local programs will be
computed by the national AVANCE office.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported from third party. Data outside TEA control. Data
dependent on program expansion at the local level.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
Operational Excellence: The Texas Education Agency will fulfill the promise for all
Texas children through challenging assessments, supportive school environments, and
high standards of student, campus, district, and agency performance.
71
Objective 2.1
Accountability: The Texas Education Agency will sustain high levels of accountability
in the state public education system.
OUTCOME MEASURES
2.1.1
Percent of Students Passing All Tests Taken
DEFINITION: Percent of students passing all tests taken.
PURPOSE: To measure student performance.
DATA SOURCE: Student-level datatapes.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of students who meet minimum expectations on all TAKS
tests taken as a percent of the total number of students tested. This measure is based on
students tested in Grades 3-11 in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.1.2
Percent of African-American Students Passing All Tests Taken
DEFINITION: Percent of African-American students passing all tests taken.
PURPOSE: To measure student performance.
DATA SOURCE: Student-level datatapes.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of African-American students who meet minimum
expectations on all TAKS tests taken as a percent of the total number of African-American
students tested. This measure is based on students tested in Grades 3-11 in reading, writing,
mathematics, science, and social studies.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.1.3
Percent of Hispanic Students Passing All Tests Taken
DEFINITION: Percent of Hispanic students passing all tests taken.
PURPOSE: To measure student performance.
DATA SOURCE: Student-level datatapes.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of Hispanic students who meet minimum expectations on
all TAKS tests taken as percent of the total number of Hispanic students tested. This measure is
based on students tested in Grades 3-11 in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social
studies.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.1.4
Percent of White Students Passing All Tests Taken
DEFINITION: Percent of White students passing all tests taken.
PURPOSE: To measure student performance.
DATA SOURCE: Student-level datatapes.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of White students who meet minimum expectations on all
TAKS tests taken as a percent of the total number of White students tested. This measure is
based on students tested in Grades 3-11 in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social
studies.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
72
2.1.5
Percent of Asian-American Students Passing All Tests Taken
DEFINITION: Percent of Asian-American students passing all tests taken.
PURPOSE: To measure student performance.
DATA SOURCE: Student-level datatapes.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of Asian-American students who meet minimum
expectations on all TAKS tests taken as a percent of the total number of Asian-American students
tested. This measure is based on students tested in Grades 3-11 in reading, writing,
mathematics, science, and social studies.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.1.6
Percent of Native American Students Passing All Tests Taken
DEFINITION: Percent of Native American students passing all tests taken.
PURPOSE: To measure student performance.
DATA SOURCE: Student-level datatapes.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of Native American students who meet minimum
expectations on all TAKS tests taken as a percent of the total number of Native American
students tested. This measure is based on students tested in Grades 3-11 in reading, writing,
mathematics, science, and social studies.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.1.7
Percent of Economically Disadvantaged Students Passing All Tests Taken
DEFINITION: Percent of economically disadvantaged students passing all tests taken.
PURPOSE: To measure student performance.
DATA SOURCE: Student-level datatapes.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of economically disadvantaged students who meet
minimum expectations on all TAKS tests taken as a percent of the total number of economically
disadvantaged students tested. This measure is based on students tested in Grades 3-11 in
reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies. Economically disadvantaged students
are those who are eligible for free or reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch and
Child Nutrition Program or are those who have another economic disadvantage, e.g., are from a
family with an annual income at or below the official federal poverty line, are eligible for
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) or other public assistance, have received a Pell
Grant or comparable state program of need-based financial assistance, are eligible for programs
assisted under Title II of the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), or are eligible for benefits under
the Food Stamp Act of 1977.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.1.8
Percent of Students Reading at Grade Level (3rd Grade Only)
DEFINITION: Percent of students reading at grade level.
PURPOSE: To read at grade level which is a significant indicator of student performance.
DATA SOURCE: Student-level datatapes.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of students who meet minimum expectations on TAKS
reading as a percent of the total number of students tested in reading. This measure is based on
students tested in Grade 3.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
73
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.1.9
Percent of Students Passing TAKS Reading
DEFINITION: Percent of students reading at grade level.
PURPOSE: To measure student performance in reading.
DATA SOURCE: Student-level datatapes.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of students who meet minimum expectations on TAKS
reading as a percent of the total number of students tested in reading. This measure is based on
students tested in Grade 3.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.1.10 Percent of Students Passing TAKS Mathematics
DEFINITION: Percent of students passing TAKS mathematics.
PURPOSE: To report the percent of students who are passing TAKS.
DATA SOURCE: Student-level datatapes.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of students who meet minimum expectations on TAKS
mathematics as a percent of the total number of students tested in mathematics. This measure is
based on students tested in Grades 3-8 and 10 in mathematics.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.1.11 Percent of Students Whose Assessment Results are Included in the Accountability System
DEFINITION: Percent of students whose assessment results are included in the base rating
component of the accountability system.
PURPOSE: To determine the percent of students whose assessment results are included in the
accountability system.
DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data (student assessment files).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of students who take one or more tests and whose
results are included in the base rating component accountability system divided by the total
number of answer documents submitted. An answer document must be submitted for each
student enrolled in the district in grades tested.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.1.12 Percent of Special Education Students Who are Tested and Included in the Accountability
System
DEFINITION: Percent of students who are tested and, therefore, are included in the base rating
component of the accountability system.
PURPOSE: T o determine the percentage of special education students who take tests.
DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data (student assessment files).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of special education students who take one or more tests
divided by the total number of answer documents submitted for students served in special
education. An answer document must be submitted for each student enrolled in the district in the
grades tested on the testing dates.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
74
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.1.13 Percent of Limited English-Proficient Students Who are Tested and Included in the
Accountability System
DEFINITION: Percent of limited English-proficient (LEP) students who are tested and, therefore,
are included in the accountability system.
PURPOSE: To report the percent of LEP students whose assessment results are included in the
accountability system.
DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data (student assessment files) .
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of LEP students who take one or more tests in English or
Spanish divided by the total number of answer documents submitted for LEP students. An
answer document must be submitted for each student enrolled in the district in grades tested on
the testing dates; LEP status is indicated on the answer document.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.1.14 Annual Statewide Dropout Rate for All Students
DEFINITION: This measure reports the annual dropout rate for the state for Grades 7-12, based on
the dropout reporting policies established for the state data collection system, PEIMS, mandated
in TEC §42.006; the state accountability system mandated in TEC §§39.051 and 30.073, and in
response to other reporting requirements such as TEC §39.182.
PURPOSE: To report the annual dropout rate for the state for Grades 7-12, based on the dropout
reporting policies.
DATA SOURCE:
PEIMS.
PEIMS views accessed to prepare denominator:
P.ATTEND_STUDENT(yr-1), P.DEMOG(yr-1), P.ENROLL(yr-1)F, P.MIGRANT_STUD(yr-1)F,
P.SPECED_STUDENT(yr-1)F, and P.ATTEND_SPECED(yr-1). PEIMS views accessed to
prepare
the
numerator:
P.DEMOG_DROP_DOB(yr-1),
P.DROP_COLLECT(yr-1),
P.DROP_OFFICIAL(yr-1), P.DROP_RCVR_RSN(yr-1), and P.DROP_REASON(yr-1).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The state dropout rate is determined by using a standard equation for
all collection and reporting requirements, such as in TEC §§39.182, 39.051, and 42.006. It is
based upon dropouts reported by school districts in the previous year divided by the total number
of students enrolled in Grades 7-12 the same year.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually. Prior year data reported.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
2.1.15 Percent of Students Who Drop Out of the Public School System Between the Seventh and
Twelfth Grades
DEFINITION: This measure reports the longitudinal dropout rate for the state for Grades 7-12,
based on reporting policies established for the state data collection, PEIMS, mandated in TEC
§42.006.
PURPOSE: To report the longitudinal dropout rate.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The state longitudinal dropout rate is the percentage of students from
a cohort or class of 7th graders that drop out before completing their high school education. The
dropout rate is calculated by dividing the number of students that drop out before completing high
school by the number of students in the original cohort or class of 7th graders.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually. Prior year data reported.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
75
2.1.16 Percent of Districts Rated Exemplary or Recognized
DEFINITION: A district is rated exemplary or recognized because its performance met or exceeded
the established accountability standards for exemplary or recognized ratings.
PURPOSE: To report district ratings.
DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of districts receiving the exemplary or recognized ratings
in the statewide public school accountability system is divided by the total number of districts in
the state that are eligible to receive a rating.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Eligible campuses include campuses designated “not rated,” but does not
include “not applicable” campuses, or those campuses with insufficient data to evaluate.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.1.17 Percent of Campuses Rated Exemplary or Recognized
DEFINITION: Campuses are rated exemplary or recognized because their performance met or
exceeded the established accountability standard for exemplary or recognized ratings.
PURPOSE: To report campus ratings.
DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of campuses receiving the exemplary or recognized
ratings in the statewide public school accountability system is divided by the total number of
eligible campuses in the state.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Eligible campuses include campuses designated “not rated,” but does not
include the “not applicable” campuses, or those campuses with insufficient data to evaluate.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.1.18 Percent of Districts with Upgraded Ratings
DEFINITION: Percent of districts rated below academically acceptable in the prior year which
improved their rating in the current year.
PURPOSE: To report district improvement.
DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The districts which earned a rating below academically acceptable in
the prior year are identified. Among these, a count is made of the number which earned an
improved rating in the current year. The number improved is divided by the number below
academically acceptable in the prior year.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.1.19 Percent of Campuses with Upgraded Ratings
DEFINITION: Percent of campuses rated low-performing in the prior year which improved their
rating in the current year.
PURPOSE: To report campus improvement.
DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of campuses in the current year, which earn an improved
rating from the prior year, divided by the total number of campuses.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Campuses which are no longer in operation are not included in considering
improvement in the current year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
76
2.1.20 Percent of Districts Rated Below Academically Acceptable
DEFINITION: A district is rated below academically acceptable because its performance fell below
academically acceptable in the statewide public school accountability standard for an
academically acceptable or higher rating.
PURPOSE: To report district ratings.
DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of districts rated below academically acceptable in the
statewide public school accountability system is divided by the total number of districts in the
state eligible to receive a rating.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Charter districts are not rated, so the number of charters is not included in the
denominator when computing this percentage.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
2.1.21 Percent of Campuses Rated Low-Performing
DEFINITION: Campuses are rated low-performing because their performance fell below the
established accountability standard for an acceptable rating.
PURPOSE: To report campus ratings.
DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of campuses rated low-performing is divided by the total
number of eligible campuses in the state.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Eligible campuses include campuses designated “not rated,” but does not
include the “not applicable” campuses, or those campuses with insufficient data to evaluate.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
2.1.22 Percent of Charter Schools Rated Low-Performing
DEFINITION: Charter schools are rated low-performing because their performance fell below the
established accountability standard for an acceptable rating.
PURPOSE: To report performance for charter schools.
DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of charter schools rated low-performing is divided by the
total number of charter schools in the state.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
2.1.23 Percent of Graduates Who Take the SAT or ACT
DEFINITION: The number of graduates taking the ACT and/or SAT will be reported as a
percentage of all graduates, and is reported as required by TEC §39.051(b)(6).
PURPOSE: To report the percent of graduates who take the ACT and/or SAT.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS and test data. PEIMS views accessed: DS.PEI.STU.DET.ATTEND (SAS
copy of the attendance file), P.DEMOG_GRAD_DOB(yr-1), P.GRADUATE (yr-1),
P.ENROLL_DEMOG(yr-1)F, and P.ATTEND_SPECID(yr-1).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of graduates taking the ACT and/or SAT is divided by the
total number of non-special education graduates.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually. Prior year data reported.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
77
2.1.24 Percent of Districts Rated as High-Risk in the Program Analysis System the Prior Year
That Improve Their Rating in the Current Year
DEFINITION: The Program Analysis System (PAS) was developed at the suggestion of the State
Auditor's Office (SAO Report No. 99-555, June 1999) in order to enhance the agency's ability to
detect serious noncompliance by subrecipients.
PURPOSE: In addition to conducting cyclical District Effectiveness and Compliance (DEC) visits,
the agency will use the PAS to evaluate annually each district's overall process and performance
in serving special populations. Districts deemed to be at high risk of noncompliance or
effectiveness will receive a DEC visit, in addition to those districts that receive a cyclical visit.
DATA SOURCE: Data is primarily received via PEIMS submissions and TAKS datasets. Program
areas also receive district-level data via paper submissions related to specific programs and
grants. Data are received primarily via PEIMS and TAKS and are analyzed by staff in each
program area.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Each program area has identified key indicators on which to evaluate
districts. These indicators include measures of student performance and district processes. All
districts in the state are evaluated on all indicators and are assigned a risk level ranging from zero
(low risk) to four (high risk). Districts that perform at or below the state median or a specified
performance level are assigned a risk level of zero. Districts are assigned risk levels of 1-4
depending on how far they are from the specified performance level in relation to all other
districts. Indicator risk levels are aggregated to the program level and program risk levels are
aggregated to the district level. Districts with high risk levels across multiple program areas will
receive a DEC visit. The measure is calculated by comparing the number of districts in the
current year which earn an improved rating from the prior year divided by the total number of
districts deemed to be at risk.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Some program data is date dependent and may reflect the state of the
program two years prior to the visit.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.1.25 Percent of High School Graduates Needing Remediation
DEFINITION: Of the Texas public high school graduates who attempted the initial TASP/Alternative
test or who were exempt from the test, the percent that failed any section of the initial
TASP/Alternative test excluding those who were exempt.
PURPOSE: This measure provides an indication of the students that graduate from the Texas
Public Education system intending to attend college without demonstrating academic skills
sufficient to attend college. These students will need to begin their college experience with
developmental education courses.
DATA SOURCE: Data are from the latest cohort (fall/spring/summer high school graduates) as
reported annually by the institutions to the Texas Education Agency (PEIMS) and Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board (CBM001 and CBM002) and compiled by the Educational Data
Center. EDC provides the Center for College Readiness reports based on this data by matching
the PEIMS graduates with the CBM002 to determine those students who required developmental
education.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: (1) Take the number of fall/spring/summer high school graduates (from
PEIMS). (2) Of those students, determine the number exempt from the TASP/Alternative test. (3)
Subtract #2 from #1 to determine the non-exempt students. (4) Of those students in #3, determine the
number who took the initial TASP/Alternative test (from CBM002). (5) Of those students in #4,
determine the number who did not pass all sections of the initial TASP/Alternative test. (6) Add #2 and
#4 to determine students that tested or were exempt. (7) Divide #5 by #6 and express it as a
percentage.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data are reported to TEA and the THECB by the institutions. The THECB does not
have data on students who attend a private institution or an out-of-state institution. Some students
defer testing for documented reasons. Data does not include non-exempt Texas public high school
graduates who do not take the test.
78
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
Strategy 2.1.1
Assessment and Accountability System: The state’s assessment and
accountability systems will continue to provide a basis for evaluation and
reporting the extent to which students, campuses, and districts achieve high
standards.
OUTPUT MEASURES
2.1.1.1
Number of Campuses Rated Low-Performing for Two Out of the Three Most
Current Years
DEFINITION: Number of campuses rated low-performing for two out of the three most
current years.
PURPOSE: To report campus improvement.
DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The three most current years of ratings are analyzed to
determine the number of campuses rated low-performing in any two of these three
years.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data for this measure is available in the fourth quarter of the fiscal
year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
2.1.1.2
Number of Districts Rated Below Academically Acceptable for Two Out of the
Three Most Current Years
DEFINITION: Number of districts rated below academically acceptable for two out of the
three most current years.
PURPOSE: To report district improvement.
DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The three most current years of ratings are analyzed to
determine the number of districts rated below academically acceptable in any two of
these three years.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data for this measure is available in the fourth quarter of the fiscal
year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
2.1.1.3
Number of Student Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) Tests
Administered
DEFINITION: Student tests administered.
PURPOSE: To report the number of subject area examinations taken.
DATA SOURCE: Student-level datatapes.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of subject area examinations taken by students
in the statewide assessment program.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
EXPLANATORY MEASURE
2.1.1.1 Percent of Underreported Students in the Leaver System
DEFINITION: Districts are required to account for all students enrolled during the year in
Grades 7-12. Districts report that students have returned in the fall or left their districts.
79
Students for whom districts failed to account are "underreported."
Percent of
underreported records is percent not accounted for out of all students enrolled.
PURPOSE: Policymakers and members of the public depend on district reporting of
dropouts from Texas public schools. The accuracy of the dropout data provided to policy
makers and members of the public depends on the quality of district reporting. Students
not accounted for, or underreported student records, compromise the quality of dropout
and leaver data available. Measuring and reporting percent of underreported records
enables the agency to monitor and encourage improvements in data quality, and enables
policymakers and members of the public to assess the quality of the information.
DATA SOURCE: All data are submitted by school districts to the agency through the Public
Education Information Management System (PEIMS). The following PEIMS views are
accessed:P.DIST_ROSTER_DOB01,
P.DEMOG_GRAD_DOB01,
P.OVER_REPORT_GRAD01, P.OVER_REPORT_DROP01, P.DEMOG_EXIT_DOB01,
P.OTHR_EXIT_OFFICL01, P.OVER_REPORT_EXIT01, P.OTHR_EXIT_RECVRD01,
P.DISTRICT01,
P.DISTRICT01F,
P.DIST_ROSTER_DOB01,
USERTEA.PEV.YR0001.DROP.DR0102N
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The denominator is the sum across districts of cumulative
totals of students enrolled in Grades 7-12 during the school year. Enrollment and leaver
files are searched to determine students reported in each district. Students for whom no
enrollment or leaver records are found are counted as underreported. The numerator is
the sum across districts of counts of underreported students. The result is reported as a
percentage.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The method of calculation requires that student enrollment and
attendance records submitted for a school year be matched to enrollment and leaver
records submitted the following school year. In some cases, matches cannot be made
because errors have been made in student identification fields. Students whose records
are present in both years but fail to match will be included in the count of underreported
students. Although these records do indicate flaws in data quality, they do not represent
failures of districts to report on the whereabouts of students.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
Objective 2.2
Effective School Environments: Support school environments that ensure educators
and students have the materials they need to succeed.
OUTCOME MEASURES
2.2.1
Percent of Districts Rated as Mid-Technology Prepared or Above on the Texas Star Chart
for Teaching and Learning with Technology
DEFINITION: Percent of districts rated as mid-technology Prepared or above on the Texas Star
Chart for teaching and learning with technology.
PURPOSE: To assess district proficiency in the area of technology.
DATA SOURCE: Texas Star Indicators database - the data from the online indicator survey is
captured in a database at the agency.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Districts complete the online Texas Star Indicator survey that includes
questions on teaching and learning, professional development, administration, and infrastructure.
The tool then calculates the rating in each area and composite score.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Self-reported data.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.2.2
Annual Drug Use and Violence Incident Rate on School Campuses, per One Hundred
Students
DEFINITION: The rate of incidents of on-campus drug use and violence, per one hundred
students, as reported by the districts to the agency.
80
PURPOSE: Districts receiving funds under NCLB, Title IV, Part A, Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities Program should be able to demonstrate a decrease in their incident rates.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS (425) records, Discipline Reasons 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12, 13, 14,
16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 41.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of incidents reported statewide will be divided by the
state's total enrollment, and that number will be divided by 100.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data is self-reported by school districts and may be over- or under-reported.
Also, the PEIMS 425 Record in its current format may not give an exact count fro this measure,
since some incidents of on-campus drug use or violence may not be covered by the codes listed
above. The codes listed are as though a list as possible without including discipline incidents not
concerning drug use or violence.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
2.2.3
Percent of DAEPs Meeting All Accountability Standards
DEFINITION: Percent of Disciplinary Alternative Education Program Evaluated as Performance
Accountability Acceptable based on a thorough review of all the DAEPs evaluated under TEC
§37.008(m).
PURPOSE: To report DAEPs meeting Accountability Standards.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS database and TAKS records.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Method of calculation will be determined.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.2.4
Percent of Incarcerated Students Who Complete the Level in Which They are Enrolled
DEFINITION: Percent of offenders who complete the current level of enrollment.
PURPOSE: To assess student performance in adult education.
DATA SOURCE: Windham student databases.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Computer searches database for offenders who have advanced to the
next level, based on TABE scores, TASP eligibility, and passing the GED.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Search methodology.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.2.5
Percent of Eligible Windham Inmates Served by a Windham Education Program in the Past
Five Years
DEFINITION: To report the percent of eligible Windham inmates who have been served by a
Windham education program during the past five years.
PURPOSE: To assess educational opportunities available to Windham inmates.
DATA SOURCE: Computer query of Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) database and
Windham School District database.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The total number of offenders who receive Windham services within
the past five years divided by the number of Windham eligible releases. Eligible offenders are
those determined to have an educational need who are custody-eligible.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Search methodology.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
81
Strategy 2.2.1
Instructional Materials: Provide students equitable access to instructional
materials and technologies supporting the Texas Essential Knowledge and
Skills.
OUTPUT MEASURES
2.2.1.1
Number of Textbooks and Digital Content Purchased From Conforming Lists
DEFINITION: The number of textbooks and digital content on the conforming lists of
adopted textbooks purchased for use in districts during a given school year.
PURPOSE: To supply adopted textbooks and digital content to teachers and students in
an equitable manner.
DATA SOURCE: EMAT database.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Determined by calculating how many state-adopted
textbooks from conforming lists are shipped to the districts and purchased for the
districts by the state for use during the current school year. Purchase data is
maintained in the EMAT database, and automated reports are generated.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Self-reported data.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.2.1.2
Number of Textbooks and Digital Content Purchased From Nonconforming Lists
DEFINITION: The number of textbooks on the nonconforming lists of adopted textbooks
purchased for use in districts during a given school year.
PURPOSE: To supply adopted textbooks to teachers and students in an equitable
manner.
DATA SOURCE: EMAT database.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Determined by calculating how many state-adopted
textbooks from nonconforming lists are shipped to the districts and purchased for the
districts by the state for use during the current school year. Purchase data is
maintained in the EMAT database, and automated reports are generated.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Self-reported data.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
EFFICIENCY MEASURE
2.2.1.1
Average Cost Per Textbook and Digital Content Purchased
DEFINITION: The total amount of funds used to purchase instructional materials for use
during a given school year divided by the number of units of instructional materials
purchased.
PURPOSE: Relates to strategy of adopting and distributing instructional materials in an
equitable manner.
DATA SOURCE: EMAT database.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Determined by dividing the cost of purchasing the
instructional materials for use during the current school year by the number of units
purchased. Purchase data is maintained in the EMAT database, and automated
reports are generated.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Self-reported data.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
82
Strategy 2.2.2
Educational Technology:
Implement educational technologies that
increase the effectiveness of student learning, instructional management,
professional development, and administration.
OUTPUT MEASURE
2.2.2.1
Number of Students Receiving Course Credit Through Distance Learning
DEFINITION: Alternative delivery courses provided via telecommunications systems.
Currently, satellite delivery such as T-STAR and TETN as well as newly developed
district and regional videoconferencing networks, Internet online courses, and
instructional TV.
PURPOSE: To measure use of distance learning systems.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS data collection: Number of students where credits=”Y” and
distance learning indicator is “Y.” PEIMS view: p.coursecomplete FY/Field:dst_learn.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Actual number of students receiving high school graduation
credit for a course delivered by satellite and other distance learning technologies. The
number of students is the number of students receiving high school graduation credit
for a course delivered by satellite count, with an individual being counted for each
course attended.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data is available at the end of the fiscal year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
Strategy 2.2.3
Safe Schools:
Reduce the number of criminal incidents on school
campuses, enhance school safety, and ensure that students in the Texas
Youth Commission and disciplinary and juvenile justice alternative education
programs are provided the instructional and support services needed to
graduate from high school with a world-class education.
OUTPUT MEASURE
2.2.3.1
Number of Students in Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs (DAEPs)
DEFINITION: This is the number of student referrals to a TEC §37.008 alternative
education program (AEP).
PURPOSE: Use of alternative education programs is an essential aspect of a safe
schools strategy.
DATA SOURCE: TEA's data; PEIMS 425 Report.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: This measure counts referrals of students, and is a
duplicated count of students referred in the prior school year. One student may be
referred to a TEC §37.008 AEP more than once during the school year.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data is collected once a year by TEA. Data reported reflect
referrals in the prior year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
Strategy 2.2.4
Child Nutrition Programs:
nutrition programs.
Implement and support efficient state child
OUTPUT MEASURES
2.2.4.1
Average Number of School Lunches Served Daily
DEFINITION: This measure is defined as average daily participation (ADP) in the
National School Lunch Program (NSLP).
PURPOSE: To report the average number of students served by the school lunch
program.
DATA SOURCE: A monthly reimbursement claim form received from each school district
participating in the NSLP. The relevant data are entered monthly into an agency
83
computer subsystem, which subsequently provides monthly reports, on request, which
identify statewide NSLP participation (ADA, ADP, etc.).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: This is calculated by dividing the total number of
reimbursable school lunches served by the total number of days schools are
operational in a given month. Individual monthly data are discrete; however, when two
or more month's data are accumulated, moving averages result. Only the first three
quarters of the fiscal year are used in determining annual performance since, for the
most part, schools are not in operation during the summer (fourth quarter) and use of
summer data skews annual data significantly.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Estimated data is used until actual becomes available. Data is
corrected each quarter to reflect actual.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.2.4.2
Average Number of School Breakfasts Served Daily
DEFINITION: This measure is defined as Average Daily Participation (ADP) in the
National School Breakfast Program (NSBP).
PURPOSE: To report the average number of students served by the school breakfast
program.
DATA SOURCE: A monthly reimbursement claim form received from each school district
participating in the NSBP. The relevant data are entered monthly into an agency
computer subsystem, which subsequently provides monthly reports, on request, which
identify statewide NSBP participation (ADA, ADP, etc.).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: This measure is calculated by dividing the total number of
reimbursable school breakfasts served by the total number of days schools are
operational in a given month. Individual monthly data are discrete; however, when two
or more month's data are accumulated, moving averages result. Only the first three
quarters of the fiscal year are used in determining annual performance since, for the
most part, schools are not in operation during the summer (fourth quarter) and use of
summer data skews annual data significantly.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Estimated data is used until actual becomes available. Data is
corrected each quarter to reflect actual.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
Strategy 2.2.5
Windham School System: Work with the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice to ensure that students have the basic education skills they need to
contribute to their families, communities, and the world.
OUTPUT MEASURES
2.2.5.1
Number of Contact Hours Received by Inmates within the Windham School
District
DEFINITION: The best 180 days of school attendance for each campus are summed to
give the total number of contact hours for the year.
PURPOSE: To identify the number of contact hours delivered in Windham ISD.
DATA SOURCE: Windham attendance database.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The entries for eligible inmates in the official Windham
attendance database are summed daily for each campus.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data source limited to period reported.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
84
2.2.5.2
Number of Offenders Passing General Education Development (GED) Tests
DEFINITION: The number of offenders passing the GED in a state fiscal year.
PURPOSE: To assess the educational attainment of Windham inmates.
DATA SOURCE: Windham School District GED database.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The GED database is searched; results are reported in the
fourth quarter.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
EFFICIENCY MEASURE
2.2.5.1
Objective 2.3
Average Cost Per Contact Hour in the Windham School District
DEFINITION: The average cost per contact hour in the Windham School District.
PURPOSE: To report the cost to serve Windham inmates.
DATA SOURCE: Windham attendance database and Windham accounting system.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The cost per contact hour is computed by dividing the total
contact hours into the total expenditures by the district.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The official Windham attendance database is used to compute the
total contact hours accumulated for the best 180 days of instruction and divided into the
total expenditures of the system to obtain the cost.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Support: Recruit, retain, and support
educators in school districts, charter schools, and the Texas Education Agency to
ensure that all students in the Texas public education system graduate from high school
with a world-class education.
OUTCOME MEASURES
2.3.1
Percent of High-Need Campuses that Receive a Master Reading Teacher Grant
DEFINITION: The number of high-need campuses that receive a master reading teacher grant.
PURPOSE: To report the participation of high-need campuses in the program.
DATA SOURCE: Applications from campuses that receive a master reading teacher grant.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Number of high-need campuses that receive at least one master
reading teacher grant divided by the number of identified high-need campuses.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The master reading teacher grant program is contingent on continued funding
from the legislature.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.3.2
Percent of Teachers with Proper Certification
DEFINITION: Percent of teachers with proper certification for the grade level and subject being
taught.
PURPOSE: This promotes a higher standard for teachers and improves the quality of education. It
is also a requirement from the NCLB (No Child Left Behind) act.
DATA SOURCE: There is a plan to map this information into the PEIMS system from SBEC by
2004.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Divide the total number of teachers with the proper certification by the
total number of teachers.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Ability of PEIMS to report the data from SBEC.
85
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.3.3
Turnover Rate for Teachers
DEFINITION: Turnover rate for teachers in the State of Texas.
PURPOSE: Teacher turnover can be viewed as one indicator of the relative health of the Texas
Education System. Presumably, the lower the turnover rate, the more stability in the educational
setting, a feature assumed to promote improved student performance.
DATA SOURCE: The source is PEIMS, Fall Submission, for the two years used in the calculation.
The turnover rate for teachers is published annually on the Academic Excellence Indicator
Reports (AEIS).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Turnover rate for teachers is the total FTE count of teachers not
employed in the district in the fall of the current year who were employed as teachers in the
district in the fall of the previous year, divided by the total teacher FTE count for the fall of the
previous year. Social security numbers of reported teachers are compared from the two
semesters to develop this information. Staff members who remain employed in the district but not
as teachers are counted as teacher turnover. At the state-level, this measure is the sum of all the
district turnover FTE values divided by the sum of the district prior year teacher FTEs. That is,
the state-level turnover rate is weighted average of the district turnover rates. The state value is
a measure of average district turnover in Texas.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The only data limitations are directly related to the accuracy of the data
provided by the districts. It is an annual calculation only. This measure is published on the AEIS
reports in the fall (usually late October) and represents information about the prior school year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
2.3.4
Percent of Teachers Participating in the Teacher Reading and Math Academies
DEFINITION: Percent of eligible teachers participating in the student success initiative teacher
reading and math academies.
PURPOSE: To train teachers better who can help prepare children to read and understand
mathematics.
D A T A S O U R C E : Number of eligible teachers listed in PEIMS data for the school year and the
number of teachers who received training.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Divide the number of teachers trained by the number of teachers in
PEIMS.
DATA LIMITATIONS: PEIMS data accuracy.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.3.5
Percent of Grant Applications Processed within 60 Days
DEFINITION: Percent of formula and discretionary grant applications from school districts that are
processed within a 60-day cycle.
PURPOSE: The measure provides information as to whether TEA is processing formula and
discretionary grants for schools in a timely manner.
DATA SOURCE: All formula grant information will be tracked in a new Grant Application System
that should be ready by September 2004. The discretionary grant information will be tracked in a
Grant Tracking Log which should be ready for use by September 2003.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: For discretionary grants, the date the grant was selected for funding is
the beginning date and the date that the NOGA (Notice of Grant Award) is finalized will be used
as the date completed. For formula grants, the date the grant is received at TEA is the beginning
date and the date that the NOGA is finalized is the completed date. The total number of grants
86
that are completed in less than or equal to 60 days will be divided by the total number of grants
processed for school districts.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Implementing a tracking system. This measure only includes grant
applications that are processed from school districts.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.3.6
Percent of School District Annual Textbook Orders Processed by May 31st
DEFINITION: This measure quantifies how well TEA has processed school district annual textbook
orders by the end of the reporting period, May 31st.
PURPOSE: This is significant because it “forecasts” the timeliness of requested textbook
shipments to school districts.
DATA SOURCE: The Educational Materials Procurement (EMAT) system.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Determined by dividing the total number of textbook orders processed
by TEA on or before May 31st by the total number of public schools and open-enrollment charter
school districts that have submitted their annual textbook orders by May 31st .
DATA LIMITATIONS: The primary limitation would be any malfunction that occurs in the EMAT
system hardware or software.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.3.7
TEA Turnover Rate
DEFINITION: The TEA annualized turnover rate compares the year-to-date separations (vacated
positions) in a given quarter to the average headcount (filled positions) year-to-date.
PURPOSE: The structure of TEA depends on a lower TEA turnover rate to provide more stability
and quality of service to its customers including School Districts, ESCs, etc.
DATA SOURCE: Month end data downloaded from USPS.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Each quarter, the year-to-date number of separations (vacated
positions) is divided by the total average year-to-date number of filled positions at TEA.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The average filled positions for each quarter vary slightly throughout the year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
Strategy 2.3.1
Teaching Excellence and Support: Ensure educators have access to
quality training tied to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills; develop and
implement professional development initiatives that encourage K-16
partnerships. Ensure that the regional education service centers facilitate
effective instruction and efficient school operations by providing core
services, technical assistance, and program support based on the needs and
objectives of the school districts they serve.
OUTPUT MEASURES
2.3.1.1
Number of Training Hours Purchased with State Program Funds
DEFINITION: Total number of ESC training hours purchased with state program funds.
PURPOSE: This will provide a picture of what the state funds are buying and promotes
the importance of training hours for all types of educators.
DATA SOURCE: ESCs will collect the data based on training classes provided and
number of attendees.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Each training class that is funded with at least 50% state
funds, either in their base or from other state funds passed through from TEA, will be
used in the total calculation. Each class will be calculated by multiplying the total
87
number of attendees by the length of the class in hours (rounded to .5 hours) and then
multiplied by the percent of state funds used for the training.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Training must be paid with at least 50% state funds.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.3.1.2
Number of Teachers Who Participate in Mathcounts Training
DEFINITION: The number of teachers who participate in mathcounts training.
PURPOSE: To measure participation in the mathcounts training program.
DATA SOURCE: Data provided by the Texas Engineering Foundation, sponsor of
mathcounts program.
METHOD OF CALCULATION:
Count the number of teachers who participate in
mathcounts training.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported from Texas Engineering Foundation.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.3.1.3
Number of Educators Receiving ESC-Based Training in Technology
DEFINITION: A count of the number of teachers, administrators, counselors, librarians,
and teacher aides attending technology-related workshops and training sessions (this
includes instructional technology and the use of data) that are conducted by the
regional education service centers (ESCs).
PURPOSE: To report the number of educators who participate in the training being
provided by ESCs in the area of technology.
DATA SOURCE: Regional ESCs.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: This measure is the sum of the total number of educators
attending technology-related workshops and training sessions (this includes
instructional technology and the use of data) that are conducted by the ESCs. The
number of educators is a duplicated count, with an individual being counted for each
workshop and/or training session attended.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data collected and aggregated from 20 ESCs.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.3.1.4
Number of Teachers Receiving Training in Dyslexia and Related Disorders
Services
DEFINITION: The number of teachers receiving dyslexia and related disorders training
by regional ESC staff. The teachers will be trained during the school year and summer
institute.
PURPOSE: To measure training in dyslexia services.
DATA SOURCE: Information will be collected and reported to TEA by the Region ESC
dyslexia contacts in their quarterly reports.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Number of teachers trained in dyslexia training sessions and
summer workshops will be collected by Region X ESC and combined with the number
of teachers trained in the Texas Reading Academies. The total is reported to TEA.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
88
Strategy 2.3.2
Scientific Research - Best Practices: Ensure that Texas public education
policy and programs are supported by world-class scientific research.
Strategy 2.3.3
Agency Operations:
Develop and implement efficient and effective
business processes and operations that support the state’s goals for public
education and ensure all Texas students graduate from high school with a
world-class education.
OUTPUT MEASURES
2.3.3.1
Number of Campuses Investigated for Exemption Rates
DEFINITION: Schools are allowed to exempt special education or LEP students from the
state assessment by action of the local Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD)
Committee or the Language Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC).
PURPOSE: The Special Data Inquiry Unit in the Division of School Governance, Equal
Educational Opportunity, and Complaints Management investigates instances when
excessive numbers of allowable exemptions or excessive numbers of absences of
students eligible to be tested are determined.
DATA SOURCE: The core data used in this performance is not based upon a PEIMS
view, but rather a series of grade-level SAS TAKS (usertea.tab@r.fy(yr1).taks.sas.stu.g_.dsk.au(yr-1) datasets. This assessment data is then compared to
data
reported
in
P.ATTEND_SPECED(yr)
(special
education
data),
P.ATTEND_Biling(yr)
(bilingual
education
data),
P.ATTEND_STUDENT(YR)
(attendance data), P.DEMOG(yr) (student id, ethnicity, economic disadvantaged
status), and P.DISTRICT and P.CAMPUS are used to provide district and campus
information (district name, campus name, regions).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Campuses are identified for review when (1) the number of
ARD exemptions exceeds the number of students enrolled in special education by
20%, (2) the number of LEP exemptions exceeds the number of students enrolled in
bilingual/ESL programs by 20%, (3) the ratio of students absent during the state
assessment compared to the average daily absence rate exceeds 120%, or (4) the
ratio of documents coded with an "other" score code compared to the total number of
documents exceeds the calculated coefficient of significance (mean value plus 2
standard deviations). Small numbers of students tested are considered in the analysis
formulas for exemptions and absences.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data for the measure is available in the fourth quarter.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
2.3.3.2
Number of Complaint Investigations Conducted
DEFINITION: Review allegations and conduct appropriate intervention activities and/or
referrals on complaints. Report the number of closed complaints which are a result of
appropriate intervention activities.
PURPOSE: To report the reviews of complaints and the closure of these complaints.
DATA SOURCE: Closure letters on file in the Division of School Governance, Equal
Educational Opportunity, and Complaints Management.
METHOD OF CALCULATION:
Intervention activities related to complaints include
telephone intervention, capacity building workshops, desk audits, and onsite
investigations. This measure is the count of closed complaints indicated by closure
letters written in response to formal written complaints and/or allegations.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
89
2.3.3.3
Amount of Available School Fund Income (Millions)
DEFINITION: Income earned by the investment of the PSF.
PURPOSE: To determine the available school fund income.
DATA SOURCE: CAMRA system.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: All income received by the PSF is recorded into the CAMRA
system and in USAS.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Movement of stock market.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.3.3.4
Number of Certificates of High School Equivalency (GED) Issued
DEFINITION: The GED Unit issues certificates of high school equivalency to students
who successfully complete the GED tests. Issuance of certificates is automated and
will be reported on a quarterly basis.
PURPOSE: To report the number of certificates issued by the GED Unit.
DATA SOURCE: Mainframe.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Data will come from mainframe records.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Self-reported.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.3.3.5
Number of Special Education Campuses and Programs Receiving Onsite
Monitoring Visits
DEFINITION: SB 1, Chapter 29, Educational Programs, calls for onsite monitoring of
special programs on a scheduled basis. Evaluations include onsite visits to campuses
that provide special education services. This count is the number of onsite visits of
LEA programs that provide special education services.
PURPOSE: The focus of the visits is twofold: (1) the quality of programs serving
students with special needs and (2) the extent to which programs comply with
state/federal rules and regulations.
DATA SOURCE: Master schedule of the Division of Accountability Evaluations.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of LEAs receiving onsite monitoring visits that
provide special education programs to qualifying students with disabilities, including
approved, non-public, and residential care facilities.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Only the initial visit will be counted, i.e., if an LEA is revisited for
follow up, the follow-up visit will not be counted.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.3.3.6
Number of Bilingual Education Campuses and Programs Receiving Onsite
Monitoring Visits
DEFINITION: SB 1, Chapter 29, Educational Programs, calls for onsite monitoring of
special programs on a scheduled basis. Evaluations include onsite visits to campuses
that provide bilingual education and special language program services. This count is
the number of onsite visits to LEA programs that provide such education services.
PURPOSE: The focus of the visits is twofold: (1) the quality of programs serving
students with limited English-proficiency and (2) the extent to which programs comply
with state and federal rules and regulations.
DATA SOURCE: Master schedule of the Division of Accountability Evaluations.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of LEAs receiving onsite monitoring visits that
provide ESL and bilingual education programs to qualifying students with limited
English-proficiency.
90
DATA LIMITATIONS: Only the initial visit will be counted, i.e., if an LEA is revisited for
follow-up, the follow-up visit will not be counted.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.3.3.7
Number of School Practitioners Recruited and Trained Through the Texas
School Improvement Initiative (TSII)
DEFINITION: Participants trained in the Texas School Improvement Initiative (TSII)
project in the peer onsite review process used for campus intervention teams required
under TEC §39.131.
PURPOSE: School practitioners trained through the TSII assist in the campus
intervention teams which assist campuses in meeting their campus performance
objectives.
DATA SOURCE:
Active membership database maintained by the Division of
Accountability Development and Support.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Using records of TSII training maintained by the Division of
Accountability Development and Support, the number of participants is determined.
Since ESC staff, other TEA staff, and some college and university faculty utilize the
TSII training materials to assist school personnel in improvement efforts, the TSII
training participants include representatives of these groups in addition to the primary
participants, which include district and campus professional educators. In addition,
professional educators representing alternative campuses will be trained as peer
reviewers for evaluating alternative campuses registered with the alternative
accountability system that fail to meet their approved targeted campus performance
objectives.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Database maintained in division.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.3.3.8
Number of Governance Special Investigations Conducted
DEFINITION: The Division of School Governance, Equal Educational Opportunity, and
Complaints Management conducts investigations in districts where alleged violations
related to assessment issues, civil rights, financial audits, and other legal provisions
and statutes are reported.
PURPOSE: To measure agency efforts to respond to complaints.
DATA SOURCE: Records are kept in the Division of School Governance, Equal
Educational Opportunity, and Complaints Management.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number reported reflects the number of districts in
which investigations are conducted by the Division of School Governance, Equal
Educational Opportunity, and Complaints Management staff. The number does not
indicate the extent, complexity, or result of the investigation.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
EFFICIENCY MEASURES
2.3.3.1
Average Cost of Accreditation Onsite Review
DEFINITION: Onsite peer review visits are conducted at academically unacceptable
districts and low-performing campuses based on the performance analysis of the
academic excellence indicators.
PURPOSE: To determine the average cost of accreditation onsite reviews.
DATA SOURCE: Monthly budget reports and travel reports.
91
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The total budget for the Division of Accountability and
School Accreditation, adjusted for cost of accreditation visits, is divided by the number
of accreditation visits conducted to academically unacceptable districts and lowperforming campuses. The method of calculation that is used to determine the
average cost is as follows: (A) Division 415 Salaries + Benefits = (X) multiplied by the
time and effort reported and related to accreditation visits that include low-performing
and need peer review; (B) Actual travel costs of staff members that were assigned to
the visits each quarter; (C) Operating costs will be calculated from the percent of
accreditation visits that occur in each quarter; and (D) CALCULATION: (A) + (B)_+ (C)
= Total costs per quarter divided by the number of visits to determine the average cost,
so related to the measure.
DATA LIMITATIONS: This amount includes data retrieval data retrieval, manipulation, inhouse preparation, report writing, post-visit negotiations and appeals, ESC visits, and
visits due to required sanctions and/or interventions. It does not consider the
differences in cost due to the size of the district or length of the visit, the distance or the
length of the visit, the distance from the office, and many other significant variables.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
2.3.3.2
Internal Active PSF Managers: Performance in Excess of Assigned Benchmark
DEFINITION: By employing active portfolio management strategies, the Investments
Division of the TEA is expected to produce returns over a complete investment cycle
that are in excess of the benchmark assigned by the State Board of Education as set
forth in the Permanent School Fund Investment Procedures Manual.
PURPOSE: T o serve as a measure of value added by internal investment managers for
the Permanent School Fund.
DATA SOURCE: The source/collection of data will be performance reports provided by
the performance measurement consultant to the Permanent School Fund and the
Permanent School Fund Investment Procedures Manual as adopted by the State
Board of Education.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The method of calculation is to compare the composite
returns of internal managers to their respective assigned benchmarks as reported by
the performance measurement consultant.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.3.3.3
Internal Passive PSF Managers: Performance Equal to Benchmark Index
DEFINITION: By employing passive portfolio management strategies, the Investments
Division of the TEA is expected to produce returns over a complete investment cycle
that are equal to the benchmark assigned by the State Board of Education as set forth
in the Permanent School Fund Investment Procedures Manual.
PURPOSE: To serve as a measure of value added by internal investment managers for
the Permanent School Fund.
DATA SOURCE: The source/collection of data will be performance reports provided by
the performance measurement consultant to the Permanent School Fund and the
Permanent School Fund Investment Procedures Manual as adopted by the State
Board of Education.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The method of calculation is to compare the composite
returns of internal managers to their respective assigned benchmarks as reported by
the performance measurement consultant.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
92
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.3.3.4
External Active Managers: Performance in Excess of Assigned Benchmark Net of
Management Fees
DEFINITION: By employing active portfolio management strategies, external investment
managers are expected to produce returns, net of management fees, over a complete
investment cycle that are in excess of the benchmark assigned by the State Board of
Education as set forth in the Permanent School Fund Investment Procedures Manual.
PURPOSE: T o serve as a measure of value added by external investment managers for
the Permanent School Fund.
DATA SOURCE: The source/collection of data will be performance reports provided by
the performance measurement consultant to the Permanent School Fund and the
Permanent School Fund Investment Procedures Manual as adopted by the State
Board of Education.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The method of calculation is to compare the composite
returns of external managers to their respective assigned benchmarks as reported by
the performance measurement consultant.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
EXPLANATORY MEASURES
2.3.3.1
Average Percent Equity Holdings in the PSF
DEFINITION: This item is the market value of the PSF equity holdings expressed as a
percentage of the total market value of the PSF.
PURPOSE: To assess the equity holdings in the PSF.
DATA SOURCE: CAMRA system.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: This item is calculated by pricing all of the holdings on the
PSF and determining the market value of each asset category and then expressing
each category's value as a percent of the total market value.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.3.3.2
Percent of PSF Portfolio Managed by External Managers
DEFINITION: This item is the market value of all PSF holdings managed by external
money managers expressed as a percentage of the total market value of the PSF.
PURPOSE: External management is guided by an investment plan developed and
approved by the SBOE.
DATA SOURCE: CAMRA system.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: This item is determined by pricing all of the holdings in the
PSF and determining the market value of each portfolio managed by external
managers and then expressing that value as a percentage of the total market value of
the PSF.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
93
Strategy 2.3.4
Central Administration: The Commissioner of Education shall serve as the
educational leader of the state.
Strategy 2.3.5
Information Systems - Technology: The Texas Education Agency will
purchase, develop, and implement information systems that support
students, educators, and stakeholders.
OUTPUT MEASURE
2.3.5.1
Number of Times Texas Education Agency Data Marts are Accessed
DEFINITION: This measure counts the number of visits to agency websites providing
data mart products.
PURPOSE: To measure use of agency data marts.
DATA SOURCE: Identified websites and selections.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Monthly count from an automated monitoring tool.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Webserver count.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
94
TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY
Workforce Plan FY 2003-2007
I.
CURRENT WORKFORCE PROFILE (SUPPLY ANALYSIS)
A. Critical Workforce Skills
TEA oversees the public school districts and charter schools in Texas. The following skills are critical to
perform the agency’s business functions:
Program Implementation and Evaluation
Teamwork/Communication
Policy Planning/Research
Financial
Technical Literacy and Systems Analysis
Change Management
The agency implemented a Workforce Balanced Scorecard in 2001 to build agency capacity for
achieving public education goals and objectives and ensure that workforce issues were being
addressed strategically, at the highest levels of the organization. As part of that Workforce Balanced
Scorecard, the agency has identified several strategic positions in high turnover areas. They are
identified as Information Technology positions and positions requiring travel 1/3 or more of the business
days for 10-12 months. Strategic positions can also include other classified positions deemed
necessary to the operations of the agency as approved. The agency also tracked such critical strategic
indicators as the number of exceptional candidates placed in the pool of potential employees, turnover
rate, succession planning, dispersal of merit increases, and time to hire in the Workforce Balanced
Scorecard. The scorecard strategy map is shown below.
95
B. Workforce Demographics
The following charts illustrate the agency’s full-time and part-time workforce as of May 1, 2002. TEA’s
workforce is comprised of 66% females and 34% males out of a workforce of 853 employees. A great
percentage of the workforce consists of former teachers, who are predominantly female. In the 20002001 school year, 77.3% of the state’s teachers were female.
Gender
Male 34%
Female
66%
The agency’s racial and ethnic distribution consists of 63.7 % White; 21.2% Hispanic; 10.8% Black and
4.3% Other. Whereas, the state’s workforce profile reflects 55.8% White; 25.6% Hispanic; 14.3%
Black; and 4.3% Other.
Ethnicity
Other, 4%
Hispanic, 21%
Black, 11%
White, 64%
96
Seventy-two percent of the agency’s workforce is over the age of 40. Many of the agency’s
education-related professional positions require several years of public school education
experience, which is a contributing factor to having an older workforce. In addition, in certain
strategic positions, the agency seeks out administrators who have retired from the public school
system.
Age
16 - 29
6%
60 & older
6%
30 - 39
22%
50 - 59
34%
40 - 49
32%
C. Employee Turnover
The agency’s turnover rate has been less than the State’s overall turnover rate for the last four years.
In FY 1997, TEA had a significantly high turnover because of the Legislature’s mandate to separate the
State Board of Educator Certification (SBEC) from TEA effective August 1997. Forty-nine employees
transferred to SBEC.
Turnover
25%
20%
15%
19.74%
18.93%
17.37%
17.58%
16.54%
16.70%
14.27%
15.36%
17.60%
16.35%
10%
5%
0%
FY 97
FY 98
FY 99
TEA
97
FY 00
State
FY 01
The agency provides various incentive/retention programs to help entice longer tenure. These
programs include the pay-for-performance merit system; one-time merits; enhanced compensation
programs; retention bonus program; tuition reimbursement program; employee service awards;
telecommuting/satellite workers; compressed work hours; in-house staff development training; and an
employee assistance program. The agency’s Quality Workplace Committee, made up of
administrative to mid-level professional staff, is instrumental in assisting the agency in improving the
efficiency and effectiveness of employees and the workplace so that employees are enabled to fulfill
the mission of the agency. This committee responds to employee concerns regarding workplace
issues or problems and recommends solutions.
State employees, as a whole, are now finding more stability in their positions; therefore, the
turnover rate has remained fairly low throughout this fiscal year and should continue until the end
of the fiscal year. As of May 1, 2002, the annualized turnover rate is 5%. This low turnover rate
is due primarily to the economy and the fact that so many hi-tech firms have experienced lay-offs.
In years past, the agency experienced high turnover in the information technology area. The
agency has also retained 85% of employees who were hired in fiscal year 2001. As the economy
improves, the Agency could experience an increase in turnover. TEA provides many retention
programs/benefits to encourage longer tenure.
Over 50% of the agency’s workforce has been employed with the agency for less than 5 years;
17% of the workforce has been employed up to 9 years and 22% of our employees have been
employed from 10 to 20 years.
Agency Tenure
More than 30
years
2%
20 - 30 years
8%
10 - 20 years
22%
Less than 5
years
51%
5 - 9 years
17%
98
Within the next five years, approximately 23% of the agency’s workforce is eligible to retire, which
will significantly impact the amount of agency knowledge that will be lost. With the anticipated
loss of knowledge and expertise, the agency will cross-train and develop succession plans to
bridge the gap to ensure continuity.
Retirement Eligibility
7%
50
Percent Eligible
6%
5%
4%
41
40
FY06
FY07
35
27
3%
2%
1%
0%
FY03
FY04
FY05
Fiscal Year
II. FUTURE WORKFORCE PROFILE (DEMAND ANALYSIS)
A. Critical Functions
Program implementation and evaluation, teamwork/communication, policy planning/research,
financial, technical literacy/systems analysis, and change management will continue to play a
strategic role in the operation of the agency. Due to the number of employees eligible to retire
and an improving economy, the agency anticipates an increase in the attrition rate. As part of our
Balanced Workforce Scorecard, we will focus on recruiting exceptional candidates to fill strategic
positions. Many of these exceptional candidates will come from the school districts as former
teachers and administrators. These candidates will have the skill sets needed to fulfill the years
and experience levels required to perform these critical functions.
B. Expected Workforce Changes
The agency will continue to maximize technology for increased efficiencies.
C. Anticipated Increase/Decrease in Number of Employees Needed to do the Work
No increase in FTEs is anticipated. Further reduction in FTEs would affect the agency’s ability to
perform core functions. Contract help may be needed to accomplish our mission if required to
reduce FTEs.
D. Future Workforce Skills Needed
To effectively accomplish the agency’s mission and goals, program implementation and
evaluation, teamwork/communication, policy planning/research, financial, technical
literacy/systems analysis, and change management competencies will be required.
99
III. GAP ANALYSIS
The agency does not anticipate a shortage of workers; however, there could be some challenges in
recruiting exceptional candidates due to budgetary constraints. This could pose problems in hiring
key management positions. Retention programs and a statewide examination of the creative use of
benefits to offset relatively low salaries will be critical to ensuring the capacity, quality, and knowledge
of employees in the agency and in the state workforce as a whole.
In addition, workforce skills will need to keep pace with evolving technology. The use of technology
may eliminate the need for data entry positions. Many functions have been outsourced when costeffective. State policy should examine alternatives that facilitate outsourcing while keeping agencies
accountable for FTE caps.
IV. STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
TEA’s Human Resources Division's mission is to provide good quality customer service to our internal
and external customers; to recruit qualified applicants; and to retain a capable and committed
workforce that is strategically focused to manage, monitor, and improve the Texas public education
system's capacity for excellence.
We will continue to focus on the following programs in an effort to build and maintain an exceptional
workforce:
ƒ Retention Program
ƒ Recruitment Plans
ƒ Career Development Program
ƒ Succession Planning
ƒ Leadership Development
ƒ Organizational training and employee development
100
Survey of Organizational Excellence
The Texas Education Agency participates in the Survey of Organizational Excellence (SOE) conducted
by the University of Texas School of Social Work. Positive gains have been observed in the majority of
the construct scores over time. Eighteen of the 20 survey construct scores significantly increased from
the 2000 scores. The 2002 results demonstrate that, overall, employees believe the Texas Education
Agency continues to improve its organizational processes and quality of the workplace environment. The
SOE construct score results are listed below.
Construct
2002 Score
(Rank)
Score Difference 2000 Score 1998 Score 1996 Score
2002 vs. 2000
(Rank)
(Rank)
(Rank)
Quality
406 (1)
+37
369 (2)
359 (3)
320 (3)
Strategic Orientation
391 (2)
-4
395 (1)
396 (1)
355 (2)
External Communication
384 (3)
+15
369 (3)
353 (4)
311 (4)
Employment Development
384 (4)
+38
346 (6)
331 (5)
302 (5)
Benefits
380 (5)
+21
359 (4)
371 (2)
363 (1)
Physical Environment
380 (6)
+30
350 (5)
324 (7)
279 (8)
Burnout
377 (7)
+54
323 (10)
307 (12)
256 (15)
Job Satisfaction
376 (8)
+41
335 (8)
312 (9)
265 (11)
Availability of Information
375 (9)
+62
313 (14)
298 (14)
259 (13)
Time & Stress Management
374 (10)
+41
333 (9)
323 (8)
292 (6)
Goal Oriented
371 (11)
+35
336 (7)
325 (6)
278 (9)
Diversity
367 (12)
+47
320 (12)
311 (10)
282 (7)
Fairness
366 (13)
+77
289 (18)
274 (20)
244 (18)
Empowerment
364 (14)
+71
293 (17)
278 (18)
234 (19)
Holographic
359 (15)
+47
312 (15)
295 (15)
253 (16)
Change Oriented
354 (16)
+33
321 (11)
310 (11)
265 (12)
Team Effectiveness
352 (17)
+38
314 (13)
304 (13)
257 (14)
Supervisor Effectiveness
348 (18)
+60
288 (19)
277 (19)
234 (20)
Internal Communication
334 (19)
+22
312 (16)
290 (17)
247 (17)
Fair Pay
262 (20)
-12
274 (20)
291 (16)
276 (10)
A score of 300 marks a threshold for employee perception. Scores above 300 indicate that employee perception of
an issue is positive. Quality, Strategic Orientation, External Communication, Employment Development and Benefits
have been consistently ranked highest by employees. TEA’s scores for Quality, Strategic Orientation, External
Communication, Employment Development, Physical Environment, Burnout, Job Satisfaction, Availability of
Information, Time and Stress Management, Goal Oriented, Diversity, Fairness, Holographic, Change Oriented, Team
Effectiveness, Supervisor Effectiveness and Internal Communication ranked higher than all comparative benchmark
data scores. The benchmarks are Statewide Average, FTE (organizations with 310-1,000 FTEs), Mission
(organizations with educational missions), and SACC (State Agency Coordinating Council).
Staff Development works in coordination with agency leadership to address issues associated with low scoring
constructs. Open dialog with agency leadership and employees (to include the agency’s Quality Workplace
Committee), and the use of follow-up surveys and agency focus groups are strategies that have proven
effective in identifying and resolving construct issues.
101
Information Resources Strategic Plan
1. TEA IR Goals, Objectives and Strategies
Item
Description
IR Goal 1
Access to Education Information: Make agency data and information available to those who need it
for use in policy analysis, research and decision-making, whether they be educators, parents,
legislators, superintendents, board members, or agency staff.
TEA
Strategic
Plan
TEA IR Goal 1 supports TEA Strategic Plan Goal 2 (Operational Excellence); TEA Objective 2.2.
(Effective School Environments); TEA Strategy 2.2.1. (Instructional Materials); TEA Strategy 2.2.2.
(Educational Technology); TEA Objective 2.3. (Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Support); TEA
Strategy 2.3.3. (Agency Operations); and TEA Strategy 2.3.5. (Information Systems-Technology).
State
Strategic
Plan
TEA IR Goal 1 primarily supports Goal 4 in the State Strategic Information Resources Plan,
Transforming Government Through Information Resources Management and related statewide
objectives and outcomes.
IR
Objectives
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IR
Strategies
Ensure equity of access to information and educational content.
Develop and maintain an effective information management system (architecture, policy,
and process) which supports sharing and integration of data and improves administrative
efficiency.
Provide easy access to understandable data and information in ways that support decisionmaking and enhance the quality of decisions made.
Provide an integrated statewide library resource sharing system, through which educators and
students can identify, access, and retrieve resources held in libraries across the state and which
facilitates effective library administration and the development of local library collections.
Provide awareness of and electronic resources for the implementation of the Texas Essential
Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), including the integration of technology applications across the
curriculum.
Research and pilot alternate delivery systems for instructional materials to update, supplement,
and/or replace hardcopy textbooks.
Provide training and support to agency staff, ESCs, and district staff to maximize TEA’s
investment in technology.
Understand and align with Texas IT policies, rules, standards, and guidelines.
Understand and align with IT industry trends and standards. Participate in and support Texas egovernment initiatives.
The Pre-Kindergarten - 16 Student/Staff Public Education Integrated Data Resource (P16 PEIDR)
provides a strategy for implementing TEA’s Long-Range Plan for Technology, 1996-2010. TEA
provides leadership and support in the use of technology through a wide variety of technology
initiatives that give Texas students, parents, teachers, administrators, legislators, and business
leaders access to the tools, products, and information they need to make decisions, to educate, to
plan, and to learn.
The P16 PEIDR project supports IR Goal 1 by collaborating with the Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board and State Board for Educator Certification with access to Pre-kindergarten - 16
student, staff, and financial integrated Texas public education data.
Following are specific strategies that support IR Goal 1:
•
•
•
•
Develop a customer interface that is simple to learn and use and that is customized to the needs
of various customer groups.
Adopt policies that ensure consistent information management across TEA.
IMPROVE INTEGRATION OF DATA, FILES, PRODUCTS, SERVICES, AND SYSTEMS.
Solicit input from customers (Steering Committees and Focus Groups, Educational
Technology Advisory Committee, ESC Technology Task Force, ESC/TEA Technology
Planning Group, Texas Library Connection Focus Groups, T-STAR Advisory Group, T102
Item
Description
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
STAR Digital Task Force, TETN Infrastructure Planning Group, TETN Content and
Services Planning Group, and Technology Applications TEKS Center for Educator
Development Focus Groups).
Continue to implement projects that improve customer service.
Develop data repositories that integrate major agency data sources, as well as additional
data from external data sources to enhance longitudinal and comparative analysis and
decision-making.
Develop effective partnerships with sister agencies such as the Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board, State Board for Educator Certification, etc., to enhance the P16
PEIDR.
Participate in the state portal to the maximum extent possible.
Provide capabilities and tools for faster, easier agency and public data access.
Provide technology training for TEA staff.
Develop and maintain electronic records management policies and procedures.
Improve the utility of the agency website, including development of an agency portal and
an agency intranet.
TEA
Programs
Supported
All TEA programs are supported by TEA IR Goal 1.
IR Goal 2
Business to Business Applications: Provide business to business (B2B) applications which
support both internal agency operations and business transactions (including data collections)
between and among the agency and school districts, ESCs, and other business partners.
TEA
Strategic
Plan
TEA IR Goal 1 supports TEA Strategic Plan Goal 2 (Operational Excellence); TEA Objective 2.2.
(Effective School Environments); TEA Strategy 2.2.1. (Instructional Materials); TEA Strategy 2.2.2.
(Educational Technology); TEA Objective 2.3. (Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Support); TEA
Strategy 2.3.3. (Agency Operations); and TEA Strategy 2.3.5. (Information Systems - Technology).
State
Strategic
Plan
TEA IR Goal 2 primarily supports Goal 1 in the State Strategic Information Resources Plan,
Transforming Government Through Information Resources Management and related statewide
objectives and outcomes.
IR
Objectives
•
•
•
•
•
IR
Strategies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
TEA
Programs
Supported
IR Goal 3
Improve data quality, collection, consistency, and accuracy.
Deliver products that are more timely to the creation of the data and kept current with the latest
information.
Develop and enhance applications that serve business needs, support information
requirements, and customer productivity.
Ensure that business priorities drive IS priorities and funding.
Give guidance on applying appropriate technology to the business and adopt horizon.
Support and enhance the work of internal Information Systems oversight and advisory
groups (such as, Information Planning Committee, TEA Data Advisory Council, Policy
Committee on Public Education Information, and the Technology Standards Committee).
Develop business applications that utilize web capabilities to develop web-enabled
forms/systems for business transactions.
Migrate current non-browser accessible applications to be browser or web accessible.
Provide leadership to implement effective information management practices.
Use and enhance the Enterprise Data Model.
Migrate to new computing platforms as required to meet customer needs.
Improve PEIMS and other collection systems.
Continue to work with partners (school districts, ESCs, etc.) to identify and develop tools
and techniques to improve data quality and increase public trust.
All TEA programs are supported by TEA IR Goal 2.
Infrastructure: Build the technology infrastructure within the agency and the broad public
education system to support information access, content delivery, business applications, and
distance learning, as well as to improve internal staff productivity.
103
Item
Description
TEA
Strategic
Plan
TEA IR Goal 1 supports TEA Strategic Plan Goal 2 (Operational Excellence); TEA Objective 2.2.
(Effective School Environments); TEA Strategy 2.2.1. (Instructional Materials); TEA Strategy 2.2.2.
(Educational Technology); TEA Objective 2.3. (Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Support); TEA
Strategy 2.3.3. (Agency Operations); and TEA Strategy 2.3.5. (Information Systems - Technology).
State
Strategic
Plan
TEA IR Goal 3 primarily supports Goals 2 and 3 in the State Strategic Information Resources Plan,
Transforming Government Through Information Resources Management and related statewide
objectives and outcomes.
IR
Objectives
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IR
Strategies
Maintain and enhance the physical infrastructure and processing capacity to support
customer business requirements.
Provide leadership on issues related to efficient use of information resources.
Provide the software tools necessary to enhance individual and group performance.
Provide an effective technical training program.
Maintain and enhance the security of private and confidential data.
Define, plan, and maintain technology architecture for TEA.
Assure that all IT projects align with TEA architecture.
The P16 PEIDR calls for the use of the Internet, Texas Education Telecommunications Network,
Education Service Centers’ regional networks, and T-STAR. These four areas form the building
blocks of an integrated telecommunications services network designed to support the interactive
exchange of data and information throughout the Texas K-12 public school community.
The P16 PEIDR includes projects that will provide an infrastructure that enables public education
stakeholders to readily access and use public education information for analysis, planning, and
decision-making. The initiative embodies the design, implementation, operation, and maintenance of
an integrated telecommunications network that is defined by constantly evolving content and
services.
Following are specific strategies that support IR Goal 3:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
TEA
Programs
Supported
Facilitate the creation of a technology infrastructure that reaches to the classroom and an
information architecture that merges both instructional and administrative content.
Maximize advantages of WTDROC facilities.
Form partnerships with other agencies to explore joint or coordinated grant opportunities.
Develop and maintain an effective information resources technical architecture.
Ensure adequate processing and network capacity across all platforms from the desktop to
the mainframe.
Develop and maintain processes that support continued improvements in the
infrastructure.
Enhance staff capabilities through improved recruitment, retention, and staff development
activities.
Use outsourcing to effectively support the agency infrastructure.
Maintain an effective technology refresh system.
Maintain and test effective disaster recovery plans and business resumption plans for the
infrastructure that is provided and supported by Information Systems.
Prepare for telecommuting.
All TEA programs are supported by TEA IR Goal 3.
104
2. TEA Major Applications
Application Name
Application Description
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
Application Name
Application Description
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
Application Name
Application Description
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
Application Name
Application Description
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
AskTED
Agency-wide repository of organization data and relationships of
organizations and people as represented in the enterprise model.
The application provides for maintenance and viewing of
organization data. Organizations can be related to persons and/or
roles or other organizations. Examples include Shared Service
Arrangements or Education Service Centers and School Districts.
Directory and mailing label information is presented on a Web page
for printing. Mailing label information can also be downloaded to PC
files. There are extensive reports that are available under the
Quick Reports option.
Sybase
Perl, Java
Department of Protective and Regulatory Services and Department
of Health. Campus data via data files is Ee-mailed to them.
Planning on rewriting database.
Child Nutrition Integrated Management System (CNP-IMS)
CNP-IMS processes $55 million per month in school food service
claims at over 1,000 school districts via an online system. The
system also provides reliable tracking of claim adjustments to meet
state and federal requirements.
Sybase
APT, SQR, NetDynamics, JCL
N/A
Internet redevelopment effort. New Summer feeding program
added recently.
Educational Materials (EMAT)
Supports the adoption and acquisition of educational materials
(textbooks. workbooks, etc.) for school districts. . Monitors the
distribution of materials and creates transaction vouchers to pay
vendors.
Sybase
Java
N/A
N/A
Charter Schools Tracking System (CHT)
Contains detailed information on Open Enrollment charter Charter
Schools including status, contacts and terms of charter authorized
by the State Board of Education (SBOE).
MS SQL Server
ASP
N/A
N/A
105
Application Name
Application Description
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
Application Name
Application Description
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
Application Name
Application Description
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
Application Name
Application Description
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
Application Name
Application Description
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Foundation School Program (FSP)
A financial system that computes the allocation of state funds to be
distributed to the districts and tracks the payments.
VSAM
COBOL, GES
N/A
Redesign/rewrite scheduled for production by August 31, 2002.
WEB SAS (IFM)
Standard Application System for submitting applications for
applications for grant funds and managing shared services
arrangements.
MS SQL Server
ASP, VB Script, Java Script
Might possibly be shared with other state agencies in the future.
Incorporate as part of eSAS initiative scheduled for production in
2004.
Integrated Statewide Administrative System (ISAS)
ISAS facilitates timely, accurate, and usable information to reflect
the financial and fiscal operation of the aAgency and to apply
controls in accordance with the Generally Accepted Accounting
Procedures (GAAP) and applicable state and federal laws and
regulations. This system also satisfies the acquisition and tracking
of goods (procurement component) and services for the aAgency
consistent with appropriate laws, rules, and regulations from
planning stage to disposal in an efficient and effective manner while
interfacing and integrating with other appropriate resource systems.
ISAS replaced the Financial Management System (FMS).
Sybase
COBOL, PeopleSoft, SQR
N/A
Upgrade planned for PeopleSoft 8.4 by 8/1/2003
FR Loader (FRL)
Provides technical interface from USPS to the Financial Resource
Management FoxPro applications
X-base, Sybase
FoxPro, SAS
N/A
Upgrade needed
Mid-Year PEIMS Collection (MPINT)
System that collects student, staff, financial, and organization data
from districts and education service centers in mid year.
DB2, flat files
Ideal, JCL
N/A
106
Future
N/A
Application Name
Application Description
Summer PEIMS Collection (SPINT)
System that collects student, staff, financial, and organization data
from districts and education service centers during the summer.
DB2, flat files
Ideal, COBOL
N/A
N/A
Database System
Development Language
Sharing
Future
107
Application Name
Application Description
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
Application Name
Application Description
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
Application Name
Application Description
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
Application Name
Application Description
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
Fall PEIMS Collection (FPINT)
System that collects student, staff, financial, and organization data
from districts and education service centers during the fall.
DB2, flat files
Ideal, JCL
N/A
N/A
Extended Year PEIMS Collection (EPINT)
System that collects student, staff, financial, and organization data
from districts only.
DB2, flat files
Ideal, JCL
N/A
N/A
PEIMS EDIT + (PEDIT)
EDIT + provides a mean to perform data validation for district data
on the TEA file server. . No validation can be performed before the
data is extracted and sent to TEA using the Internet. EDIT +
generates error-listing reports on any errors or warnings detected
providing districts a method of validating their data for accuracy
before submitting to TEA.
UDB
VB, Java, SQR, Crystal Reports
N/A
N/A
State School Attendance (SAR)
This non-PEIMS system produces the Principals' Annual Report of
Student Attendance and Contact Hours for the 13 state schools.
The output from this system provides input to the PEIMS
Attendance DSS system for the 13 state schools.
Access
Access
N/A
to be incorporated into PEIMS and FSP
108
Application Name
Application Description
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
Application Name
Application Description
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
Application Name
Application Description
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
School Attendance Queries (SAQ)
The system is used to perform desk audits of common student
accounting errors. Inquiries are run against the previous years
PEIMS data. Normally about 800 districts are audited.
SAS
SAS
N/A
N/A
Perkins Grant Application
The Perkins Grant system is a web based system used by the
school districts to submit SAS applications for Carl Perkins Grant. .
MS SQL
ASP,HTML,VB Script, Javascript, Access reports
N/A
N/A
Adult Community Education (ACES)
The Adult and Community Education System application is a webenabled adult education student tracking and reporting system.
The system's primary function is to track and report the status of
students participating in Texas adult education programs...
MS SQL Server
Visual Basic, VB Script, ASP, Crystal Reports
Data is FTP to UT for student matching on GED info
N/A
Application Name
Application Description
Independent and Indirect Cost
This web-enabled system provides the capability to enter district
audit reports directly into a database, produce reports and
automatically calculate indirect cost information.
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
Sybase
Visual Basic
N/A
Major changes planned for summer 2002
Application Name
Application Description
GED
This mainframe application is used to track GED information and to
provide a means to print GED certificates of completion.
DB2
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
IDEAL
Student data is mailed to TWC and FTPd to UT
Pending funding: to be rewritten in ASP, VB Script; on MS SQL
Server
109
Application Name
Application Description
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
Waivers (State)
The application is used to track all waivers regulated by State law.
MS SQL Sever
MS Access
N/A
N/A
Application Name
Application Description
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
Complaints
The system is used to track all complaints received by the agency.
MS Access
MS Access
N/A
N/A
Application Name
Application Description
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
Drivers Safety Training
This system is used by the drivers training division to track all
drivers safety training within the State and to track the issuance of
certificates of completion.
Access
Access
N/A
N/A
Application Name
Application Description
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
Master Reading Teacher
Master Reading on line Grant application and tracking system
MS SQL Server
ASP, VB Script, Java Script
None currently. . In the future, could share data with SBEC
N/A
Application Name
Application Description
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
Public Information Request Tracking System (PIRTS)
Used to log and track the status of Open Record requests
MS SQL Server
ASP, VB Script, Java Script, Ccrystal Reports
N/A
N/A
Application Name
Application Description
Reading Initiative (RI)
Tracks Information on the state wide Reading Initiative grant to
school districts. Includes Includes the assessment instruments
used and information on expenditures.
MS SQL Server
ASP, VB Script, Java Script
N/A
N/A
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
110
Application Name
Application Description
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
Application Name
Application Description
Database Type
Development Language
Sharing
Future
Student Transfer System (STS)
The Student Transfer System database contains data used to
identify districts that are in or out of transfer compliance with
respect to students residing in one school district and attending
school in another district or at a charter school. The data consists
of school district contact and compliance information, student
information, review and approval information, and claims exemption
information.
MS SQL Server
ASP, VB Script, Java Script
N/A
The database will eventually include ADA related data with respect
to students who have caused a district to be out of compliance.
Web Expenditure Reporting
A web-enabled application that allows the schools districts to
request refunds for monies that were budgeted to their fund source.
Sybase
Net Dynamics
N/A
Rewrite planned.
111
2. TEA Major Databases
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Child Nutrition Program Database (CNP)
Database contains school district and campus information required
for monthly claims processing for free and reduced meals
reimbursement to schools. It also contains historical claims
information.
Sybase
379 MB Estimated Growth 37 MB year
N/A
N/A
Internet redevelopment effort. New Summer feeding program
added recently.
Education Material Acquisition (EMAT) (EDILE)
(EMAT_ADOPTION)
Database contains information, including visually handicapped
information, supporting textbook ordering, shipment, and payment
as well as the maintenance of state and school district textbook
inventories.
Sybase
4.8 GB Estimated Growth 400 MB year
N/A
N/A
N/A
Foundation School Program (FSP)
Database contains data used in the computation of school district
entitlements to state funds under the Foundation Schools Program
and is used to distribute entitlements to the local education
agencies.
VSAM
75MB
N/A
N/A
Redesign/rewrite scheduled for production by August 31, 2002.
Integrated Statewide Administrative System (ISAS) (ISAS
Interface)
Database contains timely, accurate, and usable information to
reflect the financial and fiscal operation of the agency.
Sybase
27.4GB Estimated Growth 5 GB year
N/A
N/A
Upgrade planned for PeopleSoft 8.4 by 8/1/2003.
112
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS data
Sharing
Future
Organization Database (ORG) (ORGRPT)
Database contains organization data and relationships of
organizations and people as represented in the enterprise model.
Sybase, DB2
270 MB Estimated Growth 27 MB year
N/A
N/A
N/A
Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS)
Database contains student, staff, financial, and organization data
from school districts and education service centers in mid year.
DB2 OS/390
120.5 GB Estimated Growth 10 GB year
N/A
N/A
N/A
PEIMS EDIT+ (PEIPRD)
Database linked to web application used by school districts to
ensure that the data reported meets the PEIMS Data Standards
established by TEA. The PEIMS editing process provides data
transfer, validation, and reporting to the state’s education service
centers, school districts, and schools.
DB2 UDB for UNIX
240 GB Estimated Growth 50 GB year
N/A
N/A
N/A
Personal Identification (PID)
Database is the single authoritative source of demographic
information on persons. Data about current public school
students, people taking college placement teacher tests, and GED
students is integrated into this database.
DB2 OS/390
7.8 GB Estimated Growth 1 GB year
N/A
N/A
N/A
Perkins Grant Application (PRKPRD)
The Perkins Grant Application system is a web based online SAS
application system used by the school districts to submit
applications for the Carl Perkins Grant.
MS SQL Server
19 MB Estimated Growth 2 MB year
N/A
N/A
N/A
113
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
SIZE
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Adult Community Education (ACES)
The Adult and Community Education System (ACES) application
is a web-enabled adult education student tracking and reporting
system. The system's primary function is to track and report the
status of students participating in Texas adult education programs.
MS SQL Server
3.2 MB Estimated Growth 1 MB year
N/A
Data is FTP to UT for student matching on GED info.
N/A
Independent and Indirect Cost (Audit)
This web-enabled system provides the capability to enter district
audit reports directly into a database, produce reports and
automatically calculate indirect cost information.
Sybase
917 MB Estimated Growth 100 MB year
N/A
N/A
Major changes planned for summer 2002.
GED (GEDPRD)
This mainframe application is used to track GED information and
to provide a means to print GED certificates of completion.
DB2
3.5 GB Estimated Growth 500 MB year
N/A
Student data is mailed to TWC and FTPd to UT
Pending funding: to be written in ASP, VB Script; on MS SQL
Server
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Waivers (WVRPRD)
The application is used to track all waivers regulated by State law.
MS SQL Server
33 MB Estimated Growth 3 MB year
N/A
N/A
N/A
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Complaints (cpt3data.mdb)
The system is used to track all complaints received by the agency.
Access
20 MB Estimated Growth 2 MB year
N/A
N/A
N/A
114
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Drivers Safety Training (Data\Comm\Driving)
This system is used by the drivers training division to track all
driver safety training within the State and to track the issuance of
certificates of completion.
Access
100 MB Estimated Growth 10 MB year
N/A
N/A
N/A
Texas Library Connection Union Catalog
Database contains records of more than 40 million items held in
4,100 school libraries participating in the Texas Library Connection
Web-based
Large - currently stored by vendor - may desire to store at TEA in
the future
N/A
N/A
Plans to include holdings of all school libraries and move to TEA .
Texas Library Connection Membership
Database contains district and campus information including
information about the number, size, and automation of library
programs. It is used to enroll and identify campuses participating
in the Texas Library Connection.
Access
20MB
N/A
Database is shared with the Texas Library Connection Information
Center and with vendors who mount information from the
database on to the TEA website. FTP has been used for transfer.
Data needs to be shared with vendors who provide services for
members.
This database should self populate much of the needed
information from existing TEA databases; it currently does not.
Districts have to supply identifying information. Database also
needs to instantly and automatically update information on the
TEA website. Currently, updated information is supplied through
the TEA web, but that information must be manually added to the
existing database.
25% Texas Library Supplement (TLC)
Database is application process for districts to apply for funding
through H.B.1, Art III., Rider 70. Web-based application feeds
information to a SQL Server database which is then used to
generate reports to accounting to generate payment, the
legislature, and professional organizations.
MS SQL Server
10 MB Estimated Growth 1 MB year
N/A
N/A
N/A
115
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Database Name
Database Description
Charter School Tracking (CSTPRD)
Contains detailed information on Open Enrollment Charter
Schools including status, contacts and terms of the charter
authorized by the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE).
MS SQL Server
250 MB Estimated Growth 10 MB year
N/A
N/A
N/A
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
GED In School Service Program (GEDIS)
Contains information on students enrolling in and exiting from a
GED in school service program that prepares them to take the
GED test.
MS SQL Server
8 MB Estimated Growth 8 MB year
N/A
N/A
N/A
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Master Reading Teacher (MRT)
Master Reading Teacher On-Line Grant Application.
MS SQL Server
45 MB Estimated Growth 5 MB year
N/A
None currently. In the future, could share data with SBEC.
N/A
Database Name
Database Description
Public Information Request Tracking System (PIRTS)
Used to log and track the status of formal information requests to
the agency including Open Records requests.
MS SQL Server
78 MB Estimated Growth 50 MB year
N/A
N/A
N/A
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Reading Initiative (RI)
Contains information on the state wide Reading Initiative grant to
school districts. Includes the assessment instruments used and
information on expenditures.
MS SQL Server
19 MB Estimated Growth 2 MB year
N/A
N/A
N/A
116
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
WEB SAS (IFM)
Standard Application System for submitting applications for
applications for grant funds and managing shared services
arrangements.
MS SQL Server
60 MB Estimated Growth 10 MB year
N/A
Might possibly be shared with other state agencies in the future.
Incorporate as part of eSAS initiative scheduled for production in
2004.
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
People Soft Services Procurement (SPRO)
Contains information on contract services, bids and vendors.
MS SQL Server
3.4 GB Estimated Growth 500 MB year
N/A
N/A
N/A
Database Name
Database Description
Student Transfer System (STSPRD)
The Student Transfer System database contains data used to
identify districts that are in or out of transfer compliance with
respect to students residing in one school district and attending
school in another district or at a charter school. The data consists
of school district contact and compliance information, student
information, review and approval information, and claims
exemption information.
MS SQL Server
62 MB Estimated Growth 50 MB year
Currently, there is no GIS data stored in the system, and none is
anticipated for the future.
Currently, there is no inter-agency data sharing and none is
anticipated for the future.
The database will eventually include ADA related data with respect
to students who have caused a district to be out of compliance.
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Public Access Initiative Data Warehouse (PEDPRD)
An interagency data warehouse containing organization, financial,
student, and staff data for TEA, SBEC, and THECB.
DB2 UDB for UNIX
180 GB Estimated Growth 20 GB year
N/A
The data is shared between TEA, THECB and SBEC in
accordance with FERPA. VPN access is provided to participating
agency staff or other secure connection via the application tools.
Data comes from TEA, THECB, SBEC and CPA and is shared by
the three agencies (TEA, THECB and SBEC).
Additional data sources are being reviewed for possible inclusion.
Data will be used to research student outcomes and possible
future teacher shortages.
117
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Database Name
Database Description
Database Type
Size
GIS Data
Sharing
Future
Financial Performance Data Mart (FPMPRD)
Contains the TEA school district financial data mart.
DB2 UDB for UNIX
16 GB Estimated Growth 2 GB year
N/A
The data is shared between TEA, THECB and SBEC. VPN
access is provided to participating agency staff or other secure
connection via the application tools. Data comes from TEA and
the Comptrollers Office and is shared by the three agencies (TEA,
THECB and SBEC).
This data mart will be subsumed into the revised data warehouse.
Student Performance Data Mart (SPDPRD)
Contains the TEA student information data mart including
information on student enrollment, attendance, and course
completion.
DB2 UDB for UNIX
28 GB Estimated Growth 5GB year
N/A
The data is shared between TEA, THECB and SBEC in
accordance with FERPA. VPN access is provided to participating
agency staff or other secure connection via the application tools.
Data comes from TEA, THECB and SBEC and is shared by the
three agencies (TEA, THECB and SBEC).
This data mart will be subsumed into the revised data warehouse.
Education Staff Data Mart (ESDPRD)
Contains the TEA school district staff data mart including
demographic and financial information on school district staff.
DB2 UDB for UNIX
15 GB Estimated Growth 3GB year
N/A
The data is shared between TEA, THECB and SBEC in
accordance with FERPA. VPN access is provided to participating
agency staff or other secure connection via the application tools.
Data comes from TEA, THECB and SBEC and is shared by the
three agencies (TEA, THECB and SBEC).
This data mart will be subsumed into the revised data warehouse.
118
3. Information Resources Management Organizations, Policies, and Practices
Category
Summary/Overview
IR Priorities
Information resources projects, activities, and priorities are managed and coordinated by the various
division managers throughout the agency and the Information Planning Committee (IPC). The
role of the committee is to provide oversight for both information management and use of
information resources across the agency.
The Information Planning Committee (IPC) is responsible for policymaking, priority-setting
and providing strategic direction for information resources across the agency and resolving
intra-agency issues associated with data definition and usage. Its membership is comprised
of Deputy and Associate Commissioners, the General Counsel, the Internal Auditor, and the
Managing Director of Information Services. The IPC establishes policies that contribute to the
effective protection, management, and allocation of agency information and technology
resources; establishes priorities for allocating IT resources to projects which meet agency
priorities as well as approving what information is made available; what products are derived
from agency data; and determining the standards for the data and related documentation.
The Policy Committee on Public Education Information (PCPEI) is an advisory group that
reviews and recommends changes to the PEIMS collection. They or their technical expert
representatives on the Information Task Force will conduct annual reviews of collections to
promote the useful, accurate and timely collection of student demographic and academic
performance, personnel, and school district financial information. The committee is composed
of thirty representatives from school districts, education service centers, state government,
and educational associations.
The Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) was created to work in an
advisory capacity to increase the equity, efficiency, and effectiveness of student learning;
instructional management; staff development; and administration. The latest efforts of this
committee are in the development, implementation, and evaluation of technology guidelines to
provide districts with the tools for self-assessment that will aid in the effective integration of
technology across the curriculum.
This sixteen-member committee is composed of teachers, district technology coordinators, parents
and representatives from education service centers, and higher education.
Other initiatives receive input from stakeholders through the T-STAR Advisory Committee,
TLC focus groups, ESC/TEA planning groups and the ESC Technology Task Force.
Planning
Information technology planning is accomplished across many levels at TEA. While numerous
plans exist today in the agency, most can be aligned into one of three major categories: Strategic
Plans, Project-Centric Plans, and Staff-Centric Plans.
Strategic planning at the agency involves a variety of stakeholders, most notably executive
management and IS management. Examples of TEA strategic planning include IR Strategic
Plan (LBB), Information Systems Department Strategic Plan (TEA), Biennial Operating Plan
(LBB), Long-Range Plan for Technology (Legislature), IS Master List (TEA), Master Plan for
Educational Technology (Legislature), and Business Continuity Plan (DIR). Please refer to
“IR Priorities” section above for key committees involved in the IT strategic planning process
at TEA.
119
Planning
(continued)
Information technology planning is accomplished across many levels at TEA. While numerous
plans exist today in the agency, most can be aligned into one of three major categories: Strategic
Plans, Project-Centric Plans, and Staff-Centric Plans.
Strategic planning at the agency involves a variety of stakeholders, most notably executive
management and IS management. Examples of TEA strategic planning include IR Strategic
Plan (LBB), Information Systems Department Strategic Plan (TEA), Biennial Operating Plan
(LBB), Long-Range Plan for Technology (Legislature), IS Master List (TEA), Master Plan for
Educational Technology (Legislature), and Business Continuity Plan (DIR). Please refer to
“IR Priorities” section above for key committees involved in the IT strategic planning process
at TEA.
Project-centric planning at the agency involves primarily technical project managers, project
staff, IS management, and end users. Examples of TEA project centric planning include
Project Development Plans, Documentation Plans, Software Maintenance Plans, Training
Plans, Risk Management Plans, Software Quality Plans, Test Plans, Quality Assurance Plans,
Configuration Management Plans, etc.
Staff-centric planning at the agency involves IS management and technical staff. Examples of
TEA staff centric planning include Performance Plans and Training Plans.
Quality
Assurance
For software projects, quality assurance is a responsibility of the project managers and the quality
assurance manager. Requirements and design reviews are held with customers. Unit, integration,
and systems tests are planned and executed, and user documentation reviews are conducted.
Customer acceptance and sign-off is a step in the development methodology, and acceptance
testing is performed by the customer before any system is placed into production. A process for
post project reviews is in place.
A risk management methodology was developed and implemented in the fall of 1994 and
upgraded in 2001. A risk analysis is performed and risk management plans are developed for
all major projects. The scope of the effort is determined by the size, complexity, and evident
risks of the project. Quality assurance practices developed in accordance with DIR guidelines
for internal quality assurance were established and used for Y2K as early as 1997 and,
subsequently, applied to other projects. All seven areas included in the quality assurance
practices under the IRM Act are included under TEA’s quality assurance process.
Quality assurance tasks are the responsibility of the PEIMS Ad Hoc Reporting Unit in the
Customer Support, Consulting, and Training Division. The main objective of QA for this unit is
to verify that the PEIMS DB2 views are correct and consistent with each other. Future plans
include checking PEIMS data for district reporting inconsistencies.
Personal
Computer
Replacement
Schedule
TEA has a desktop seat management contract with Northrop Grumman that facilitates
personal computer management and support. The contract is from June 2000 through the
end of the 2007 fiscal year. The contract provides for a desktop/laptop for each person, help
desk support, and deskside hardware and software support. TEA worked with Northrop
Grumman to establish a PC replacement schedule that meets the needs of its employees. In
general, the replacement schedule adheres to a modified industry standard PC life cycle as
defined in DIR’s PC Life Cycles Guidelines. The agency has many monitoring staff who travel
to schools and school districts to accomplish their day-to-day work assignments. These staff
have docked laptops as their assigned workstations. These laptops are replaced on a twoyear cycle because of the wear and tear of traveling. In addition, the agency has a group of
software developers who are considered power users. These desktops are replaced on a
two-year cycle so that the power users can keep current with hardware technology while
developing software applications. The remainder of the desktops is replaced on a three-year
cycle.
120
Procurement
Disaster
Recovery/
Business
Continuity
Planning
All acquisitions of information technologies are completed through the Texas Marketplace in
compliance with state and federal statute and rules in coordination with the agency’s
Purchasing and Contracting Divisions. Once a decision is made to acquire information
technology, the factors that are taken into consideration include the TEA architecture; the
projected useful life of the technology; urgency; availability/stability of funding; industry
standards; cost and cost-benefit analysis of lease vs. purchase; and the staff skills and
experience related to management of assets and contracts.
The agency subscribes to the practice of business resumption and disaster recovery. Although
disaster recovery planning for information resources was initiated in 1990, the first comprehensive
agency risk/threat assessment and business impact analysis was not completed until October 1994.
When these were presented to agency executive management in December 1994, the
commissioner of education approved the establishment of a Risk Management Steering Committee.
A joint committee, consisting of key personnel from the Division of Systems Operations and Support
and the Division of Agency Infrastructure, is currently developing a comprehensive business
continuity/disaster recovery plan for the agency. This plan will utilize the McHale Court facility as an
alternate business resumption facility, based on a cold-site recovery strategy.
With transition of mainframe computing to the West Texas Disaster Recovery and Operations
Center (WTDROC), operational responsibility for mainframe backup, off-site storage, and disaster
recovery has been transferred to Northrop-Grumman. The agency has assumed oversight
responsibility and will periodically review backup, off-site storage, and disaster recovery practices
and procedures to ensure that vendor service levels meet agency security standards and
requirements as prescribed in 1 TAC 201.13(b). The current service level agreement with NorthropGrumman is 100% recovery in 48 hours to a hot disaster recovery site.
A nightly incremental backup has been instituted to augment the weekly full-dump disaster recovery
backup of all enterprise data. All backup files are routinely moved to and retained in an off-site
location. Enterprise data will be recovered within fourteen days to the McHale Court site using a
cold-site strategy.
Data Center
Operations
Standards
TEA currently has all mainframe computer operations at the WTDROC.
Following is a list of agency operating policies and procedures for compliance with and
implementation of information resources statewide standards. The agency is currently in the
process of developing policies and procedures for E-mail use.
07-40
09-01
10-01
10-02
10-03
10-04
10-05
10-06
10-07
10-08
Teleworking
Business Continuity Planning
Acquisition of Desktop Computing Hardware and Software
Computer Room Security
Confidential, Sensitive, and Restricted Enterprise Information
Information Resources Security
Internal Audit Participation in Automated Systems Development
Requests for Information Systems Department Services
TEA Data Approval Committee
Use of Information Network Resources
121