TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY
STRATEGIC PLAN
FOR THE FISCAL YEARS 2007 – 2011 PERIOD
JULY 7, 2006
AGENCY STRATEGIC PLAN
FOR THE FISCAL YEARS 2007-2011 PERIOD
BY
TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY
JULY 7, 2006
SIGNED: ________________________________________________________
Shirley Neeley
Commissioner of Education
Texas Education Agency
ii
LETTER FROM COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
July 2, 2006
The Honorable Rick Perry, Governor of Texas
The Honorable David Dewhurst, Lieutenant Governor of Texas
The Honorable Tom Craddick, Speaker of the House
John O’Brien, Legislative Budget Board
On behalf of the Texas Education Agency, I am very pleased to submit to you the Texas
Education Agency Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2007 – 2011, as required by Texas
Government Code, Chapter 2056. On July 7, 2006, the plan will be posted on the agency’s web
site at the following URL: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/stplan/stplan.html.
The five-year strategic plan describes a framework for action that addresses the great
challenges ahead for our public education system. It proposes ways in which all partners in this
system can work together to meet these challenges and move students forward to increased
academic achievement. I am especially proud of our staff, not only for their significant
engagement in the strategic planning process, but also for their day-to-day commitment, talent,
and passion in carrying out our mission to help schools and students.
The agency is focused on continuous improvement in executing policy, achieving results and
satisfying the needs of all customers and stakeholders.
I look forward to working closely with you to improve the education of our most precious
resource – the children of the State of Texas.
Should you require additional information or have any questions regarding the strategic plan,
please do not hesitate to contact me or Dr. Nora Hancock, Associate Commissioner of the
Office for Planning, Grants and Evaluation at (512) 463-8992.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirley Neeley
Commissioner of Education
Texas Education Agency
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) is ready to fulfill its commitment to the students, families,
and citizens of Texas by developing standards and programs for student achievement, funding
those programs efficiently and effectively, holding schools accountable to those standards, and
communicating results accurately and clearly. This strategic plan, covering the years from 20072011, presents a framework though which the challenges facing Texas public education will be
successfully addressed.
The mission of the TEA “is to provide leadership, guidance, and resources to help schools meet
the educational needs of all students.” The agency’s mission characterizes who we are: policyfocused, customer-driven, results-based, and supportive of local flexibility. It also provides the
foundation for what we want to achieve: a successful and accountable system of public education
for Texas where schools are high-performing and student achievement has no limits.
To carry out this mission, TEA has two goals:
Education System Leadership: TEA will provide leadership to create a public education
system that continuously improves student performance and supports public schools as the
first choice of parents, grandparents, and families. The agency will fully satisfy its customers
and stakeholders by providing resources, challenging academic standards, high-quality data,
and timely and clear reports on results.
Operational Excellence: TEA will create a system of accountability for student performance
that is supported by challenging assessments, reliable data, supportive school environments,
highly-qualified teachers and high standards of student, campus, district and agency
performance.
Texas faces a time of great demographic and economic change, and the Texas public education
system must change accordingly. The charge to provide a quality education to every Texas
student has never been more important. Four major challenges emerge:
1. Prepare students for a postsecondary success.
A postsecondary degree is extremely important if students are to succeed and prosper in
our modern economy. A high school diploma, while a commendable achievement of
higher academic standards, is not enough to compete in today’s workforce. Raising the
expectations and expanding the possibilities for Texas students requires that Texas
schoolchildren are prepared for success in their early years to meet the increasing
challenges and changes that they will face in high school and beyond.
2. Provide all Texas students with an education to prepare them for the global economy.
The global economy has increased the demand for higher education and underscored the
need for achievement and excellence in science and mathematics. The standards-based
reform movement has been effective in raising student achievement across all student
population groups though the cycle of curriculum standards, assessments, accountability,
Texas Education Agency
2
and performance management and evaluation. Moreover, innovative programs and varied
paths are necessary to promote achievement in these areas.
3. Address the unique needs of Texas’ diverse student population.
The demographic composition of the state and student population is changing such that
demographic groups that are traditionally least represented in educational attainment (i.e.,
Hispanic, limited proficiency in English, and economically disadvantaged students)
comprise increasingly larger proportions of the total student population. Demographers
predict that these demographic changes will continue for some time. TEA must meet the
unique needs of these groups, promoting not only high school completion, but the
preparedness, desire and opportunity for postsecondary success.
4. Recruit and retain qualified teachers.
Success in the first three challenges depends on the recruitment and retention of highly
qualified teachers to prepare Texas’ schoolchildren for the future. TEA must ensure that the
school children of Texas have quality certified educators who can provide a safe learning
environment.
The agency has developed key strategic initiatives to meet these challenges. Moreover, the
dynamic nature of the demography and economy of Texas requires that the agency actively
manage these initiatives to ensure continuous improvement and progress in meeting the state’s
policy goals. These strategic initiatives are carefully aligned with statute and appropriating riders
and include such focus areas as the Texas High School Project, the Student Success Initiative,
the Limited English Proficient – Student Success Initiative, the Texas Reading, Science and
Math Initiatives and implementation of Adequate Yearly Progress and Performance-Based
Monitoring.
The Texas public education system is one of the state’s greatest assets. TEA remains committed
to adding value to this asset by leading and supporting a dynamic partnership with students,
families, educators, communities, businesses, government officials, and policy leaders. We are
optimistic about the future, prepared to achieve, and confident of success.
Texas Education Agency
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LETTER FROM COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION ......................................................... 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. 4
PATHWAY TO PROSPERITY: THE TEXAS STATE GOVERNMENT VISION,
MISSION, AND PHILOSOPHY ................................................................................................. 7
Statewide Vision ........................................................................................................................ 7
The Mission of Texas State Government ................................................................................ 8
The Philosophy of Texas State Government .......................................................................... 8
Statewide Goals and Benchmarks ........................................................................................... 9
Priority Goal............................................................................................................................ 9
Benchmarks............................................................................................................................. 9
TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY MISSION AND PHILOSOPHY ...................................... 12
Mission of the TEA ................................................................................................................. 12
Philosophy of the TEA ............................................................................................................ 12
TEA Principles of Public Service........................................................................................... 13
INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT ..................................................................... 14
Internal Assessment ................................................................................................................ 14
Statutory Basis ...................................................................................................................... 14
Main Functions ..................................................................................................................... 14
Historical Perspective ........................................................................................................... 16
Public Perception of the Quality of TEA and the Texas Public Education System ............. 24
Agency Organization ............................................................................................................ 25
Key Organizational Events and Areas of Change................................................................. 26
Geographical Location of the Agency .................................................................................. 27
Role of Regional Education Service Centers ........................................................................ 27
Size and Composition of Workforce..................................................................................... 28
Human Resource Strengths and Weaknesses ....................................................................... 28
Capital Assets........................................................................................................................ 29
Technological Developments................................................................................................ 29
Historically Underutilized Business Plan ............................................................................. 30
Fiscal Aspects ....................................................................................................................... 34
Impact of Federal Statutes and Regulations.......................................................................... 37
Other Legal Issues................................................................................................................. 39
External Assessment ............................................................................................................... 41
Service Populations ............................................................................................................... 41
Education and the Economy ................................................................................................. 45
Performance Highlights of Texas Students and Schools ...................................................... 47
AGENCY GOALS AND KEY STRATEGIC INITIATIVES ................................................ 62
Goal 1: Education System Leadership .................................................................................. 63
High School .......................................................................................................................... 63
Texas Education Agency
4
Early Childhood Education ................................................................................................... 66
Limited English Proficient Programs.................................................................................... 69
Student Success Initiative ..................................................................................................... 71
Math and Science Initiatives ................................................................................................. 78
Special Education.................................................................................................................. 80
School Improvement and Support Programs ........................................................................ 82
Achievement of Students at Risk .......................................................................................... 85
Adult Education and Family Literacy ................................................................................... 85
Goal 2: Operational Excellence ............................................................................................. 88
Accountability and Assessment as Interdependent, Mutually-Reinforcing System ............. 89
State Accountability System ................................................................................................. 89
Assessment System ............................................................................................................... 91
Effective School Environments ............................................................................................ 95
Performance-Based Monitoring System ............................................................................... 97
Educator Quality ................................................................................................................... 98
eGrants and Transformation of Grants ................................................................................. 99
Research and Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 101
FY 2007 – 2011 STRATEGIC PLAN STRUCTURE ............................................................ 103
List of Appendices ..................................................................................................................... 109
Appendix A: Description of Agency’s Strategic Planning Process ...................................... 110
Appendix B: Current Organizational Chart and Specific Functions Agency Offices........ 111
Appendix C: Five-year Projections for Outcomes ................................................................. 118
Appendix D: List of Measure Definitions ............................................................................... 127
Appendix E: Workforce Plan FY 2007 -2011 ......................................................................... 230
Appendix F: Texas Education Agency 2006 Customer Satisfaction Survey ....................... 239
Appendix G: Survey of Organizational Excellence ............................................................... 240
Appendix H: Workforce Development System Strategic Planning ..................................... 248
Appendix I: Glossary of Acronyms ......................................................................................... 251
List of Tables
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:
State Education Benchmarks and TEA Strategies ...................................................... 10
HUB Goals for TEA and State.................................................................................... 30
HUB Expenditures: TEA ............................................................................................ 33
HUB Expenditures: State of Texas Average .............................................................. 34
Fastest Growing Industries in the State of Texas by 2012 .......................................... 46
Percent of Texas High School Juniors Meeting the One SEM Standard TAKS 2003,
2004, and 2005 ............................................................................................................ 50
Percent of Students Meeting Panel Recommendation All Students, Grades 3 through
9 English TAKS, 2003-2005....................................................................................... 52
Texas Education Agency
5
Table 8:
Table 9:
Table 10:
Table 11:
Table 12:
Table 13:
Table 14:
Table 15:
Table 16:
Table 17:
Table 18:
Table 19:
Table 20:
Table 21:
Table 22:
Table 23:
Percent of Students Meeting Panel Recommendation All Students, Grades 3 through
9 Spanish TAKS 2003-2005 ....................................................................................... 53
Percent of Students At or Above Proficient Level in Reading, Grades 4 and 8, NAEP
various years 1998-2005 ............................................................................................. 55
Percent of Students At or Above Proficient Level in Reading by Race/Ethnicity,
Grades 4 and 8, NAEP 2005 ....................................................................................... 56
Percent of Students At or Above Proficient Level in Reading, Economically
Disadvantaged Students, Grades 4 and 8, NAEP 2003 and 2005 ............................... 56
Percent of Grade 4 and Grade 8 Students At or Above the Proficient Level in Math,
Grades 4 and 8, NAEP various years 1996-2005 ....................................................... 58
Percent of Students At or Above Proficient Level in Math by Race/Ethnicity, Grades
4 and 8, NAEP 2005 ................................................................................................... 59
Percent of Students At or Above Proficient Level in Math, Economically
Disadvantaged, NAEP 2003 and 2005........................................................................ 59
Percent of Students At or Above the Proficient Level in Writing by Race/Ethnicity,
Grade 4, NAEP 2002* ................................................................................................. 60
Percent of Students At or Above Proficient Level in Science, Grades 4 and 8, NAEP
2000 and 2005 ............................................................................................................. 61
Percent of Students At or Above Proficient Level in Science by Race/Ethnicity,
Grades 4 and 8, NAEP 2005 ....................................................................................... 61
Grades 3 and 5 TAKS Reading and Grade 5 Mathematics Tests, 2004-2005 School
Year Cumulative Student Performance Results After All Three Administrations of the
Tests ............................................................................................................................ 73
Total Number of Students Served by the ARI/AMI Program, 1999-2005 ................. 76
Number of Students Identified as Struggling in Reading and Served by the ARI
Program, 2004-2005 School Year............................................................................... 77
Percent of ARI/AMI Students on Grade Level at the End of the Year, 2004-2005
School Year ................................................................................................................. 77
State and Federally Required Assessments by Grade and Subject 2005-2006 ........... 95
TEA Results: 1996-2006 Survey of Organizational Excellence............................... 240
List of Figures
Figure 1: Distribution of State and Federal Funds for Fiscal Year 2006 ................................... 36
Figure 2: Ethnic Distribution in Texas Schools 2005-2006 School Year .................................. 41
Figure 3: Percentage Change in Student Enrollment: 1995-1996 to 2005-2006, by Education
Service Center Region ................................................................................................ 43
Figure 4: TEA Workforce by Gender ....................................................................................... 232
Figure 5: TEA Workforce by Ethnicity .................................................................................... 232
Figure 6: TEA Workforce by Age ............................................................................................ 233
Figure 7: Employee Turnover Rate: TEA vs. State .................................................................. 234
Figure 8: TEA Workforce by Agency Tenure .......................................................................... 235
Figure 9: TEA Current Workforce Eligible for Retirement in FY07-FY11 ............................ 236
Figure 10: Survey of Organizational Excellence: Constructs Points Deviated from Previous
Iteration ..................................................................................................................... 242
Texas Education Agency
6
PATHWAY TO PROSPERITY:
THE TEXAS STATE GOVERNMENT VISION, MISSION, AND PHILOSOPHY
Statewide Vision
March 2006
Fellow Public Servants:
The old adage remains true: If you fail to plan, you plan to fail. We must plan for prosperity.
Strategic planning is critical to ensuring a future of opportunity and prosperity. We must always
be willing to critically reexamine the role of Texas State Government and the efficiency of its
operations. This document specifies our mission and priorities, reflects my philosophy of limited
government and my belief in personal responsibility, and it is to be used as your agencies prepare
their Strategic Plans. While the role of government must remain limited, governmental
endeavors must be done with maximum efficiency and fairness. Our endeavors must always
have an eye first for the needs of our clients – the people of Texas.
Throughout the strategic planning process and the next legislative session, policymakers will
endeavor to address our state’s priorities and agencies will be asked to provide great detail about
their operations. I encourage you to provide not only open and complete information but also
your innovative ideas about how better to deliver government services.
Working together, I know we can accomplish our mission and address the priorities of the people
of Texas. My administration is dedicated to creating greater opportunity and prosperity for our
citizens, and to accomplish that mission, I am focused on the following critical priorities:
Assuring open access to an educational system that not only guarantees the basic core
knowledge necessary for productive citizens but also emphasizes excellence and
accountability in all academic and intellectual undertakings;
Creating and retaining job opportunities and building a stronger economy that will lead
to more prosperity for our people and a stable source of funding for core priorities;
Protecting and preserving the health, safety, and well-being of our citizens by ensuring
healthcare is accessible and affordable and by safeguarding our neighborhoods and
communities from those who intend us harm; and
Providing disciplined, principled government that invests public funds wisely and
efficiently.
I appreciate your commitment to excellence in public service.
RICK PERRY
Texas Education Agency
7
The Mission of Texas State Government
Texas state government must be limited, efficient, and completely accountable. It should foster
opportunity and economic prosperity, focus on critical priorities, and support the creation of
strong family environments for our children. The stewards of the public trust must be Men and
women who administer state government in a fair, just, and responsible manner. To honor the
public trust, state officials must seek new and innovative ways to meet state government
priorities in a fiscally responsible manner.
AIM HIGH . . .WE ARE NOT HERE TO ACHIEVE INCONSEQUENTIAL THINGS!
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, in most instances, are best made by those individuals,
their families, and the local government closest to their communities.
Competition is the greatest incentive for achievement and excellence. It inspires ingenuity and
requires individuals to set their sights high. 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.
State government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer dollars by eliminating waste and
abuse, and providing efficient and honest government.
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.
Texas Education Agency
8
Statewide Goals and Benchmarks
Priority Goal
To ensure that all students in the public education system acquire the knowledge and skills to be
responsible and independent Texans by:
 Ensuring students graduate from high school and are ready for college, a two-year institution,
other post-secondary training, or the workforce;
 Continuing to develop reading, math, and science skills at the appropriate grade level through
graduation; and
 Demonstrating exemplary performance in foundation subjects.
Benchmarks
















High school graduation rate
Percent of graduates earning a recommended high school diploma
Percent of graduates earning a distinguished achievement diploma
Percent of recent high school graduates enrolled in a Texas college or university
Percent of high school graduates employed or receiving other post-secondary training
Percent of students who demonstrate satisfactory performance on the Texas Assessment of
Knowledge and Skills (TAKS)
Percent of students earning commended performance on TAKS (90% of test items answered
correctly)
Percent of students who attend schools or districts rated as recognized or exemplary
Percent of higher education freshmen from Texas high schools not in need of remediation
Percent of eligible juniors and seniors taking Advanced Placement/International
Baccalaureate exams
Percent of Grade 3 students and above who are able to read at or above grade level
Percent of Grade 3 students and above who perform at or above grade level in math
Percent of students who achieve mastery of the foundation subjects of reading, English
language arts, math, social studies, and science
Number of students served under local governance or choice options (e.g., charter schools,
open-enrollment charters, home-rule districts, intra-district transfers, etc.)
Number of teachers certified through alternative programs
Number of Prekindergarten age students served through Texas Early Education Model
The efforts of the TEA address each of the state education benchmarks. The following table
shows TEA strategies impacting the state performance benchmarks in public education.
Texas Education Agency
9
Table 1:
State Education Benchmarks and TEA Strategies
State Benchmark
High school graduation rate
Number of students served under local governance or choice options
(e.g., charter schools, open-enrollment charters, home-rule districts,
intra-district transfers, etc.)
TEA Strategy
1.1.1 Foundation School Program - Equalized Operations
1.1.2 Foundation School Program - Equalized Facilities
1.2.1 Student Success
1.2.2 Achievement for Students at Risk
1.2.3 Students with Disabilities
1.2.4 School Improvement and Support Programs
1.2.5 Adult Education and Family Literacy
2.1.1 Assessment and Accountability System
2.2.1 Educational Technology
2.2.2 Safe Schools
2.3.1 Improving Teacher Quality
2.3.2 Agency Operations
1.1.1 Foundation School Program - Equalized Operations
1.1.2 Foundation School Program - Equalized Facilities
1.2.1 Student Success
1.2.2 Achievement for Students at Risk
1.2.4 School Improvement and Support Programs
2.1.1 Assessment and Accountability System
2.2.1 Educational Technology
2.1.1 Assessment and Accountability System
2.3.1 Improving Teacher Quality
2.3.2 Agency Operations
2.1.1 Assessment and Accountability System
2.3.1 Improving Teacher Quality
2.3.2 Agency Operations
2.1.1 Assessment and Accountability System
2.3.1 Improving Teacher Quality
2.3.2 Agency Operations
1.1.1 Foundation School Program - Equalized Operations
1.1.2 Foundation School Program - Equalized Facilities
2.1.1 Assessment and Accountability System
2.3.2 Agency Operations
1.2.1 Student Success
2.3.2 Agency Operations
1.2.1 Student Success
1.2.2 Achievement for Students at Risk
2.1.1 Assessment and Accountability System
2.3.1 Improving Teacher Quality
2.3.2 Agency Operations
1.2.1 Student Success
1.2.2 Achievement for Students at Risk
2.1.1 Assessment and Accountability System
2.3.1 Improving Teacher Quality
2.3.2 Agency Operations
1.1.1 Foundation School Program - Equalized Operations
1.2.5 School Improvement and Support Programs
2.3.2 Agency Operations
Number of teachers certified through alternative programs
2.3.1 Improving Teacher Quality
Percent of graduates earning recommended high school diploma
Percent of graduates earning distinguished achievement diploma
Percent of recent high school graduates enrolled in a Texas college or
university
Percent of high school graduates employed or receiving other postsecondary training
Percent of students who demonstrate satisfactory performance on the
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS)
Percent of students earning commended performance on TAKS (90%
of test items answered correctly)
Percent of students who attend schools or districts rated as
recognized or exemplary
Percent of higher education freshmen from Texas high schools not in
need of remediation
Percent of eligible juniors and seniors taking Advanced
Placement/International Baccalaureate exams
Percent of students from Grade 3 and above who are able to read at
or above grade level
Percent of students from Grade 3 and above who perform at or above
grade level in math
Percent of students who achieve mastery of the foundation subjects
of reading, English language arts, math, social studies, and science
Texas Education Agency
10
Number of Prekindergarten age students served through Texas Early
Education Model
Texas Education Agency
11
1.2.4 School Improvement and Support Programs
2.3.3 Educator Certification Operations
2.3.4 Certification Exam Administration
1.1.1 Foundation School Program - Equalized Operations
1.1.2 Foundation School Program - Equalized Facilities
1.2.1 Student Success
1.2.2 Achievement for Students at Risk
1.2.3 Students with Disabilities
1.2.4 School Improvement and Support Programs
1.2.5 Adult Education and Family Literacy
TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY MISSION AND PHILOSOPHY
As defined by the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) and the Governor’s Office, a mission
statement “succinctly identifies what the agency does, why, and for whom.” It states clearly
“who we are as an organization” and “the basic purposes for which we exist.” The Texas
Education Agency (TEA) developed the strategic plan based on the Texas Education Code
(TEC) Section 4.001 et. seq.
Mission of the TEA
The mission of the TEA is to provide leadership, guidance, and resources to help schools meet
the educational needs of all students.
The mission will be achieved by fulfilling two primary goals: 1) providing education system
leadership; and 2) creating a system of operational excellence. These two goals establish the
framework for objectives and the strategies that make up TEA’s budget structure.
Philosophy of the TEA
A general diffusion of knowledge and skills is essential to the preservation of the liberties and
rights of citizens. The TEA mission is fully grounded in this constitutional principle. TEA is
committed to carrying out this mission through a clear and consistent focus on implementing
policy to meet customer and stakeholder needs. Through educational system leadership and
operational excellence, TEA works to maximize its value to the public education system.
The agency carries out its mission in a complex and interdependent web of relationships between
multiple types of partners, customers, and stakeholders, by seeking to create a whole system of
public education that is greater than the sum of its parts. TEA’s philosophy is to lead the system,
which includes students, educators, independent school districts (ISDs), charter schools,
communities, families, universities and colleges, the State Board of Education (SBOE), regional
Education Service Centers (ESCs), and TEA itself, in one synergistic direction to best achieve
state, local and student education goals. This philosophy respects the primacy of local control so
that the most important decisions are made as close as possible to students, schools, and
communities. It is based on the idea that all parties, as well as every TEA employee, must work
together efficiently and effectively to support and improve Texas public schools.
Finally, the TEA puts its philosophy into action with a consistent focus on results, fact-based
decision-making and value-added analysis. TEA takes a “good, better, best” approach to
achieving its goals of education system leadership and operational excellence. Key to the TEA’s
philosophy is the belief that every employee’s job, and every business process, is tied to
achieving the agency mission.
Texas Education Agency
12
TEA Principles of Public Service
Principles are the commonly held tenets that guide the organization’s conduct. In carrying out its
philosophy and achieving its mission, agency employees commit to conducting 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 or favoritism. Decisions are based on objective
and operational excellence.
Texas Education Agency
13
INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT
Internal Assessment
Statutory Basis
TEA is comprised of the commissioner of education and agency staff as stipulated in Section
7.002(a) of the TEC. TEA is the administrative unit for primary and secondary public education
and 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, and other provisions of the TEC. Responsibilities not specifically assigned to the
agency or the SBOE fall under the authority of school districts and charter schools.
The TEC provides that the commissioner of education serves as the educational leader of the
state, executive secretary of the SBOE, and executive officer of the TEA. Providing general
leadership and direction for public education, the commissioner’s responsibilities include:








Overseeing the distribution of state funding to public schools;
Rating school districts and campuses under the statewide accountability system;
Administering the statewide assessment program;
Overseeing the development of the statewide curriculum;
Managing the textbook adoption process;
Administering a data collection system on public school students, staff, and finances;
Monitoring for compliance with federal and state guidelines; and
Serving as the fiscal agent for the distribution of state and federal funds.
Main Functions
Statutory Responsibilities
As specified by TEC Section 7.021(a), “[t]he agency shall perform the educational functions
provided by Subsection (b).” The agency shall:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Administer and monitor compliance with education programs required by federal or state
law, including federal funding and state funding for those programs.
Conduct research, analysis, and reporting to improve teaching and learning.
Conduct hearings involving state school law at the direction and under the supervision of
the commissioner.
Establish and implement pilot programs established by this title.
Carry out the duties relating to the investment capital fund under Section 7.024.
Develop and implement a teacher recruitment program as provided by Section 21.004.
Texas Education Agency
14
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
Carry out duties under the Texas Advanced Placement Incentive Program under
Subchapter C, Chapter 28.
Carry out powers and duties relating to adult and community education as required under
Subchapter H, Chapter 29.
Develop a program of instruction in driver education and traffic safety as provided by
Section 29.902.
Carry out duties assigned under Section 30.002 concerning children with visual
impairments.
Carry out powers and duties related to regional day school programs for the deaf as
provided under Subchapter D, Chapter 30.
Establish and maintain an electronic information transfer system as required under
Section 32.032, maintain and expand telecommunications capabilities of school districts
and regional ESCs as required under Section 32.033, and establish technology
demonstration programs as required under Section 32.035.
Review school district budgets, audit reports, and other fiscal reports as required under
Sections 44.008 and 44.010 and prescribe forms for financial reports made by or for
school districts to the commissioner or the agency as required under Section 44.009.
The agency shall cooperate with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
(THECB) in connection with the Texas partnership and scholarship program under
Subchapter P, Chapter 61.
According to TEC Section 7.021 (c), [t]he agency may enter into an agreement with a federal
agency concerning a project related to education, including the provision of school lunches and
the construction of school buildings. Not later than the 30th day before the date the agency enters
into an agreement under this subsection concerning a new project or reauthorizing a project, the
agency must provide written notice, including a description of the project, to:
(1) the governor;
(2) the LBB; and
(3) the presiding officers of the standing committees of the senate and of the house of
representatives with primary jurisdiction over the agency.
The key functions for each of the major departments of the agency are specified in Appendix B.
Texas Education Agency
15
Historical Perspective
The Gilmer-Aikin Act created TEA as one component of the Central Education Agency in 1949.
Significant historical events relating to TEA reflect educational reform at the state and national
levels.
1980s
House Bill (HB) 246, 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. The SBOE adopted this statewide curriculum in 1984.
HB 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 SBOE, 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 five-day per semester student absence rule.
1990s
The Central Education Agency, consisting of the employees of TEA, the commissioner of
education, regional ESCs, and the SBOE, underwent a Sunset review in 1989. Senate Bill (SB)
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.
SB 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 SB 351, as amended by HB 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 SB 351, as amended by HB 2885, unconstitutional. In 1993,
the Texas Legislature enacted new school finance provisions in response to the court’s decision.
The Legislature passed SB 7, establishing an equalized wealth level of $280,000 per student in
weighted averaged daily attendance (WADA); districts above $280,000 per WADA were
provided five options to reduce their wealth level down to $280,000.
Texas Education Agency
16
SB 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, the state accountability system was
implemented, in which Texas school districts and campuses were given accreditation ratings
based on an integrated set of student performance, attendance, and school dropout data. The
accountability ratings system included performance requirements for all students taking the
Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) and for each student group. Since 1994, the
performance requirements that school districts and campuses must meet to achieve an acceptable
or recognized rating have increased each year.
1995
In 1995, the Texas Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the school finance provisions
of SB 7. The court ruled that the guaranteed yield provision in SB 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 SB 1, which significantly
overhauled the TEC. The revised code emphasized excellence in core academic subjects,
innovation in local programs, increased local decision making, and accountability for student
achievement. It 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 (SBEC), 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 (FSP). The revised code
modified the “no pass, no play” rule, established a required and enriched curriculum for
Kindergarten through Grade 12 (K-12), and altered the state’s system of approving and
purchasing textbooks.
SB 1 established new roles and relationships between state, regional, and local educators and
strictly defined and limited the powers of the agency, the SBOE, and regional ESCs. In addition
to limiting these entities to specifically delegated functions, the education code abolished the
public education rules in the Texas Administrative Code (TAC) during Sunset review.
1996-1999
In 1996, the agency reduced the number of its full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) by 22%,
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 ESCs. In 1997, with the transfer of
educator preparation and certification functions to the SBEC, the number of FTEs at the agency
was reduced to 834.
In 1997, the 75th Texas Legislature addressed the state’s system of school funding in HB 4. The
bill provided significant property tax relief through increased exemptions, created a new program
Texas Education Agency
17
for funding facilities, provided transition for a higher minimum salary schedule for teachers, and
dedicated state lottery proceeds to public education.
The SBOE 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 acquire. 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 were required to implement the TEKS beginning
with the 1998-99 school year.
In 1997, 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 provide accelerated
instruction as needed so that every student could read by Grade 3.
In 1999, the 76th Texas Legislature enacted the Student Success Initiative (SSI). The initiative
phased in new standards in reading and mathematics for student promotion at Grades 3 (reading
only), 5, and 8. The legislation required school districts to enroll students who do not pass
certain state assessments in programs of accelerated instruction. The intent of the law is to
ensure that all students can perform at grade level in reading and mathematics and to eliminate
the practice of social promotion. Grade-level retention is regarded under the plan as the avenue
of last resort. In contrast to some states where these requirements were implemented in a single
year, the SSI was phased-in over several years to allow the first students required to meet its
requirements to receive all the benefits and services of the Reading Initiative (and later the
Mathematics Initiative). In this way, the testing requirements of the SSI became effective with
the Grade 3 cohort in the 2002-2003 school year, extended this cohort to Grade 5 in 2004-2005,
and will extend to Grade 8 in 2007-2008. This cohort was the first to receive the benefits of the
Reading Initiatives at Kindergarten through Grade 2.
In addition, the 76th Legislature mandated a new statewide student assessment system to be
implemented no later than the 2002-2003 school year. This new system is called the Texas
Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). This system primarily expanded and broadened
testing in high school to ensure students graduate ready for postsecondary success. Under
TAKS, the exit level assessment required for graduation was moved from Grade 10 to Grade 11.
The new assessment system encompasses English language arts (ELA), mathematics, social
studies, and science. It included assessment of skills that were both a prerequisite to high school
graduation and an indication of readiness to enroll in higher education institutions. TAKS also
added a number of tests in other grades and eliminated some tests, such as the end-of-course
examinations.
The 76th Legislature required the commissioner of education, in consultation with the
comptroller of public accounts, to develop a school district financial accountability rating system
for the 77th Legislature’s consideration. Subsequently, SB 218 in the 77th Legislature required
the commissioner to adopt rules for the implementation and administration of the financial
Texas Education Agency
18
accountability rating system. These rules were adopted to be effective October 20, 2002, and
resulted in School FIRST (Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas) to be implemented for the
2002-2003 school year.
Another accomplishment of the 76th Legislature was that it fully funded the estimated amount to
support the statutory public school finance system. SB 4 revised the funding elements of the
FSP to increase state aid to school districts by almost $1.4 billion for the 2000-2001 biennium
via a $141 increase in the basic allotment. Significantly, SB 4 provided a $3,000 annual salary
increase for every teacher, counselor, librarian, and nurse in Texas public schools.
2000 - 2004
In 2001, the 77th 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.
With the enactment of HB 6, the 77th Legislature changed the structure and operation of openenrollment charter schools. 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 trained teachers to instruct
students with research-based strategies proven successful for increasing 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.
In 2003, 96% of Texas Grade 3 students passed the new TAKS reading exam, demonstrating
readiness to start Grade 4 in the 2003-2004 school year. Passing the Grade 3 reading test was
part of the SSI and was required for promotion to Grade 4. The TAKS was a more rigorous
assessment than the statewide TAAS assessment that it replaced. Students attending Grade 3 in
2003 were the first class required to meet SSI requirements; it was also the first class to receive
the services through the Reading Initiative from Kindergarten through Grade 2. As proof of the
effectiveness of the SSI, the TAKS student performance results for the spring of 2004 showed
even higher gains than the 2003 results.
The 78th Legislature overcame a $9.9 billion budget deficit in 2003 by focusing on improving
government efficiency, restructuring and streamlining the operations of state agencies,
decreasing the number of FTEs and the size of budgets, and maximizing the use of all funding
sources, particularly federal funds. TEA’s workforce was reduced by 12% from a 2003budgeted level of 860.5 FTEs to 768.2 in 2004. In addition, the agency eliminated all non-core
functions, which included reducing resources dedicated to state monitoring activities. Despite
this budget challenge, the Texas Legislature continued its decades-long commitment to
standards-based education reform, increasing public education funding by $1.2 billion and
Texas Education Agency
19
including increasing the technology allotment for schools from $5 to $35 per student. In
addition, major initiatives supporting student achievement and high school completion were
enacted.
While deferring consideration of a major overhaul of school finance to a special session, the 78th
Legislature made a significant change to the TEC impacting school finance. It enacted HB 3459,
adding a new section, Section 4.003, which specifies the state responsibility for provision of
public education as follows:
(a) It is the policy of this state that the provision of public education is a state responsibility
and that a thorough and efficient system be provided and substantially financed through
state revenue sources so that each student enrolled in the public school system shall have
access to programs and services that are appropriate to the student's educational needs
and that are substantially equal to those available to any similar student, notwithstanding
varying local economic factors.
(b) The public school finance system of this state shall adhere to a standard of neutrality that
provides for substantially equal access to similar revenue per student at similar tax effort,
considering all state and local tax revenues of districts after acknowledging all legitimate
student and district cost differences.
The 78th Legislature mandated a new approach to compliance monitoring for the agency. HB
3459 limited the agency’s role to ensure compliance with federal laws and regulations, financial
accountability, and data integrity. It authorized the agency to conduct on-site monitoring based
upon an analysis of risk factors. Under this law, school districts and charter schools were the
primary entities responsible for ensuring compliance with all requirements of state education
programs. The law preserved agency monitoring of state special education compliance, allowing
special accreditation visits and special investigations. HB 3459 also directed the agency to audit
dropout records electronically. Another change mandated by HB 3459 included no longer
directing the agency to maintain and expand the telecommunications capabilities of school
districts and regional ESCs. It also reduced the frequency of releasing assessments to the public
to every other year. This law applied to the tests comprising the Texas assessment program:
TAKS, State-Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAA), and Reading Proficiency Test in
English (RPTE).
Also enacted in 2003 was the Governor’s Science Initiative. The Science Initiative, modeled
after the Reading and Math Initiatives, is designed to improve student achievement in science
through teacher training, more intensive instruction, and high quality instructional materials.
More importantly, given the high priority of this policy area, the High School Completion
Initiative, enacted by SB 1108, required personal graduation plans for all students at risk of
dropping out of school and provided a comprehensive program of intensive instruction in support
of high school graduation. In addition, SB 976 created a pilot Middle College Program to help
Texas Education Agency
20
students in at-risk situations earn a high school diploma and an Associate degree through a junior
college offering more flexible scheduling than a traditional high school.
The spring 2004 TAKS administration marked the first time students enrolled in Grade 11 had to
pass the exit-level TAKS tests in order to fulfill their state-mandated graduation testing
requirements. The exit-level TAKS tests include ELA, mathematics, science, and social studies.
Students have five opportunities to pass these four exit-level assessments before their regularly
scheduled graduation dates.
2005 to present
The 79th Legislature, regular session, passed SB 42 which addressed many components of health
education. It allows the SBOE to adopt rules including a requirement for daily physical activity
for Grades 6-8. The legislation requires the agency, in consultation with the Department of State
Health Services, to designate nationally recognized health and physical education guidelines for
the use of school districts. The agency is required to include in its yearly comprehensive report
to the legislature a summary of the information from each school district regarding student health
and physical activity.
In August 2005, the Governor issued Executive Order RP 47 directing the commissioner of
education to include in the School Financial Accountability Rating System an indicator
establishing a requirement that 65% of school district funds be expended for instructional
purposes as defined by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The commissioner
convened two task forces to gather recommendations on the implementation of this directive.
In November 2005, the Governor issued Executive Order RP 51 directing the commissioner to
establish a performance-based pay grant program for Texas public school educators. The agency
created the Governor’s Educator Excellence Award, which is a three-year grant program with
$10 million designated for the first year. The plan recommends salary bonuses of $3,000 to
$10,000 per teacher receiving an award. Schools that have higher percentages of economically
disadvantaged students and have demonstrated high levels of student achievement or marked
student improvement will be eligible for the incentive pay funding.
In December 2005, the Governor issued Executive Order RP 53 which directs the agency to
work with the THECB to enhance college-readiness standards and programs for Texas public
schools. The initiative calls for the creation of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics academies throughout the state; a system of college readiness indicators, including
the reporting of higher education remediation rates on public high school report cards; an
electronic academic records system to facilitate the transfer of high school transcripts between
school districts and institutions of higher education; a series of voluntary end-of-course
assessments in science, mathematics, and other subjects, currently assessed by Grade 11 TAKS,
to measure student performance; a pilot financial assistance program for economically
disadvantaged students taking college entrance exams; and a summer residential program at
Texas institutions of higher education for gifted and talented high school students to provide
enhanced learning opportunities.
Texas Education Agency
21
In the school year 2004-2005, students in all grades except Grade 11 had reached the final phase
of the three-year transition: students in Grades 3-10 were required to perform at the panelrecommended standard or higher to pass the 2005 TAKS. The class of 2005 was the first
graduating class required to pass the exit-level TAKS to receive high school diplomas.
Statewide, the cumulative passing rate for the class of 2005 was 91%.
A number of important changes were introduced in the accountability system in 2005: new
alternative education accountability procedures were established; the student passing standard for
TAKS was increased; the dropout rate standard for the Academically Acceptable rating was
increased; the minimum size criteria for the dropout and completion rate indicators was made
more rigorous; the underreported students indicator was made more rigorous; new opportunities
were added for Required Improvement on the dropout and completion rate indicators; results for
the new SDAA for Special Education Students (SDAA II), which is more closely aligned with
the TAKS than SDAA I, were incorporated; provisions allowing new and otherwise
Academically Unacceptable campuses to be Not Rated were removed; and Comparable
Improvement was added as a new Gold Performance Acknowledgement (GPA) indicator.
In the fall of 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita created many challenges for the TEA and for
Texas public schools. The agency assisted school districts in the enrollment of over 45,000
displaced students from areas impacted by Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana. TEA reallocated
$4.6 million in federal administrative and discretionary funds to the ESCs to meet the immediate
educational needs of impacted districts in the aftermath of the storms and created a Hurricane
Response Team that provided technical assistance to parents, students, Texas educators and
Louisiana educators displaced by the hurricane. During Hurricane Rita, approximately 145,000
students were temporarily displaced from Texas school districts.
TEA was designated by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the agency
responsible for the filing, on behalf of Texas school districts, of all FEMA claims related to
Hurricane Katrina and consequent reimbursement of FEMA payments. The agency created the
TEA Office of FEMA Reimbursement, which is staffed and housed through a contract with
Region 13 ESC.
In spring 2006, TEA began the process of administering federal aid to schools impacted by
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The Temporary Emergency Impact Aid for Displaced Students
Grant awarded grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to enable them to provide for the
instruction of displaced students served by the LEAs and to make immediate impact aid
payments to accounts established on behalf of displaced students who are attending eligible
nonpublic schools in the areas served by the LEAs. As of May 2006, over $131.5 million in
funding had been obligated.
The Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations Program Grant was available to schools, both
public and private, that were forced to close because of either Hurricanes Katrina or Rita. This
grant assists with expenses due to the restart of operations in the re-opening and re-enrollment of
students in elementary and secondary high schools in areas declared by the President as a major
Texas Education Agency
22
disaster. $78 million in federal funds were administered to LEAs in affected areas who applied
for these funds.
The education of displaced Louisiana students will be a continuing responsibility for as long as
the students are enrolled in Texas schools. The agency expects many of these students to remain
in Texas. As of May 4, 2006, a total of 35,470 displaced students were still enrolled in Texas
public schools.
On November 22, 2005, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the current school property tax
system violates the Texas Constitution that states: “No State ad valorem taxes shall be levied
upon any property within this State.” The court gave the Texas Legislature until June 1, 2006 to
make changes to the system. The Legislature was unable to pass a school finance bill during the
regular session or two subsequent special sessions dealing with this issue. The Governor used
line-item vetoes to veto all funds that had been appropriated to the TEA. The Legislature passed
HB 1 during the first called special session, which reauthorized the agency’s appropriations after
it was vetoed at the end of the regular session; however, the issue of the school property tax
system remained unresolved at that time.
The 3rd called session of the 79th legislature, which began work in April of 2006, passed HB 1
dealing most notably with the issue of school property tax rates. The bill reduced local property
taxes mandating a one-third reduction in school district maintenance and operations taxes by the
year 2007 and provided school districts with meaningful discretion through access to local
enrichment.
HB 1 included several provisions related to teacher compensation and quality such as, a $2,000
salary increases for all teachers, school nurses, counselors, and librarians, and the conversion of
the $500 health insurance supplement to salary. New performance pay incentive programs
intended to reward educators for improved student achievement were also included in HB 1.
Continuing the focus on high school success, HB 1 also establishes the High School Allotment
funded at the rate of $275 per student in Grades 9 - 12. The funding is to be spent on initiatives
to decrease dropout rates, promote graduation, and prepare for post-secondary education. High
school students will also now have to complete four years of math and science to graduate from
high school.
Accountability, financial transparency and efficiency were other topics covered in HB 1. The bill
calls for new accreditation standards for school districts that will consider both financial and
academic performance. Provisions were also included to make school district financial data
accessible to the public and to establish an electronic student records system to allow for the
rapid transfer of records among public schools and higher education institutions.
Texas Education Agency
23
Public Perception of the Quality of TEA and the Texas Public Education System
Texas is proud they have gained the recognition on a national level for student performance and
exceptional schools. Some recent recognition is presented below.
Outstanding Texas Schools
The August 5, 2005 edition of Newsweek ranked seven Texas high schools among the top 100 in
the nation. These schools are Science/Engineering Magnet school in Dallas (ranked #6);
Highland Park in Dallas (ranked #12); The Science Academy of South Texas in Mercedes
(ranked #40); Westlake High School in Austin (ranked #71); Westwood High School in Austin
(ranked #75); W.T. White High School in Dallas, (ranked #76); and Grapevine High School in
Grapevine (ranked #100).
In 2005, seven Texas high schools were named “Worldwide Leaders” by the College Board
because they are pacesetters in helping the widest segment of their total school population attain
college-level mastery of certain academic subjects tested on Advanced Placement (AP) exams.
The “Worldwide Leaders” named are: the School for the Talented and Gifted, The Science and
Engineering Magnet School at Townview Center, The Booker T. Washington School for
Performing and Visual Arts, all in Dallas ISD; Westlake High School in Eanes ISD; Valley View
High School in Pharr’s Valley View ISD; Eagle Pass High School - CC Winn Campus in Eagle
Pass ISD; and Highland Park High School in Highland Park ISD.
In 2005, the U.S. Department of Education (USDE), recognizing outstanding public and private
schools that are either academically superior in their states or that demonstrate dramatic and
consistent gains in student achievement, named 31 Texas public schools as No Child Left Behind
- Blue Ribbon Schools. These schools reflect the goals of the federal No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB).
Improved Student Performance
In 2005, approximately 74% of Texas school districts and 67% of campuses earned one or more
GPAs because an increasing percentage of their students reached the prestigious Commended
Performance level on the TAKS. These percentages grew from 2004 when 69% of districts and
53% of campuses earned one or more GPAs.
A report issued by the Texas National Comparative Study in 2006 confirmed that the average
performance of Texas students in reading and mathematics is above the national average and
average test scores have increased over the last ten years, particularly in reading in Grade 3 and
in mathematics in Grades 3 and 5.
Quality Counts 2006, a report issued in January 2006 by Education Week, named Texas as one of
the states in the country that surpassed the national rate in improvement in both Grade 4 and
Grade 8 math on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). NAEP exams in
Texas Education Agency
24
reading and math are given to Grade 4 and Grade 8 students across the U.S. every two years.
Texas also reduced the achievement gaps between African-American and white students and
students of different socioeconomic statuses in Grade 4 math.
Rising SAT Scores and Participation
Members of the Class of 2005 in Texas increased their math scores on the Scholastic Aptitude
Test (SAT) college-admissions exam, while verbal scores for all students in Texas public and
private schools were unchanged. When considered separately, however, verbal scores for the
state’s public school students did increase compared to private schools. The number of test takers
increased by nearly 4%.
Nationally, Texas still lags behind the national average in math SAT scores, and while Texas’
Asian and American-Indian students outperformed their peers nationally, this was not the case
for Texas’ white, Hispanic, and African-American students.
TEA is encouraged by student improvements in test scores and with schools that have been
nationally recognized for their excellence; nevertheless, it continues to acknowledge and address
the achievement gap between groups of Texas students, the needs of the changing structure of
the student population and the demands of the changing economy. The impact of the state’s
changing demographics and the need to encourage high school completion and college
attendance in the 21st century are addressed further in later section of this Strategic Plan.
Agency Organization
Following the 78th Legislative Session, the agency reorganized to provide a clearer focus on its
core mission, to prepare for the Sunset review, and to better execute key legislative priorities.
The design of the agency organizational structure is based on consolidated functions, which
enables the agency to pursue more effective business planning and systems analysis.
As depicted in the organizational chart in Appendix B, there are six major functional areas in the
new structure:






Educator Quality and P-16 Initiatives;
Standards and Programs;
Accountability and Data Quality;
Support Services;
Planning, Grants, and Evaluation; and
Finance and Information Technology.
Six associate commissioners oversee these areas, and their component divisions carry out the
primary functions of the agency. The guiding principles of the agency organization are to:
Texas Education Agency
25




Maintain the integrity of agency functions;
Implement a life-cycle model concept, in which an innovative new program begins in the
Division of Education Initiatives for planning and development stages and is later moved to
the appropriate division for institutionalization;
Focus on results rather than process; and
Support the philosophy of local control so that most important decisions are made closest
to students, schools, and communities.
Key Organizational Events and Areas of Change
Incorporation of State Board for Educator Certification
At the direction of the 79th Texas Legislature, the SBEC was abolished as a stand-alone agency
and merged into TEA. The SBEC board was retained to provide oversight on policy while the
administrative duties, personnel, and funding were transferred to TEA. As a result, TEA now
has the additional strategy of Educator Certification which encompasses the activities formerly
enacted by SBEC including: 1) the approval and oversight of Educator Preparation Programs, 2)
the administration and oversight of educator assessment, 3) the review of credentials and
certification of educators in Texas, and 4) the investigation of professional discipline and code of
ethics complaints against Texas educators. TEA created a cross-agency team comprised of
senior agency staff to oversee the integration activities known as the Certification Integration and
Improvement Team (CI2 Team). This team began meeting in October 2005 and will have
completed a detailed review and redesign of major Educator Certification functions and
processes by October 2006. To be able to function appropriately at full capacity, two areas of
concern already identified by the CI2 Team include: 1) the SBEC information technology
systems that are in need of upgrading and 2) the human and financial resources required to
support the certification enforcement function (i.e., State Office of Administrative Hearings) at
the level required.
Data Center Consolidation Plan
TEA has experienced significant staff turnover in positions that are in-scope for transition to the
Data Center Consolidation (DCC) vendor. The agency has hired skilled, technical contractors
who are being trained in TEA standards and procedures. The DCC Service Provider has the
option whether to make a job offer to contracted staff. Should the Service Provider decide not to
make offers to the agency’s trained workforce, there will be very limited TEA-specific
knowledge at the DCC facility.
The Department of Information Resources (DIR) has stated that the DCC Service Provider will
be more cost effective because of its higher level of proficiency statewide, however, there is a
risk of increased costs to individual agencies. Service costs will be measured in Resource Units,
meaning that any impacted agency may be invoiced for more, the same or less than its current
cost of service.
Texas Education Agency
26
While there is an intention to do no harm, disruption of service for agency customers is a
possibility. Student data is a protected asset at TEA. Its confidentiality is guaranteed under the
federal Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Exposure at the DCC facility of
FERPA-protected data is a risk. Investment portfolios and securities trading information is
highly confidential and can have significant global impacts if inappropriately released.
Geographical Location of the Agency
The main office of the TEA is located at 1701 North Congress Avenue, from the ground through
the sixth floors of the William B. Travis building in Austin, Texas. The majority of TEA
employees work at this location. A portion of the Student Assessment division occupies space
on the fifth floor of the Employee Retirement System building located at 1801 Brazos Street in
Austin. In addition, Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities employees are housed in a
facility located at 6201 E. Oltorf, Suite 600, Austin, Texas. TEA also leases a warehouse facility
at 4708-B E. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard in Austin. No employees occupy space at the
warehouse facility.
Role of Regional Education Service Centers
ESCs are an important partner with TEA in serving Texas public schools. Created in 1965, with
their role and function expanded in 1967, Texas’ 20 regional ESCs have grown from providers of
media services and staff development into a full education partnership with TEA and the school
districts and charter schools that they serve. TEC, Chapter 8, charges the centers to provide a
full range of core and expanded services to school districts and charter schools. Service centers
provide assistance in areas that include, but are not limited to, issues related to district and
campus accountability, professional development for classroom teachers and administrative
leaders, and instructional strategies in all areas of the statewide curriculum, including the courses
that are assessed by TAKS.
In addition, ESCs are directed by law to help school districts and charter schools to operate more
efficiently and economically, which many of the ESCs do through various cooperative
arrangements as well as through other cost saving practices that have a positive impact on Texas
schools. Further, the ESCs provide district support in administrative services that include
business office operations for school districts; the provision of financial and student accounting
software for over 900 school districts; curriculum and instructional program development;
alternative certification programs that meet the state and federal requirements for highly
qualified teachers in core content areas, career and technology education, and for administrators;
NCLB and other federal program compliance; highly qualified training for instructional aides;
Internet access and email capability for approximately 80% of Texas schools; and school board
member training.
ESCs have long served as centers for program development in areas such as reading, math, and
science academies. Partnering with TEA, institutions of higher education, and such foundations
Texas Education Agency
27
as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Milken Foundation, ESCs are leading many of
the initiatives of high school reform, the development of creative methods of limited English
proficient (LEP)/bilingual instructional delivery, and best practices for the integration of
technology in the classroom.
Size and Composition of Workforce
Reflecting the fact that many TEA employees are former educators (who are traditionally
predominantly female), two-thirds (66%) of the agency’s 797 employees are female and onethird (34.0%) are male. Just under two-thirds (62%) of TEA’s workforce is white, 22% is
Hispanic, and 11% is African-American. The remaining 5% of the workforce is of other racial
and ethnic origin.
Many of the agency’s education-related professional positions require several years of public
school education experience, which is a contributing factor to the relatively high average age of
the TEA workforce. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of the agency’s workforce is over the age of 40,
and 40% are over the age of 50.
Employee tenure shows that 69% of agency staff has been with the TEA for 5 years or more.
About a third of the workforce have been with the agency less than 5 years (31%), while 23% of
the workforce has been employed at TEA for 5 to 9 years, and 31% have been employed from 10
to 20 years. The remaining 6% of TEA’s employees have worked for the agency for more than
20 years.
Human Resource Strengths and Weaknesses
Employee Turnover
The agency’s turnover rate was below the State’s overall turnover rate for fiscal years (FY) 2001
and 2002. At the end of FY 2003, as mandated by the Texas Legislature to reduce staff, the
agency underwent a reduction in force (RIF). This action resulted in the separation of 300
employees, hence the high turnover rate of 39.36% in 2003. In addition, 31 employees left the
agency in September of 2003 due to the RIF. Employee retention has improved since; the
turnover rate for the end of FY 2004 decreased to 20% and the turnover rate for FY 2005 was
16.8%, just slightly higher than the state average of 16.6%.
Impact of Early Retirement
The retirement incentive offered by the Legislature in 2003 was an attractive option for many
agency employees. The incentive paid out 25% of one’s annual salary to employees eligible to
retire during their first month of eligibility. The agency experienced a significant loss of
institutional knowledge during the reduction in force in August of 2003, which included both
retirees and RIF'd employees. The agency lost 20% of employees who elected to retire in fiscal
year 2003.
Texas Education Agency
28
Within the next five years, approximately 21% of the agency’s authorized workforce is eligible
to retire, which will significantly lessen the agency’s knowledge base. With the anticipated loss
of knowledge and expertise, the agency must cross-train and develop succession plans to bridge
the gap and ensure continuity.
Capital Assets
In years past, the TEA has focused its capital plan on refresh and normal growth of hardware and
software. Beginning in April 2007, the DIR will have a contract for statewide DCC services.
Mainframe and server support, refresh and procurement, plus its related software, will no longer
be the responsibility of the agency. TEA anticipates that the demand for its information systems
products and services will continue to expand and evolve and that these capital needs will be
addressed by the DCC vendor.
Currently, the TEA uses a seat management contract for desktop support services. This contract
will likely be re-bid in the next biennium. The TEA will continue to make commodity purchases
as appropriate to support its business users.
The TEA, primarily in Information Systems, supplements its employees with technical
temporaries obtained under a contract with the DIR.
Four deliverables-based contracts that are currently in place are up for re-bid in the next
biennium: 1) maintenance of operational agency applications; 2) support development and
maintenance of the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) applications; 3)
PeopleSoft financials; and 4) seat management services for desktop support.
Because some PEIMS applications are technologically dated, a master plan to renovate PEIMS is
under development. Implementation could begin in the second year of the biennium.
Technological Developments
The TEA supports over 1,200 school districts that are geographically dispersed throughout the
state and makes extensive use of Web-based applications and other communication tools to
transact business statewide. More than half of the TEA’s 84 applications are accessed by school
district users in the Web environment.
The TEA’s current standard for software development is C# and .Net. MSSQL Server is used
for small- to medium-sized applications and DB2 UDB/AIX is used for larger applications and
the agency Data Warehouse. In addition, the agency still runs a few applications on Sybase/AIX,
including PeopleSoft financials. No major changes to the technology standards at TEA are
planned at this time; however this could be impacted by the transition/transformation plan of the
DCC vendor. TEA anticipates migrating toward component technologies and grid architecture.
Texas Education Agency
29
The TEA is considering minor maintenance and enhancement projects for the upcoming fiscal
year. A master plan for PEIMS is under development in response to technological changes that
have occurred since PEIMS was implemented in 1987. Plans for hardware and software
purchases will be finalized as the impact of the DCC becomes clear.
Historically Underutilized Business Plan
Mission Statement
In accordance with Section 111, Subchapter B of the TAC, and Chapter 2161 of the Texas
Government Code, TEA is committed to assisting Historically Underutilized Businesses (HUBs)
in providing equal opportunities to compete for all procurement opportunities within the agency.
TEA adopts the HUB rules under Section 2161.002 as the agency’s own rules. It is TEA’s
policy to promote and encourage contracting and subcontracting opportunities for HUBs in all
contracts.
Goals
The agency developed and maintains internal procedures to provide education, outreach and the
dissemination of information to ensure increased HUB participation. TEA procurement
activities are driven by the underlying principle that all qualified businesses should have access
to compete for business with the agency. Further, TEA requires non-HUB prime contractors to
demonstrate that they have solicited bids from HUB subcontractors. TEA will demonstrate its
good faith effort to utilize HUBs and will strive to meet or exceed the HUB program goals and
objectives in all its procurement efforts in the applicable procurement categories identified in
Table 2.
Table 2:
HUB Goals for TEA and State
Procurement Category
Heavy Construction
Building Construction
Special Trade Construction
Professional Services
Other Services
Commodity Purchasing
Agency Goal
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
33.0%
12.6%
State Goal
11.9%
26.1%
57.2%
20.0%
33.0%
12.6%
Agency Use of HUBs by Procurement Category
Of the six procurement categories identified by the Texas Building and Procurement
Commission (TBPC), TEA does not expend funds in Heavy Construction and Building
Construction, and rarely expends funds in Special Trades. The mission of the agency does not
lend itself to expenditures for goods or services in these categories. TEA has consistently
exceeded the state goal for Commodity Purchasing attaining 18.6% in FY 2004, and 22.2% in
FY 2005. Many of the agency’s contracts in the Other Services category are with nationally and
Texas Education Agency
30
internationally-based business and investment firms that generally do not qualify as HUB
vendors; however, these contracts are evaluated closely for competitive HUB subcontractor
opportunities because the Other Services category offers the greatest opportunity for expanding
TEA’s business partnerships with HUB vendors. In an effort to increase HUB participation with
national companies, the agency actively advocates the Mentor-Protégé program as an integrated
part of the solicitation process and to encourage established vendors to develop and mentor small
HUB businesses.
Programs to Increase HUB Participation
TEA is active in community outreach efforts to inform minority-owned businesses about
contracting opportunities with the agency and to link them, if necessary, with TBPC staff to
complete the HUB certification process. Outreach venues include, but are not limited to,
Economic Opportunity Forums, Spot Bid Fairs, agency HUB Fairs, vendor presentations to
agency procurement staff, and informing outreach participants about the Mentor-Protégé
program. The agency takes special interest in soliciting and informing underutilized HUB
groups about procurement opportunities.
TEA encourages prime contractors to use HUBs as partners and subcontractors whenever
possible. The purchasing and contracts division notifies registered HUB vendors of specific bid
and subcontracting opportunities to attract additional minority and women-owned businesses to
compete for procurement opportunities. The agency encourages minority businesses that are not
HUB-certified to certify with the TBPC. TEA is committed to increasing HUB participation
compared to the prior year and to continuing its outreach and education efforts. In addition,
HUB firms are encouraged to bid on agency opportunities. All subcontractors that submitted in
the HUB Subcontracting Plans, who meet the HUB requirements, are contacted and encouraged
to obtain HUB Certification.
TEA has co-sponsored HUB community outreach and educational initiatives across the state.
The HUB Coordinator works closely with the minority chambers of commerce and associations
to identify minority and women-owned businesses that qualify for HUB status but are not
certified as HUBs by TBPC, so that they can be invited to explore certification and full
participation in the program. The HUB Coordinator maintains a TEA website to announce bid
opportunities for notification of other bid solicitations. In addition to utilizing the Electronic
State Business Daily for bid announcements over $25,000, TEA trains agency credit card holders
to conduct business with HUBs to support the program while obtaining the best value for the
agency.
Objectives
 Maintain good faith efforts related to identification, solicitation, and use of HUBs in
contract opportunities generated by TEA;
 Partner with the local minority chambers and organizations to electronically notify
members of agency procurement opportunities;
 Comply with HUB planning requirements;
Texas Education Agency
31




Comply with HUB outreach requirements;
Comply with subcontracting good faith efforts in contracts solicited by TEA;
Comply with HUB reporting requirements; and
Facilitate and support the Mentor-Protégé program.
Strategies
 Support the 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
HUBs to compete for state contracts;
 Identify subcontracting opportunities in goods and services that meet established criteria
for HUB subcontracting plans;
 Specify reasonable, realistic contract specifications, and terms and conditions consistent
with agency requirements to encourage greater participation by all small businesses;
 Provide potential contractors with reference lists and sources of lists of certified HUBs
eligible for subcontracting opportunities;
 Utilize available HUB directories to solicit bids;
 Host and participate in Economic Opportunity Forums and other business community
outreach educational efforts;
 Maintain a monthly HUB procurement reporting system for all contracts and purchases
with subcontracting activity;
 Sponsor agency HUB Forum in procurement areas vital to the agency; and
 Train potential contractors on how to complete a HUB Subcontracting Plan when
appropriate.
Outcome Measures
 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 in compliance with HUB requirements; and
 Percent of contracts exceeding $100,000 containing HUB subcontracting plans.
Output Measures
 Number of agency staff participating in contract development and/or HUB training;
 Number of TEA contracts with subcontracting plan provisions; and
 Number of Economic Opportunity Forums and HUB forums attended and sponsored.
Agency Use of HUBs
Texas Education Agency
32
TEA demonstrates 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 procurement opportunities for all Texas businesses. Examples of
these initiatives are categorized by the four major areas below:
 Planning: Implemented a business plan and agency operating procedure that formally
adopted the TAC and TBPC HUB rules.
 Outreach:
a. Agency full-time HUB Coordinator chairs the statewide HUB Discussion Group
meetings to share “best practices” among state agency HUB Coordinators and
remains 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 provides educational training sessions at the 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, community meetings) to match them with the appropriate agency staff for
individual procurement opportunities and with TBPC staff to register as a certified
HUB vendor; and
e. Ongoing recruitment of businesses for participation in the Mentor-Protégé Program.
 Subcontracting: The Purchasing and Contracts Division integrated the requirement for a
full subcontracting plan for all proposals over $100,000; all agency contract developers and
monitors are trained in this area.
 Reporting: Implemented a “HUB Bid/Award Tracking” database management system as
part of the Integrated State Accounting System procurement module to record bids,
proposals, offers and contracts awarded to all vendors for monthly reports.
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 (see Tables 3 and 4).
Table 3:
HUB Expenditures: TEA
FY 2002
FY 2003
FY 2004
FY 2005
Estimated FY 2006
Total Expenditures
$133M
$122.7M
$90.6M
$96.7M
$96.7M
Expenditures with HUBs
$15.3M
$18.4M
$11.8M
$13.6M
$12.0M*
% of Expenditures with HUBs
11.4%
14.9%
13.3%
14.0%
12.5%
Note: The estimated decrease in HUB expenditures in FY 2006 is a result of HB 1516 related to the
consolidation of statewide automated information system purchases.
Texas Education Agency
33
Through sound execution of the various plans and programs described above, TEA is committed
to achieving 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.
Table 4:
HUB Expenditures: State of Texas Average
Total Expenditures
Expenditures with HUBs
% of Expenditures with HUBs
FY 2002
$8.7B
$1.0B
11.3%
FY 2003
$9.0B
$1.2B
13.0%
FY 2004
$9.8B
$1.4B
14.5%
FY 2005
$11.3B
$1.6B
13.8%
Fiscal Aspects
The TEA is responsible for the distribution of one out of every three dollars of discretionary state
general revenue. This amounts to over $11 billion in annual payments to public schools. In
addition, the agency administers over $4 billion in federal funds allocated through the federal
NCLB programs for economically disadvantaged youth, the Individuals with Disabilities in
Education Act (IDEA), and the federal Child Nutrition Program, administered by the Texas
Department of Agriculture through an interagency agreement.
Texas public schools spent approximately $7,310 per student in the 2004-2005 school year,
compared to $7,124 per student in the 2003-2004 school year. This number reflects state, local
and federal sources. Local funding continues to rise as statewide property values increase.
School finance is a partnership between the state (funds administered by the agency) and local
school boards, through the receipt of property taxes.
During the next biennium and beyond, the need for resources will continue to increase for public
education. Texas public schools will grow at a rate of 70,000 to 80,000 students per year,
necessitating increases in state funding to the FSP, the source of base state funding to Texas
school districts and charter schools. In addition, the state saw an influx of over 45,000
unexpected students to the Texas public schools in FY 2006 as evacuee families from Hurricane
Katrina settled in Texas and enrolled their children in public school. As of the spring of 2006,
over 36,000 of these “Katrina students” remain enrolled and it is estimated that 30,000 to 35,000
students will remain in Texas for the 2006-2007 school year and beyond. The additional influx
comes with a state and local cost estimated at over $300 million for FY 2006 and will be an
ongoing cost in excess of $250 million in the years to come.
While federal impact aid allocations will cover a portion of state and local costs for Katrina in
FY 2006, it is not anticipated that federal funding will continue expressly for this purpose in the
coming years. This will be an ongoing state and local cost.
Texas Education Agency
34
The agency does expect the overall share of federal funds to continue to increase, particularly in
the two largest federal programs: the Title I program for economically disadvantaged youth
(NCLB) and the federal special education program (IDEA). As a result both of increasing federal
funds and increasing federal requirements under NCLB, the percent of the agency administrative
budget paid by federal sources also continues to increase, approaching 40% in the current fiscal
year.
The agency faces a number of budgetary limitations in accordance with both state and federal
law. Unlike in the health and human services agencies, there are few federal “matching
requirements” imposed upon agencies of education. However, states are required to comply with
“maintenance of effort” requirements, which ensure states continue to support educational
programs that are supplemented by federal funds, particularly with regard to special education.
As with all recipients of federal funds, the state complies with Governmental Accounting
Standards Board (GASB) directive 34 and, particular to education, the federal Office of
Management and Budget Circular 187. On the state level, the agency is subject to numerous
appropriations riders governing financial management, the most important of which govern the
transferability of funds in the FSP and the limits on transferability between education programs
and the agency’s administration. The agency has an admirable record of ensuring that a vast
proportion of state funds are sent to local school districts. The agency administrative to program
ratio is roughly 0.6%. The agency has a relatively small staff (792 FTE employees) and is not
burdened by large capital or lease costs. The most notable capital costs are for information
technology, particularly desktop, mainframe and server environments. It should be noted that
much of that lease expenses will change with the full implementation of HB 1516, which directs
the state DIR to consolidate most utility computing functions under a single service agreement
effective March 2007.
In response to the Supreme Court order of November 22, 2005 in the West Orange Cove case,
the Texas Legislature convened in a special called session in April, 2006 to consider legislation
relating to school finance, the state tax structure and education reform. The resulting legislation,
HB 1, creates meaningful financial discretion for school districts through the creation of a local
“enrichment tier” of four pennies on a school district tax rate equalized at 96%. In addition,
there are a number of other initiatives in the legislation the agency will implement in Fiscal Year
2007 and beyond, including a student achievement grant program, a number of new school
district accreditation and accountability reforms both from the academic and financial
management perspective, the creation of statewide data centers for public education, principal
leadership programs and a mentoring initiative. The legislation also included a $2000 teacher pay
increase. Some of these provisions are likely to be re-examined by the 80th Regular Session of
the Texas Legislature when it convenes in January 2007.
Texas Education Agency
35
Figure 1:
Distribution of State and Federal Funds for Fiscal Year 2006
Texas Education Agency
36
Impact of Federal Statutes and Regulations
Federal Funding
In total, the influx of federal funds has steadily grown over the years. For FY 2006, Texas will
receive roughly $4 billion from the federal government for public education.
The cognizant federal fiduciary oversight agency for TEA is the USDE. The expenditure of
federal funds is monitored and audited by entities with the federal department including the
USDE Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and
various other program offices tied to provisions of the federal title programs under the NCLB
Act. In addition, the agency administration of federal programs is governed by the USDE’s
Indirect Cost Unit, and the agency annually negotiates an indirect cost rate for its administrative
activities beyond the administrative allowances of each federal program. The agency separates
federal administrative expenditures for IDEA and annually returns some $13 million of the $25
million of allowable administrative costs to school districts for program purposes. For federal
programs outside of IDEA, the agency participates in the consolidated administrative funds pool
and returns close to $6 million of $23 million in allowable federal administrative funds to school
districts to support educational programs
Education agencies have been subjected to relatively few federal matching requirements since
the advent of both the IDEA and the federal Title programs for economically disadvantaged
students, compared to health and human service agencies that are subject to dollar-for-dollar
state contributions required to draw down federal matching funds. Instead, K-12 education has
been subject to less strict requirements to “maintain effort” in state programs that are
supplemented by federal funds. It is important to note that federal programs run by the USDE
almost universally require states to supplement current services with additional resources, as
opposed to a state “supplanting” statutory state activities with federal funds and withholding
state funds from school districts to the benefit of the state budget.
One major exception is the federal child nutrition program. This program is administered by the
United State Department of Agriculture, not USDE, and requires a fairly modest state match.
Over the last decade this match has amounted to between $11 million and $13 million in state
funds to draw down between $700 million and $1 billion in federal funds. There is also a state
match required for the federal adult education program, which does not impact K-12 education.
The Perkins Vocational Education Grant also requires a dollar-for-dollar state match for
administrative expenses and maintenance of effort requirement for program dollars distributed to
school districts. Legislation passed by the 78th Legislature reduced the number of classes eligible
to be counted as career and technology courses and the associated funding weights applied to
these courses in the FSP career and technology education allotment. These reductions could
impact Texas’ maintenance of effort requirement in coming years.
The agency and school districts have implemented compliance with GASB directive 34, two
years in advance of its required implementation. Other than special circumstances in accounting
Texas Education Agency
37
for federal hurricane impact and restart programs, the federal regulatory environment governing
agency expenditures should remain reasonably predictable.
As the State’s fiscal agent for the receipt of federal education funds, TEA has received
unprecedented increases of federal appropriations over the last five years that it flows to local
school districts for use in the implementation of the local programs/services. Along with the
receipt of federal funds comes federal process and procedural requirements that the agency and
local school districts must implement.
NCLB and IDEA
The NCLB Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 2002, was a sweeping reform of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Since 2002, the USDE has promulgated numerous federal
regulations, non-regulatory guidance documents, and state letters to support the implementation
of NCLB. These regulations include, but are not limited to, basic program services, federal
assessment requirements, assessment of students with disabilities and English Language
Learners (ELL), adequate yearly progress (AYP), school improvement interventions, and highly
qualified teachers, among others.
Along with federal regulations, non-regulatory guidance, and state letters, each of these new
requirements have specific implementation dates/timelines that have made full implementation
difficult. Additionally, the agency has been subject to numerous federal monitoring/audit
activities across all the NCLB Title programs. The effect of these multiple events/visits has
stretched the agency’s regional and local school district personnel to their respective limits.
Under NCLB, accountability provisions that formerly applied only to districts and campuses
receiving Title I, Part A funds now apply to all districts and campuses. All public school
districts, campuses, and the state are evaluated annually for AYP. The Texas AYP Plan approved
by the USDE in July 2004 meets the requirements in NCLB and provides a mechanism for
evaluating district and campus AYP. The AYP/Federal Reporting unit of the Performance
Reporting Division consists of a unit manager and eight staff members who oversee the design
and implementation of the AYP reporting system.
In late 2004, Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the reauthorization of the
IDEA. Major changes include, but are not limited to, the alignment of IDEA with NCLB
requirements for assessment and highly qualified teachers, the development of a State
Performance Plan with state performance targets, changes in the eligibility determination of
students with learning disabilities, and support for local efforts to prevent the need for special
education services. At the time of this writing, USDE has not promulgated final regulations. The
lack of final regulations has created confusion regarding implementation because the agency and
local school districts must balance between the new statute and current regulation only to the
extent current regulation does not conflict with the new statutory language of the Act. Like
NCLB, IDEA 2004 implementation requirements and timelines have stretched the agency’s
regional and local school district personnel to their respective limits.
Texas Education Agency
38
NCLB, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, and IDEA require the state
education agency (SEA) to monitor the extent to which grantees are effectively meeting the goals
and requirements of the program for which they receive grant funds. These federal laws
specifically require the SEA to monitor whether grant funds are contributing to improved student
performance for particular student groups, including students with disabilities, students with
limited proficiency in English, migrant students, and students served in career and technology
education programs. To meet these federal requirements, the agency implemented a
performance-based monitoring (PBM) system which includes a comprehensive system of
performance, program effectiveness, and data integrity indicators to monitor school districts. In
addition, the federal requirements under Title III of NCLB for Annual Measurable Achievement
Objectives were incorporated into the PBM system in 2005.
Any statutory changes that are made to NCLB or further re-authorizations of Perkins and/or
IDEA will have an impact on the agency’s monitoring system. In addition, Civil Action 5281 is a
court order resulting from a lawsuit brought against the State of Texas by the USDE. As a result
of that court order, there are federal Office of Civil Rights (OCR) monitoring requirements
which establish procedures and minimum requirements for states to ensure civil rights
compliance of districts that receive Perkins funds. If any future revisions to these OCR
monitoring requirements occur, the agency’s PBM system will need to be revised to
accommodate the changes. Finally, federal laws and regulations require the USDE to monitor
states’ implementation of required monitoring activities, and any findings or recommendations
that result from USDE’s monitoring of the agency would need to be considered. It is not possible
to predict the anticipated impact of any of these potential changes until the agency is made
aware, and can evaluate the extent, of any new or revised requirements.
At the time of this writing, the TEA also awaits the reauthorization of the Vocational Education
Act and the future resumption of needed increases to the federal appropriations that match the
multiple requirements of each of these federal laws.
Other Legal Issues
Impact of State Statutory Changes
The Texas Legislature recently completed a special session to respond to the Texas Supreme
Court’s decision in West Orange Cove v. Neeley. HB 1, passed in response to that litigation,
does not fundamentally alter the existing structure of the school finance system, but focuses on
using state funds to reduce local tax rates, thereby providing school districts with “meaningful
discretion” to set their rates and confirming the tax as local rather than state-levied. The agency
will have a significant increase in responsibilities as it implements the changes in the system.
Additional work is also likely during the regular legislative session beginning in January 2007 to
modify the existing structure of the school finance system in response to policy discussions.
Texas Education Agency
39
Impact of Current and Outstanding Court Cases
The agency is likely to continue to be the lead defendant in school finance litigation for several
years. The trial court has lifted the injunction that was in effect and no further litigation is
imminent. However, the Supreme Court’s decision could lead to additional challenges based on
the relative equity between school districts and the amount of funding available to all districts,
possibly as soon as after the 2007 regular legislative session. Although the Attorney General’s
Office represents the agency in court, very significant demands are necessarily made on agency
staff as expert witnesses and otherwise supporting the state’s case.
The agency continues to defend several actions against it in the statewide desegregation order,
U.S. v. Texas (“CA5281”). One intervention is pending on appeal at the federal Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals and two others are scheduled for trial in the summer of 2006. The litigation
generally revolves around restrictions on interdistrict transfers but has broadened to include
monitoring of bilingual education programs. Depending on how successful the Attorney General
is in procedural motions, a full trial on the statewide transfer restrictions or bilingual monitoring
could significantly impact agency staff resources.
Texas Education Agency
40
External Assessment
Service Populations
Changing Structure of Student Demographics
TEA served over 4.5 million students enrolled in Texas public schools during the 2005-2006
school year. Since 1987, total enrollment has increased by over 1.3 million students, or 40.2%.
In only the past ten years (since the 1995-1996 school year), the number of students in Texas has
increased by 19%1 and growth is expected to continue.
In addition to growth in overall enrollment, the ethnic distribution of the student population has
also changed to reflect the changing demographics of the state in general. In the 1995-1996
school year, Hispanic students accounted for 37% of the student population, while white students
accounted for 46%. By the 2005-2006 school year, the percentage of Hispanic students (45%) in
Texas public schools exceeded the percent of white students (37%). The proportion of AfricanAmerican students grew slightly to 15% over this same time period (see Figure 2).2 Between
2004-2005 and 2005-2006, the number of Hispanic students increased by 4%.
Figure 2:
Ethnic Distribution in Texas Schools
2005-2006 School Year
AfricanAmerican
15%
White
37%
Hispanic
45%
Other
3%
The number of LEP students has also grown over the years from 630,345 in 2002-2003 to
711,396 in 2005-2006. This represents small but steady growth in the overall proportion of total
1
Texas Education Agency (2005). Enrollment in Texas Public Schools, 2003-2004 (Document No. GE05 601 06).
Austin, TX: Author; PEIMS ad hoc reports http://www.tea.state.tx.us/adhocrpt/ for 2005-2006 school year figures.
2
Ibid.
Texas Education Agency
41
students enrolled who are identified as LEP, growing from 14.8% of all students enrolled in
2002-2003 to 15.7% of all students enrolled in 2005-2006.
According to projections by the Center for Demographic and Socioeconomic Research and
Education (Research Center), the shift in the ethnic distribution of the student population in
Texas public schools will become even more pronounced over the next 40 years. The Research
Center estimates that the percentage of Hispanic students in public elementary and secondary
schools will increase to 66% by 2040. Under this scenario, 20% of the student population would
be white, 8% would be African-American, and 6% would be categorized as Other (e.g.
Asian/Pacific Islander, Native-American).3
Regional Differences
The demographic changes and differences seen overall at the state level are not necessarily the
same at the regional or district level. In carrying out its mission, the agency serves 20 regions
throughout the state of Texas. TEC includes weighted funding to meet the special needs of
identified student populations and school districts. In addition, ESCs, located in 20 geographic
regions across Texas, identify special needs for students served within their areas.
More than 4.5 million students attend Texas public schools in a wide array of different settings.
While there are over 1,220 ISDs and charter schools served by the agency, historically a
disproportionately high percentage of students are served by a small number of large urban
districts (e.g., Houston ISD, Dallas ISD, San Antonio ISD, Fort Worth ISD, Austin ISD, and El
Paso ISD).
The effect of these large urban districts is evident when enrollment is examined on a regional
level. The ESC regions with the greatest percentage of Texas’ students enrolled in 2005-2006
are ESC Region 4 - Houston with 22% of the over 4.5 million students, Region 10 - Richardson
with 15%, and Region 10 - Ft. Worth with 11%. Regions with the lowest percentage of all
enrolled students are Region 9 - Wichita Falls and Region 14 - Abilene each with 1% of the total
students enrolled in the state.
The growth patterns of the ESC regions vary across the state and reflect the effect of growth in
major urban areas. Over the past ten school years (from 1995-1996 to 2005-2006), 11 of the 20
ESC regions have experienced an increase in student populations. The largest percentage
increases in public school enrollment were experienced in Region 13 - Austin (36%); Region 11
- Fort Worth (34%); Region 10 - Richardson (30%) and Region 1 - Edinburg (29%) (see Figure
3). The largest percentage declines in student enrollment occurred in ESC regions serving West
Texas. Public school enrollment declined by 13% in Region 14 - Abilene; 12% in Region 18 Midland; and 9% in Region 15 - San Angelo. Region 5 - Beaumont, hardest hit by Hurricane
Rita in 2005, also experienced an enrollment decline of 9%. Although Region 5 had experienced
3
Murdoch, Steve H, Steve White, Md. Nazrul hoque, et al. A Summary of the Texas Challenge in the Twenty-First
Century: Implications of Population Change for the Future of Texas (The Center for Demographic and
Socioeconomic Research and Education, Texas A&M University System, December 2002).
Texas Education Agency
42
declines in the past, the increase in decline is likely due to the effects of the hurricane (see Figure
3).
Figure 3:
Percentage Change in Student Enrollment:
1995-1996 to 2005-2006, by Education Service Center Region
29.1
Edinburg, Region 1
Corpus Christi, Region2
-6.6
Victoria, Region 3
-7.1
25.9
Houston, Region 4
-9.0
Beaumont, Region 5
25.5
Hunstville, Region 6
4.2
Kilgore, Region 7
3.0
ESC Region
Mt. Pleasant, Region 8
-7.0
Wichita Falls, Region 9
30.1
Richardson, Region 10
34.1
Ft. Worth, Region 11
9.4
Waco, Region 12
35.7
Austin, Region 13
Abilene, Regions14
-12.7
-8.9
San Angelo, Region 15
-3.7
Amarillo, Region 16
-7.1
Lubbock, Region 17
Midland, Region 18
-12.1
9.9
El Paso, Region 19
17.1
San Antonio, Region 20
-20.0
-10.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
Percentage Change in Student Enrollment
Regional Differences in Ethnic Distribution
The ethnic distribution of students also differs significantly for various geographic regions of the
state. The most recent figure available shows that school districts located in major urban districts
serve the vast majority of ethnic minority students (83% in 2003-2004)4. School districts in
4
A minority ethnic group includes African-American, Hispanic, Native-American, or Asian/Pacific Islander ethnic
groups.
Texas Education Agency
43
these major urban locations also have the largest proportion of their student populations
categorized as economically disadvantaged (69% in 2003-2004).5
The largest ethnic student group in the state is the Hispanic student population, which accounts
for 45% of all students enrolled in Texas public schools. A close look at the ethnic diversity of
the populations served by the various ESCs highlights the need for different service mixes across
the state. The ESC in Region 1 - Edinburg serves a predominantly Hispanic (97%) student
population. This is also true for the ESCs in Region 19 - El Paso, Region 2 - Corpus Christi and
Region 20 - San Antonio, which also serve populations with high proportions of Hispanic
students (88%, 69% and 66%, respectively). Region 5 - Beaumont has the largest percentage of
African-American students (31%) in the state. By comparison, ESCs in Region 9 - Wichita
Falls, Region 6 - Huntsville, Region 14 - Abilene, and Region 8 - Mt. Pleasant serve
predominantly white student populations (69%, 62%, 62%, and 62%, respectively).
The agency continues to respond to the changing structure of the student population with
specialized programs (e.g., Bilingual/English as Second Language (ESL) programs, LEP
programs, programs targeting economically disadvantaged students, and programs targeting
students in at-risk situations) in elementary and secondary schools. Greater focus on these types
of strategies will be even more critical over the next decade to meet the needs of this changing
student population. Reflective of broader societal changes, this increase in the size and diversity
of the student population is also likely to require greater attention by local schools to address
issues such as single-parent families, and students requiring supplemental resources, unique
student needs, and the need to have a multi-cultural approach to a common set of expectations
and goals. At the same time, the agency remains committed to serving the entire state and
recognizing the varied needs of the regions it serves.
Long-Term Trends
Numerous long-term national trends are likely to shape how public education is provided in the
future.6 Some broad social trends with direct or indirect implications include:
 Increasing dominance of technology in the economy and society;
 Expanding education throughout society, throughout lifetimes;
 Increasing metropolitanization and suburbanization;
 Growth of service-sector employment;
 Rise of knowledge industries and a knowledge-dependent society;
 Increasingly global economy;
 Shifts in the traditional nuclear family (e.g., more single-parent families);
 Increasing personal and occupational mobility;
 Growing demands for accountability in the use of public funds; and
 Increasing privatization of government services.
5
Texas Education Agency (2005). Enrollment in Texas Public Schools, 2003-2004 (Document No. GE05 601 06).
Austin, TX: Author.
6
Future Trends Affecting Public Education. (1999) Education Commission of the States: Denver, CO.
Texas Education Agency
44
Similarly, important long-term education trends that have been identified include the following:








Increasing competition among schools for students, educators, and funds;
Increasing calls for educational accountability and improved student performance at all
levels;
More school districts and states contracting for education services;
Rising demand for education professionals with an expected stagnation in the supply of
teachers;
Increasing pressure for smaller class sizes and more personalized education for students
provided through small neighborhood schools, “schools-within-a-school”, and off-campus
learning;
Increasing parental demand for alternatives to their public school (e.g. through vouchers,
tax credits, home school and other mechanisms) and increasing efforts on the part of school
districts to expand school choice (charter schools, magnet schools, reduced emphasis on
prescribed attendance zones);
Expanding investments in technology infrastructure and equipment for schools; and
Increasing use of technology in the classroom and the school.7
Education and the Economy
In preparing Texas students for participation in the future workforce of the global economy,
Texas must foster academic achievement, increase high school completion and promote
postsecondary education and success, all within the context of the changing demographics of the
student population and the changing needs of the global economy.
With its large population and workforce, the Texas economy has a significant impact on the
national economy. Texas is ranked second in the nation in both population and labor force.
From 2000 to 2010, Texas employment is expected to increase by over 1.8 million jobs. This job
growth rate is expected to outpace U.S. job growth over the same period.8
Texas must create a skilled workforce to meet the demands of the future job market. Creating a
workforce with the skills and education to attract new business to Texas is critical to the
continued growth of the Texas economy. Table 5 provides estimates by the Texas Workforce
Commission (TWC) of the fastest growing industries in the state of Texas by 2012. These
7
Kenneth R. Stevenson, Ed.D, Ten Educational Trends Shaping School Planning and Design ( National
Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, September 2002); Michael DeArmong, Sara Taggart, and Paul Hill. The
Future of School Facilities: Getting Ahead of the Curve (Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of
Washington, May 2002).
8
Texas Workforce Commission (2003). Jobs In the 21st Century. Austin, TX: Author.
Texas Education Agency
45
industries will rely on a skilled and educated labor force to fulfill the needs of their growing
businesses.
Table 5:
Fastest Growing Industries in the State of Texas by 2012
Industry
Title
Annual Average Employment
Growth
Rate (%)
2002
2012
10,445,250
12,284,150
17.6%
Management, Scientific, & Technical Consulting Services
48,100
71,800
49.3%
Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
6,250
9,300
48.8%
Home Health Care Services
137,350
203,950
48.5%
Educational Support Services, Pubic/Private
1,550
2,250
45.2%
Computer Systems Design & Related Services
72,100
104,400
44.8%
Other Information Services
2,150
3,100
44.2%
Office Administrative Services
27,800
39,350
41.6%
Offices of Physicians
140,400
198,600
41.5%
Other Ambulatory Health Care Services
13,400
18,900
41.0%
Child Day Care Services
107,550
150,750
40.2%
Offices of Other Health Practitioners
34,800
48,750
40.1%
Individual & Family Services
29,500
41,200
39.7%
Specialty (Ex. Psychiatric & Substance Abuse) Hospitals, Public/Private
23,950
32,650
36.3%
Employment Services
204,800
278,650
36.1%
Community Care Facilities for the Elderly
27,750
37,700
35.9%
Medical & Diagnostic Laboratories
12,850
17,400
35.4%
Community Food & Housing, & Emergency & Other Relief Services
6,100
8,250
35.3%
Cable & Other Program Distribution
4,550
6,150
35.2%
Support Activities for Road Transportation
6,300
8,500
34.9%
Spectator Sports
7,300
9,750
33.6%
Full-Service Restaurants
296,450
395,300
33.3%
Activities Related to Credit Intermediation
11,500
15,300
33.0%
Other Residential Care Facilities
8,400
11,150
32.7%
Nonscheduled Air Transportation
6,000
7,950
32.5%
699,100
925,700
32.4%
Total Employment
Elementary & Secondary Schools, Public/ Private
Source: Texas Workforce Commission (www.twc.state.tx.us).
Texas Education Agency
46
The TEA is one of the system partners in the Texas Workforce Investment Council (TWIC). As
a partner, the TEA participates in planning leadership and programmatic activities designed to
address key economic, education, and training issues and link them to agency goals, strategic
initiatives, and performance measures with the overall goal of improving continually the
educational opportunities for Texas school children and adequately preparing them for their
eventual participation in the workforce.
As part of its participation with TWIC, TEA is engaged in efforts with system partners relating
to the integration of economic development and workforce concerns with those of the education
community at the public and higher education levels. One such effort is the Texas Industry
Cluster Initiative. TEA has identified the following five priority recommendations from the
industry cluster report for further consideration and action:

Use real world applications of mathematics, science and technology in the classroom to
make students aware of industry career options in the targeted industry clusters. Work with
industry, the TEA, the THECB, and their related associations to identify potential drivers
and patterns for implementing applied math, science and technology educational programs
in public schools;

Facilitate the development of articulation agreements among educational institutions, and
where possible, remove articulation barriers among institutions (to allow students and
workers to design the instruction they need to complete degrees and certifications in a
timely and cost effective manner);

Expand career and technology education to complement, without compromising the core
curriculum, and to provide greater job opportunities and meet critical shortages in
technically skilled labor.
Include consideration of apprenticeships/internships for
secondary students, including students “at risk”, to promote education and industry career
choices;

Sponsor career counselors and teachers to participate in industry-hosted externships though
the development of a measured and compensated learning environment; and

Facilitate on-going interaction between industry and education.
Performance Highlights of Texas Students and Schools
A variety of measures are used to assess student and school performance. This section, first
addresses measures related to high school completion and success; and is followed by highlights
of overall student performance on the TAKS and district and school performance on
accountability measures. The section concludes with an extended discussion of Texas student
performance results on the NAEP, the oldest and most prominent national “CriterionReferenced Test” (CRT). A CRT measures student performance in comparison to a
performance standard established for a specific curriculum, in contrast to a Norm-Referenced
Texas Education Agency
47
Test, which measures student performance in comparison to other students. Caution is advised
in interpreting national CRT performance results for Texas students, since these tests are
generally not aligned with the curriculum and instruction taught in Texas schools.
High School Completion and Success
Reduced rates of grade retention, lowered dropout rates, and higher rates of participation among
students in college preparation courses and college entrance exams are all useful measures for
gauging the progress of education initiatives in the area of high school completion and success.
The recent figures presented below show progress made and help to set the stage for future
improvement.
Grade Advancement9
In 2003-2004, the state grade-level retention rate for all grades was 4.7%. The rate was
unchanged from the previous year. Across Grades K-6, the retention rate was highest in Grade 1
at 6.4%. Across Grades 7-12, the retention rate was highest in Grade 9 at 16.5%.
Disparities in retention rates across ethnic groups were significant. In elementary school,
African-American and Hispanic students were almost twice as likely to be retained as white
students. At the secondary level, more than one out of five African-American (20.3%) and
Hispanic (22.8%) students in Grade 9 did not advance to Grade 10.
Dropout and Completion
With the 2005-2006 school year, TEA has begun to use the National Center of Education
Statistics (NCES) definition for dropouts for its calculations. 10 For Grades 9-12, there were
42,953 dropouts in 2001-2002 based on the NCES definition. The 2001-2002 Grade 9-12 annual
dropout rate in Texas was 3.8%, compared to 4.2% in 2000-2001.11 Among the 46 states in
compliance with NCES dropout reporting guidelines, dropout rates ranged from 1.9 to 10.5%.
The Texas rate of 3.8% ranked 19th lowest. Disparities among racial/ethnic groups are evident.
Annual rates for African-American, Hispanic, and white students were 4.9%, 5.5%, and 2.2%,
respectively. Future reports will allow for comparisons over time and in relation to other states
using the NCES definition.
For the class of 2004, the overall graduation rate was 84.6%. African-American students had a
graduation rate of 82.8%; Hispanic students, 78.4%; and white students, 89.4%. Each group
showed an increase over the preceding year in the percentage of students graduating, except for
white students, whose graduation rate decreased by 0.4 percentage points.
Racial/ethnic differentials underscore the need to address these specific populations to improve
high school completion in Texas schools.
9
Grade-Level Retention in Texas Public Schools, 2003-04 (TEA, 2005).
The major difference between the NCES and TEA dropout definitions is that NCES counts students who attempt
but fail to obtain GEDs as dropouts; these students are not counted as dropouts under the TEA dropout definition.
Texas began using the NCES definition for students leaving Texas public schools in the 2005-2006 school year.
11
Secondary School Completion and Dropouts in Texas Public Schools, 2001-02: National Center for Education
Statistics State and District Dropout Counts and Rates (TEA, 2005).
10
Texas Education Agency
48
College Preparation, Testing, and Readiness
In 1992-1993, just 158 Texas public schools had students completing Advanced Placement (AP)
courses. By 2004, the number had risen to 1,114, or 56.1% of the 1,985 schools serving
students in Grades 11 and 12. During the same period, the number of schools with students
completing both AP courses and examinations grew from 135 to 949.
A total of 77,582 public school students in Grades 11 and 12, the highest number ever, took AP
examinations in 2004.12 The student participation rate was 17.2%, an increase of 9.6 percentage
points from 7.6% in 1996.
The rates at which African-American and Hispanic students in Texas public schools participated
in AP examinations climbed steadily between 1996 and 2004. Although it is encouraging that
participation rates have generally risen, there is still a substantial difference between racial and
ethnic groups. Only 9.1% of African-Americans and 13.1% of Hispanics took AP examinations
in 2004. By comparison, 20.8% of whites and 39.5% of Asian/Pacific Islanders took AP
examinations.
The number of Texas public school students taking International Baccalaureate (IB)
examinations increased steadily from 419 in 1996 to 1,388 in 2004. The overall participation
rate for 2004 was 0.3%, an increase from 0.1% in 1996.
The number of Texas public high school graduates taking the SAT I, American College Testing
(ACT), or both increased from 101,262 in 1996 to 135,646 in 2004.13,14 The overall
participation rate for 2004 was 61.9%, a decrease of 2.8 percentage points from 64.7% in 1996.
The average SAT I combined score for 2004 was 987, a slight decrease from 989 the previous
year. The average Verbal and Mathematics scores in 2004 (489 and 498, respectively) were
lower than those in 2003 by one point each. The average ACT Composite score for 2004 was
20.1, an increase from 19.9 the previous year. Compared to 2003, average ACT subject scores
for 2004 were higher in English (19.2 vs. 19.1), Mathematics (20.2 vs. 19.9), and Reading (20.3
vs. 20.1) and the same in Science (20.1).
In addition to participation in college preparation courses and participation in college entrance
exams, is the issue of higher education readiness. The statewide testing program is required by
law to include a higher education readiness component (HERC) on the exit level assessment.
Beginning in spring 2004, performance on the TAKS exit-level mathematics and ELA tests were
used to assess not only a student’s level of academic preparation for graduation from a Texas
public high school but also the student’s readiness to enroll in an institution of higher education.
Through its work with the THECB, TEA collected research data showing the link between
student performance on the exit level TAKS and readiness to enroll in an institution of higher
learning. In addition, this research provides evidence of the link between performance on TAKS
and matched student performance on the SAT I, the ACT, and the Texas Academic Skills
Program (TASP) assessments. In spring 2005, 39% of all Grade 11 students met the HERC
12
Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Examination Results in Texas 2003-04 (TEA, 2005).
Results of College Admissions Testing in Texas for 1995-96 Graduating Seniors (TEA, 1997).
14
College Admissions Testing of Graduating Seniors in Texas High Schools, Class of 2004 (TEA, 2006).
13
Texas Education Agency
49
standard in ELA, up 11 percentage points from 2004, and 47% of all students met the HERC
standards for math, a 5 percentage point increase from 2004.
Performance on the TAKS
The phase in for the exit-level assessments lags one year behind the phase in for the other gradelevel assessments in place in 2005. The passing standard for first-time juniors on the spring
2005 exit-level assessments was one standard error of measurement (SEM) below the panelrecommended score. On the spring 2005 TAKS exit-level administration, a higher percentage of
high school juniors achieved the one SEM standard on the ELA, mathematics, and science
sections in 2005 when compared to 2004 and 2003. Approximately the same percentage of
students achieved the one SEM standard on the social studies portion of the TAKS test in 2005
as in 2004 (see Table 6). On all tests taken on the exit-level TAKS, 68% of Texas high school
students met the one SEM standard, an increase from 64% in 2004 and from 34% in 2003.
Table 6:
Percent of Texas High School Juniors
Meeting the One SEM Standard TAKS 2003, 2004, and 2005
Percent of Students Meeting the One SEM Standard
TAKS Test
2003
2004
2005
English Language Arts
66%
85%
88%
Mathematics
55%
76%
81%
Social Studies
85%
95%
94%
Science
57%
76%
80%
Performance of students among all major ethnic groups has continued to increase in all subject
areas since 2003. The percent of African–American students meeting the one SEM standard
increased from 54% in 2003 to 84% in 2005 for ELA, from 36% in 2003 to 67% in 2005 for
math, from 78% in 2003 to 92% in 2005 for social studies, and from 39% in 2003 to 68% in
2005 in science. Hispanic students improved performance from 2003 to 2005 as well: 58% met
the one SEM standard in 2003 compared to 82% in 2005 for ELA, 42% in 2003 compared to
72% in 2005 for math, 77% in 2003 compared to 90% in 2005 for social studies, and 43% in
2003 compared to 70% in 2005 for science. The percentage of white students meeting the one
SEM standard also increased from 73% in 2003 to 93% in 2005 for ELA, from 66% in 2003 to
90% in 2005 for math, from 90% in 2003 to 98% in 2005 for social studies, and from 69% in
2003 to 91% in 2005 for science.
For Grades 3-9 TAKS, both English and Spanish versions, 2005 represented the first year that
students had to meet the panel-recommended standard in order to pass the TAKS. When results
at the panel-recommended standard are compared from 2003 to 2005, illustrated in Tables 7 and
8, a general upward trend in the passing rates for all subject area tests is shown. Further, for the
Texas Education Agency
50
SSI tests of Grade 3 reading and Grade 5 reading and math, passing rates for both English and
Spanish are among the highest when compared against all other TAKS grade-level tests.
On the Spanish version of the Grade 3 reading test, 89% of the students passed the reading exam
by the third administration in 2005 at the panel-recommended standard, as compared to 74%
meeting the panel-recommended standard in 2003. On the Spanish version of the Grade 3 test,
67% passed the math test in 2005 at the panel-recommended standard, an increase from 57% in
2003, and 73% of the Grade 5 math Spanish test takers met the panel-recommended standard in
2005, compared to 44% in 2004 and 37% in 2003 (see Table 8).
The students’ combined passing rate on the Grade 3 reading exam for both the English and
Spanish exams was 92% in 2005, down from 94% in 2004, but the higher standard must be taken
into account (see Table 7 and Table 8).
Texas Education Agency
51
Table 7:
Percent of Students Meeting Panel Recommendation
All Students, Grades 3 through 9
English TAKS, 2003-2005
2003
TAKS
2004
TAKS
2005
TAKS
Grade 3 Reading 15
85%
92%
95%
Grade 3 Math
74%
83%
82%
Grade 4 Reading
76%
81%
79%
Grade 4 Math
70%
78%
81%
Grade 4 Writing
78%
88%
90%
Grade 5 Reading
67%
73%
90%
Grade 5 Math
65%
73%
92%
Grade 5 Science
39%
55%
64%
Grade 6 Reading
71%
79%
85%
Grade 6 Math
60%
67%
72%
Grade 7 Reading
72%
75%
81%
Grade 7 Math
51%
60%
64%
Grade 7 Writing
76%
89%
88%
Grade 8 Reading
77%
83%
83%
Grade 8 Math
51%
57%
61%
Grade 8 Social Studies
77%
81%
85%
Grade 9 ELA
66%
76%
82%
Grade 9 Math
44%
50%
56%
15
For the 2003, 2004, and 2005 Grade 3 reading, and the 2005 Grade 5 reading and math, passing rates are derived
from the primary administration and the two retest opportunities.
Texas Education Agency
52
Table 8:
Percent of Students Meeting Panel Recommendation
All Students, Grades 3 through 9
Spanish TAKS 2003-2005
2003
TAKS
2004
TAKS
2005
TAKS
Grade 3 Reading 16
74%
86%
89%
Grade 3 Math
57%
68%
67%
Grade 4 Reading
59%
66%
69%
Grade 4 Math
48%
62%
64%
Grade 4 Writing
82%
88%
87%
Grade 5 Reading
51%
60%
83%
Grade 5 Math
37%
44%
73%
Grade 5 Science
6%
20%
23%
Grade 6 Reading
60%
58%
59%
Grade 6 Math
28%
36%
44%
District and School Performance
Ratings established using the newly designed state accountability system were first issued in the
fall of 2004. In 2005, many components of the system were the same as those that applied in
2004. However, there were differences between 2004 and 2005 that increased the rigor of the
system, such as a higher student passing standard for TAKS, the inclusion of the new SDAA II
assessment results, an increase in the rigor of the dropout rate Academically Acceptable standard,
and an increase in the rigor of the minimum size criteria for both the dropout and completion rate
indicators.
Other changes to the system in 2005 included the incorporation of alternative education
accountability (AEA) procedures and additional Required Improvement opportunities for the
dropout and completion rate indicators. Although student performance statewide improved from
2003-2004 to 2004-2005, fewer districts and campuses were rated Exemplary and Recognized in
2005, and more were rated Academically Unacceptable because of the increased rigor of the
accountability system.
Of the 1,229 public school districts and charters, 11 (0.9%) were rated Exemplary in 2005, and
172 (14.0%) were rated Recognized. A total of 989 districts or charters (80.5%) achieved the
16
For the 2003, 2004, and 2005 Grade 3 reading, and the 2005 Grade 5 reading and math, passing rates are derived
from the primary administration and the two retest opportunities.
Texas Education Agency
53
Academically Acceptable rating, and 52 (4.2%) were rated Academically Unacceptable. Only
four districts, all charters, were Not Rated: Other in 2005, and one district was Not Rated: Data
Integrity Issues.
Of the 7,908 public school campuses and charter campuses, 304 (3.8%) were rated Exemplary in
2005, and 1,909 (24.1%) were rated Recognized. A total of 4,748 campuses (60.0%) achieved
the Academically Acceptable rating, and 264 (3.3%) were rated Academically Unacceptable
under either standard or AEA procedures. An additional 683 (8.6%) were Not Rated: Other.
Under the AEA procedures, 392 (92.5%) of the campuses were rated AEA: Academically
Acceptable, and 31 (7.3%) were rated AEA: Academically Unacceptable.
GPAs recognize districts and campuses for high performance on indicators that are in addition to
those used to determine state accountability ratings. Districts were eligible for a maximum of 11
possible GPAs and campuses were eligible for a maximum of 13 possible GPAs in 2005.
Approximately 74% of districts and 67% of campuses earned one or more GPAs compared to
69% and 53%, respectively in 2004. Two districts earned all 11 acknowledgments. No campuses
earned all 13, but one campus earned 12, and 2 earned 11.
At the campus level, the most frequent acknowledgment earned was Commended on
Reading/ELA (32.2%), followed by Commended on Writing (29.1%), attendance rate (22.5%),
and Commended on Mathematics (20.9%). At the district level, the most frequent
acknowledgment earned was the Recommended High School Program (RHSP)(42.9%), followed
by Commended on Writing (33.0%), the TAAS/TASP Equivalency indicator (30.1%), and the
attendance rate (29.3%).
Under the NCLB, federal accountability provisions that formerly applied only to school districts
and campuses receiving federal Title I, Part A, funds now apply to all districts and campuses. All
school districts, campuses, and the state are evaluated annually for AYP and receive a
designation of Meets AYP or Missed AYP.
Of the 1,227 districts evaluated in 2004, 955 districts (77.8%) met AYP and 82 districts (6.7%)
did not meet AYP in 2004. In 2005, 131 districts (10.7%) did not meet AYP, an increase of 49
districts from 2004. Of the 7,813 campuses evaluated in 2004, 6,516 campuses (83.4%) met
AYP and 393 campuses (5.0%) missed AYP. In 2005, 816 campuses (10.3%) did not meet AYP,
an increase of 423 campuses from 2004.
Performance Benchmarking Data: National Comparisons
Texas student performance can be benchmarked to national data, based on NAEP, the nation’s
oldest and most highly recognized system for collecting this type of data. Authorized by
Congress and administered by the National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP is the only
ongoing national survey of student performance in various academic areas. Differences in state
performance can be attributed to different populations, different levels of economic support,
different curricula, and different methods of teaching.
Texas Education Agency
54
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. The accompanying data
tables compare proficiency levels of Texas students in reading, mathematics, and science with
students in other states with similar demographics.
Reading
The percentage of Grade 4 students in Texas reading “At or Above Proficient” (29%) does not
differ significantly from the national average (30%). The increase from 27% in 2003 to 29% in
2005 also is not a significant change. An examination of student groups, however, indicates that
a significantly larger percentage of Texas’ Grade 4 Hispanic students scored “At or Above
Proficient” compared to their national peers, and African-American Grade 4 students matched
their national counterparts (see Table 9).
Table 9:
Percent of Students At or Above Proficient Level in Reading,
Grades 4 and 8, NAEP various years 1998-2005
Percentage of Grade 4 Students At or Above Proficient
Level
1998
2002
2003
2005
California
20
21
21
21
Florida
22
27
32
30
New York
29
35
34
33
North Carolina
27
32
33
29
Texas
28
28
27
29
28
30
30
30
National Average
Percentage of Grade 8 Students At or Above Proficient
Level
1998
2002
2003
2005
California
21
20
22
21
Florida
23
29
27
25
New York
32
32
35
33
North Carolina
30
32
29
27
Texas
27
31
26
26
30
31
30
29
National Average
Source: U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) , 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005 Reading Assessment.
Texas Education Agency
55
Table 10:
Percent of Students At or Above Proficient Level in Reading by Race/Ethnicity,
Grades 4 and 8, NAEP 2005
2005
Percentage of Grade 4 Students At or Above Proficient
Level in Reading, by Race/Ethnicity
White
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican
2005
Percentage of Grade 8 Students At or Above Proficient
Level in Reading, by Race/Ethnicity
White
Hispanic
AfricanAmerican
California
37
10
11
California
32
10
11
Florida
39
25
13
Florida
33
21
11
New York
43
17
17
New York
45
16
11
North
Carolina
39
17
13
North
Carolina
35
17
10
Texas
44
19
15
Texas
39
15
14
National
Average
39
15
12
National
Average
37
14
11
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005 Reading Assessments.
The percentage of economically disadvantaged students in Grade 4 in Texas “At or Above
Proficient” in reading matched the percentage of their national peers (see Table 10).
Economically disadvantaged Grade 8 students in Texas reading "At or Above Proficient” also
matched their national counterparts (See Table 11).
Table 11:
Percent of Students At or Above Proficient Level in Reading,
Economically Disadvantaged Students, Grades 4 and 8, NAEP 2003 and 2005
2003
2005
Grade 4
Grade 8
Grade 4
Grade 8
California
10
12
10
10
Florida
18
15
19
17
New York
North Carolina
18
16
18
13
20
14
20
14
Texas
16
12
17
14
National Average
15
15
15
15
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005 Reading Assessments.
Overall, Texas performance results on the 2005 Grade 4 reading tests show improvement from
the previous administration. Over the long term, from 1998 to 2005, significant improvements
have been observed for African-American, Hispanic, and economically disadvantaged students,
Texas Education Agency
56
whose performance historically has lagged. In addition, these same student groups demonstrated
significant increases at the lower end of the test score distribution.17
The Grade 8 NAEP reading performance results show a less positive trend. The percentage of
students in Texas who performed at or above the NAEP proficient level was 26% in both 2003
and 2005. This percentage was significantly smaller than that in 2002 (31%), and was not found
to be significantly different from 1998 (27%). Performance has been essentially flat from 1998
to 2005 at both ends of the score distribution for African-American, Hispanic, and economically
disadvantaged students. An examination of the comparison states and the nation as a whole
indicated that the percentage of Grade 8 students “At or Above Proficient” in Texas was
significantly higher than the percentage in California and matched percentages in Florida and
North Carolina (see Table 9). In terms of student groups, African-Americans reading “At or
Above Proficient” level matched the results for their counterparts in each of the comparison
states and the nation overall. For Hispanic students, only Florida had a significantly higher
percentage of students reading at that level. Texas’ economically disadvantaged Grade 8
students had a significantly higher percentage reading “At or Above Proficient” than their
California peers, and matched results for their counterparts in Florida, North Carolina and the
nation (see Table 10).
These results point to the strategic importance of continuing to focus on reading in Texas
through such programs as the Texas Reading Initiative and the SSI. Notably, the challenges
facing Texas are being experienced in other states as well.
Texas, as well as the nation, must improve in reading proficiency, which is a subject that largely
reflects the success of school, home, and social influences in educating children. Between 1992
and 2005, the percentage of Grade 4 students performing “At or Above Proficient” levels in
reading increased in the nation as a whole, but there was no significant change in the percentage
of Grade 8 students reading at that level. The nation has experienced some success in closing the
gaps between whites and both African-American and Hispanic students at Grade 4 between 2003
and 2005, with all groups showing improvement as well. In Grade 8, however, only the gap
between white and Hispanic students decreased from 2003 to 2005.
Mathematics
On the 2005 NAEP mathematics test for Grade 4 and Grade 8, Texas experienced a significant
increase in the proportion of students testing at or above the proficient level. Of Grade 4
students, 40% tested “At or Above Proficient” (a 7-point increase from 2003), while 31% of
Grade 8 students did, a 6-point increase from 2003 (see Table 12). Hispanic Grade 4 students
demonstrated a gain from 21% to 28%, and the performance of white students increased from
49% to 60%. Each of these gains was statistically significant. Similar significant gains occurred
in Grade 8 math, where African-American students achieving a proficient rating or higher
increased from 8% in 2003 to 13% in 2005, Hispanic students jumped from 14% in 2003 to 19%
in 2005, and white students climbed from 38% to 46%. The gain for Grade 8 students scoring at
17
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1992, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2005 Reading and Mathematics
Assessments.
Texas Education Agency
57
the proficient level or higher increased from 25% to 31%, also a statistically significant
improvement.18
At the lower end of the achievement level distribution for Grade 4 and Grade 8 students,
significant gains were also observed. Nationally and within Texas, there were significantly
fewer percentages of students scoring below basic in math in 2005 compared to 2003.
In two years, the proportion of African-American Grade 4 students reaching the “At or Above
Basic” achievement level in math rose from 54% to 60% nationwide, a significant gain. In
Texas, 75% of African-American Grade 4 students are now at the basic level or higher,
significantly higher than the percentage for their peers nationwide. Results for Texas’ Hispanic
Grade 4 students indicated that the proportion of students reaching the “At or Above Basic”
achievement level increased significantly from 76% in 2003 to 82% in 2005. The 2005
percentage for Texas’ Hispanics is significantly higher than the percentage for their national
counterparts (67%). At Grade 8, a significantly higher percentage of students scored at the basic
level or above. Grade 8 Hispanic students experienced significant gain at this achievement level
as well.19 Thus, in general we are observing a positive shift in the distribution of achievement
level percentages in mathematics. The important challenge for Texas and the nation, given the
increasing educational demands of the changing economy, is to continue this positive trend for
all student groups.
Table 12:
Percent of Grade 4 and Grade 8 Students At or Above the Proficient Level in Math,
Grades 4 and 8, NAEP various years 1996-2005
Percentage of Grade 4 Students At or Above Proficient
Level in Math
1996
2000
2003
2005
California
11
13
25
28
Florida*
15
31
37
New York
20
21
33
36
North Carolina
21
25
41
40
Texas
25
25
33
40
National Average
19
22
31
35
Percentage of Grade 8 Students At or Above Proficient
Level In Math
1996
2000
2003
2005
California
17
17
22
22
Florida
17
23
26
New York
22
24
32
31
North Carolina
20
27
32
32
Texas
21
24
25
31
National Average
22
25
27
28
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), 1996, 2000, 2003, 2005 Mathematics Assessments.
* Florida did not participate in the 2000 NAEP Mathematics Assessment.
18
Ibid.
Perie, M., Grigg, W., and Dion, G. (2005). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2005 (NCES 2006–453). U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
19
Texas Education Agency
58
Table 13:
Percent of Students At or Above Proficient Level in Math by Race/Ethnicity,
Grades 4 and 8, NAEP 2005
2005
Percentage of Grade 4 Students At or Above Proficient Level
in Math by Race/Ethnicity
White
Hispanic
California
46
14
AfricanAmerican
12
Florida
49
28
New York
49
North Carolina
2005
Percentage of Grade 8 Students At or Above Proficient Level in
Math by Race/Ethnicity
White
Hispanic
California
34
9
AfricanAmerican
7
16
Florida
36
16
8
17
13
New York
41
14
11
52
26
17
North Carolina
42
16
12
Texas
60
28
18
Texas
46
19
13
National
Average
47
19
13
National
Average
37
13
8
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP), 2005 Mathematics Assessment.
Table 14:
Percent of Students At or Above Proficient Level in Math,
Economically Disadvantaged, NAEP 2003 and 2005
2003: Percentage of Economically Disadvantaged Students
At or Above Proficient Level in Math
California
Florida
New York
North Carolina
Texas
National Average
Grade 4
Grade 8
11
16
18
21
20
15
9
11
16
14
12
11
2005: Percentage of Economically Disadvantaged Students At
or Above Proficient Level in Math
California
Florida
New York
North Carolina
Texas
National Average
Grade 4
Grade 8
15
22
21
22
26
19
10
13
19
15
17
13
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP), 2003 and 2005 Mathematics Assessments.
Writing
The scores for Texas students who took the 2002 NAEP writing exam were above the national
average for all racial/ethnic groups. Of white Grade 4 students in Texas, 42% reached the
proficient (or above) level on the writing portion of the NAEP, compared to 32% nationally. Of
Texas’ African-American Grade 4 students, 17% wrote at the proficient or higher level,
compared to 14% nationally. Among Hispanic students, 20% of Texans and 17% of students
nationwide achieved the proficiency level (see Table 15).
Texas Education Agency
59
Table 15:
Percent of Students At or Above the Proficient Level in Writing by Race/Ethnicity,
Grade 4, NAEP 2002*
Percentage of Grade 4 Students At or Above Proficient Level in Writing by Race/Ethnicity
White
Hispanic
African-American
California
32
14
14
Florida
39
30
20
New York
47
23
21
North Carolina
40
20
20
Texas
42
20
17
National Average
32
17
14
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), 2002 Writing Assessment.
* 2002 is the most current year for which Texas participated in the writing assessment.
Science
Results for Grade 4 and Grade 8 NAEP science assessments for 2000 and 2005 are shown in
Table 16. Overall, for Grade 4 students in Texas, the percentage of students scoring at the
proficient level or higher was not significantly different from the percentage nationwide in either
year. For Grade 8 students overall, Texas’ students scored significantly lower than the national
percentage in both 2003 and 2005. An examination of 2005 results for Grade 4 student groups
indicated that white and Hispanic students experienced significantly higher percentages of “At or
Above Proficient” performance levels compared to their national peers. Percentages for AfricanAmerican students in Texas and nationwide did not differ significantly. At Grade 8, Hispanic
students in Texas had a significantly higher percentage achieving at the proficient level or higher
relative to their national counterparts in 2005. African-American and white students matched
their national peers (see Table 17).
Texas Education Agency
60
Table 16:
Percent of Students At or Above Proficient Level in Science,
Grades 4 and 8, NAEP 2000 and 2005
Percentage of Grade 4 Students At or Above Proficient
Level in Science
2000, 2005
2000
2005
California
Percentage of Grade 8 Students At or Above
Proficient Level in Science
2000, 2005
2000
2005
13
17
California
-
26
Florida
New York**
24
-
North Carolina
23
Texas
National Average
Florida*
14
18
-
21
New York
28
-
25
North Carolina
25
22
23
25
Texas
23
23
26
27
National Average
29
27
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), 2000 and 2005 Science Assessments.
*Florida did not participate in the 2000 NAEP Science Assessment.
**New York did not participate in the 2005 NAEP Science Assessment.
Table 17:
Percent of Students At or Above Proficient Level in Science by Race/Ethnicity,
Grades 4 and 8, NAEP 2005
Percentage of Grade 4 Students At or Above Proficient
Level by Race/Ethnicity in 2005
California
Florida
New York*
North Carolina
Texas
National Average
White
Hispanic
33
38
36
44
38
6
17
12
14
10
AfricanAmerican
6
7
7
8
7
Percentage of Grade 8 Students At or Above Proficient Level by
Race/Ethnicity in 2005
California
Florida
New York
North Carolina
Texas
National Average
White
Hispanic
32
32
31
38
38
7
14
13
11
10
AfricanAmerican
6
6
6
8
7
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP), 2005 Science Assessment.
* New York did not participate in the 2005 NAEP Science Assessment.
Texas Education Agency
61
AGENCY GOALS AND KEY STRATEGIC INITIATIVES
TEA is committed to its role in meeting the challenges of Texas’ changing demography and the
needs of an evolving global economy. The agency continues to focus on continuous
improvement in executing policy, achieving results and meeting the expectations of our
customers. TEA remains committed to working with public and private leadership to meet the
challenges faced by the needs of our dynamic state. To address the needs of the rapidly changing
student population and to promote success for an increasingly demanding economy, the Texas
public education system must face the following four key challenges:
1. Prepare students for a postsecondary success.
A postsecondary degree is extremely important for students to succeed and prosper in our
global economy. A high school diploma, while a commendable achievement of higher
academic standards, is not enough to compete in today’s workforce. Raising the
expectations and expanding the possibilities for Texas students requires that Texas
schoolchildren are prepared for success in their early years to meet the increasing
challenges and changes that they will face in high school and beyond.
2. Provide all Texas students with an education to prepare them for the global economy.
The global economy has increased the demand for higher education and underscored the
need for achievement and excellence in science and mathematics. The standards-based
reform movement has been effective in raising student achievement across all student
population groups though the cycle of curriculum standards, assessments, accountability,
and performance management and evaluation. Moreover, innovative programs and varied
paths are necessary to promote achievement in these areas.
3. Address the unique needs of Texas’ diverse student population.
The demographic composition of the state and student population is changing such that
demographic groups that are traditionally least represented in educational attainment (i.e.,
Hispanic, LEP, and economically disadvantaged students) comprise increasingly larger
proportions of the total student population. Demographers predict that these demographic
changes will continue for some time. TEA must meet the unique needs of these groups,
promoting not only high school completion, but the preparedness, desire and opportunity
for postsecondary success.
4. Recruit and retain qualified teachers.
Success in the first three challenges depends on the recruitment and retention of highly
qualified teachers to prepare Texas’ schoolchildren for the future. TEA must ensure that the
school children of Texas have quality certified educators who can provide a safe learning
environment.
Texas Education Agency
62
Goal 1: Education System Leadership
TEA will provide leadership to create a public education system that continuously improves
student performance and supports public schools as the first choice of parents, grandparents,
and families. The agency will fully satisfy its customers and stakeholders by providing
resources, challenging academic standards, high-quality data, and timely and clear reports on
results.
The first goal utilizes the agency’s customer-focus to provide leadership for the public education
system so that schools and students can succeed to the highest expectations possible. TEA’s role
as education leader is to engage in and support dialogue among multiple and diverse partners,
customers, and stakeholders to create a shared sense of direction and confidence of achievement.
The agency provides leadership in addressing multiple mandates, demands, and requirements
from federal and local levels to create a coherent and integrated public education system.
The following sections describe key agency strategic activities and initiatives related to this goal.
Their linkage to specific challenges and priorities determined in the internal and external
assessment are highlighted where appropriate. These strategies primarily fall under Objective 1.2
in the budget structure, Student Success and Achievement. Objective 1.1, Public Education
Excellence, which provides schools with the funding, resources and guidance needed to enable
students to achieve their full academic potential, is implicit in all agency strategies.
High School
Texas High School Project
Strategy 1.2.1 Student Success
Strategy 1.2.2 Achievement of Students at Risk
The Texas High School Project (THSP) is a $261 million public-private initiative committed to
increasing graduation and college enrollment rates in every Texas community. The project is
dedicated to ensuring that all Texas students leave high school prepared for college and career
success in the 21st century economy.
Partners in the initiative include TEA, the Office of the Governor, the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation, the Michael & Susan Dell Foundation, the Wallace Foundation, educators, and
others. The philanthropic investments are managed primarily by Communities Foundation of
Texas and the public resources by TEA. The resources dedicated to the THSP support new and
re-designed high schools, educator training and development, and specific programs designed to
help students get ready for college. The approach used by the THSP creates learning
environments where students build relationships with educators, are challenged with rigorous
lessons, and are excited by subjects made relevant to their lives.
The THSP builds upon a series of related advances over the past decade in Texas to improve the
quality of high school programs and to support an increasing percentage of students completing
these programs. This series of initiatives includes the expanded scope and rigor of high school
Texas Education Agency
63
testing under the new TAKS assessment system, the promotion of the Recommended High
School Program (RHSP) as the default program for high school students, and the enhanced focus
on high school completion and academic excellence in the accountability system.
To achieve its mission, the THSP seeks to create systemic and sustainable change to support high
school improvement. The THSP has concentrated much of its focus on the following priorities:



Creating new models for high schools with high academic expectations that will encourage
close relationships between administrators, faculty, and students.
Helping administrators and teachers become more effective through leadership innovations
and professional development.
Implementing programs for students that increase academic opportunity and reward student
achievement.
The 78th Texas Legislature passed Rider 67 to provide $29 million in General Revenue and $1
million in federal funds in each fiscal year to support the establishment and implementation of
comprehensive high school completion and success initiatives under the THSP. Rider 59 passed
by the 79th Texas Legislature provided another $29 million in additional General Revenue per
fiscal year for TEA-funded programs under the project. Through this state funding and other
federal funding dedicated to the project, TEA has focused on activities that meet the needs of
students, such as





Redesigning existing low-performing high schools and creating and supporting innovative
new schools;
Awarding grants to help schools develop tutoring, online acceleration programs, credit
recovery programs, counseling, and other interventions for students at risk of dropping out
of school;
Expanding access to dual credit/AP/IB programs;
Supporting the expansion and creation of early and middle college high schools in
partnerships with community colleges and four-year colleges and universities; and
Establishing a Texas Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Initiative (T-STEM),
including the following:
 Creation of 35 T-STEM Academies, which will annually produce 3,500 graduates
from diverse backgrounds. Academies will provide students with opportunities for
both dual credit and internship opportunities. Academies will require four years of
math and four years of science.
 Formation of 5-6 T-STEM Centers across the state that will support the
transformation of teaching methods and instruction, linking classroom activities with
industry and higher education expectations and needs.
 Establishment of a statewide best practices network for science, technology,
engineering, and math education to promote broad dissemination and adoption of
promising practices.
These strategies for improving student achievement in Texas high schools and for building links
between secondary and higher education are supported by the work of the P-16 Council and the
Office of P-16 Coordination. The P-16 Council, which consists of the executive leadership of the
Texas Education Agency
64
TEA, the THECB, Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, and the TWC,
coordinates TEA and THECB plans and instructional programs. The Office of P-16
Coordination was established within TEA in September of 2004 to provide policy guidance and
staff to support statewide P-16 activities. To that end, the Office coordinates educational policy
efforts between Pre-K-12 public education and higher education entities as well as develops and
strengthens relationships between the public education, higher education, civic and business
communities. Most recently, a subcommittee consisting of staff from the TEA and the THECB
has formed to address and make legislative policy recommendations on issues of collegereadiness, college placement, and college persistence.
Recognizing that the effort necessary to ensure all students in Texas are ready for success in the
21st century will require a consistent and committed partnership among local and state higher
education and public education leaders, schools, and communities. The strategies supported by
the THSP combined with a broad-ranging P-16 strategy, facilitated by the P-16 Council and
Office of P-16 Coordination, offer a framework and a starting place for substantive change.
Technology Applications
Technology Applications curriculum requirements are specified in TEC Section 28.002 with
specific requirements for Elementary, Middle, and High School in 19 TAC Chapter 74,
Subchapter A. This curriculum focuses on the teaching, learning, and integration of digital
technology skills across the curriculum. Digital technology literacy standards are specified
through TEKS for Grades K-12 in 19 TAC Chapter 126. These standards are to be integrated
throughout the curriculum in Grades K-8 and expanded through specialized, focused courses in
Grades 9-12.
Meeting the technology literacy benchmarks for acquiring and integrating the Technology
Applications TEKS across the curriculum is critical to achieving the curriculum goals for Texas
students and meeting the requirements of NCLB, Title II, Part D – Enhancing Education through
Technology program.
State programs promote the effective use of technology to utilize the data systems that measure
AYP, increase student achievement in math, science and language arts with supplemental and
online courseware, and provide access to quality content for rural students and teachers. Distance
learning resources are utilized by districts to meet the curriculum requirements in TEC Section
74.13, Distinguished Achievement Program – Advanced High School Program. Many districts
do not offer these curriculum courses because of a lack of certified teachers and a smaller student
population who wish to complete an advanced high school program. Texas is moving forward
with the Electronic Course Pilot as specified in TEC 29.909 to gather data to develop
recommendations related to electronic courses. Five districts in Texas have been selected to
participate. To assess the quality of online resources, the Investigating Quality of Online Courses
pilot project gathers data to develop recommendations to evaluate and support high-quality
online learning.
Texas Education Agency
65
Early Childhood Education
Strategy 1.2.1 Student Success
Strategy 1.2.2 Achievement of Students at Risk
Strategy 1.2.5 Adult and Family Literacy
Research confirms the value of early education for young children. Prekindergarten programs
that support effective teaching practices have been shown to lead to important growth in
children’s intellectual and social development, which is critical to their future academic success.
Quality programs that provide challenging but achievable curriculum engage children in
thinking, reasoning, and communicating with others. With teacher direction and guidance,
children respond to the challenge and acquire important school readiness skills and concepts. The
education of young children will be enhanced through their participation in programs based on
sound early childhood research, theory, and practice.
As the public education system assumes greater responsibility for helping students and families
have a successful early start, TEA has provided more active leadership in the area of early
childhood education by ensuring that all Texas children are school-ready by the time they begin
Kindergarten.
Early Childhood School Readiness
The 79th Texas Legislature continued the purpose of the Texas Head Start-Ready to Read
Program, and changed the name to the Early Childhood School Readiness Program. The Early
Childhood School Readiness Program, with $7.5 million appropriated in FY 2006 and $7.5
million in FY 2007, provides an educational component to public Prekindergarten, Head Start,
university early childhood programs, or private nonprofit early childhood care programs that
have entered into an integrated program with a public school. These funds are distributed on a
competitive grant basis to preschool programs serving at least 75% low-income students. The
program provides scientific, research-based, pre-reading instruction, with the goal of directly
improving the pre-reading skills of three- and four-year-old children and identifying costeffective models for pre-reading interventions.
The school readiness program uses objective measures to determine whether children are ready
for school when they enter Kindergarten, with respect to competence in early literacy, early
math, and social/emotional development. Participation is voluntary and children are evaluated on
a whole child model to determine the effectiveness of the early education provider by which they
were educated prior to entering Kindergarten. The rating would not replace the National
Association for the Education of Young Children standards, Texas Licensing regulations, or the
Texas Rising Star program, but would provide a “seal of approval” and be equally available for
all early childhood programs.
In 2003, the 78th Texas Legislature passed SB 76 requiring certain state agencies to coordinate
early childhood services, Head Start, and after-school child-care programs and streamline
funding, registration, and enrollment. As a result of SB 76, Governor Perry designated the Center
for Improving the Readiness of Children for Learning and Education at the University of Texas
Health Science Center at Houston as the State Center for Early Childhood Development
Texas Education Agency
66
(SCECD) and required the organization to monitor the implementation of the initiative. In
September 2004, the SCECD issued a report that assessed the current status of early child-care
and education programs; outlined pilot programs designed to enhance cost-sharing, coordination,
and cooperation between state agencies providing early child-care and education programs; and
made recommendations regarding standards governing partnerships, school readiness,
streamlined funding, and uses for proposed rating systems. In 2005, the 79th Legislature passed
SB 23, further expanding the resource coordination capabilities of school districts, local
governments, and other community organizations with respect to early childhood programs and
clarified program oversight, the authority of respective participating programs, enrollment
procedures, and program criteria. It also directed the SCECD, in conjunction with the P-16
Council, to move forward with the development of a school readiness certification system.
As a response to the legislation, the Texas Early Education Model (TEEM) was instituted in
eleven communities. The model is designed to improve resource coordination efforts by
streamlining Title I Pre-K, Head Start, and childcare resources, increase program access by
limiting program waiting lists, and incorporate children’s social and emotional development with
its focus on school readiness. Findings from the intervention in which research-based curriculum,
professional development with mentoring, and progress monitoring for children was delivered to
half the TEEM classrooms showed substantial and often significant growth for the children in a
two- to three- month period in many areas of early literacy and language for both English- and
Spanish-speaking children. Certified teachers, space, and professional development were shared
to serve more children in cost-effective ways. In 2004, the model expanded to four new
communities, and in 2005-2007, 20 community organizations will receive grants to implement
the TEEM model. These additional sites will increase participation from 250 classrooms in 2003
to 1,000 classrooms in 2006.
The SCECD’s task force also began the exploration of a Texas School Readiness System that
would improve transition from early childhood programs to Kindergarten. The school readiness
system was developed with a focus on outcomes used to determine whether children enter
Kindergarten with the needed cognitive foundational skills in early literacy, early math, and
social skills. The system has a focus on accountability and integration. The Texas School
Readiness System would be used to serve more children in cost-effective ways and provide
parents with tools to make decisions. The State Center also developed and implemented parent
activities, workshops, newsletters, and teacher-led feedback for parents to use activities at home
to support school readiness.
The 78th Texas Legislature appropriated $7.5 million in 2004 and $7.5 million in 2005 for the
Texas Head Start – Ready to Read Programs to provide an educational component to Head Start,
or other similar government-funded early childhood care and education programs. The grant
operates with the following provisions:

Funds shall be distributed on a competitive grant basis to preschool programs to provide
scientific, research-based, pre-reading instruction, with the goal of directly improving the
pre-reading skills of three- and four-year-old children and identifying cost-effective models
for pre-reading interventions.
Texas Education Agency
67

To be eligible for the grants, applicants must serve at least 75% low-income children, as
determined by the commissioner. Grants may be awarded in two or more consecutive grant
periods to a Head Start applicant provided the monies are used to expand the grant
programs to additional facilities not previously receiving Texas Head Start – Ready to Read
grant funds in the immediate past grant cycle.
The commissioner shall ensure the administration of the Texas Head Start – Ready to Read
grant program is a preschool extension of the Texas Reading Initiative.

An application in response to the Request for Application (RFA) presents a comprehensive plan,
based on the Prekindergarten Curriculum Guidelines, especially in regard to Language and Early
Literacy Acquisition. The focus must be on educational components that will enable a child to:





Develop phonemic, print, and numeracy awareness;
Use language and communicate for a variety of purposes;
Understand and use increasingly complex and varied vocabulary;
Develop and demonstrate an appreciation of books; and
Progress toward mastery of the English language, if the child’s primary language is a
language other than English.
Prekindergarten Expansion Grant Program
The 76th Texas Legislature expanded the TEC to include new Section 29.155, Kindergarten and
Prekindergarten Grants. This section of state law established a Prekindergarten and Kindergarten
grant program for the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 school years. The 77th Texas Legislature
continued funding for the 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 school years. The 78th Texas Legislature
appropriated $92.5 million for the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 school years. The 79th Texas
Legislature continued appropriations for 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 at the same funding level as
the previous biennium ($92.5 million).
The Prekindergarten Expansion Grant program is designed to allow school districts and openenrollment charter schools to apply to TEA for grants to: (1) continue funding existing full-day
Prekindergarten programs, and (2) establish new Prekindergarten programs at campuses that
previously did not operate such programs.
Beginning with the 2006-2007 school year, the application for the Prekindergarten Expansion
Grant will include a new requirement. A School Readiness Integration Plan will be required of
all grant recipients. Plans will highlight cost-effective ways to develop an integrated approach
that brings together school districts, child-care providers, and Head Start programs in a cohesive
service model that will dramatically improve early reading, math, and social development.
During April and May 2006, agency staff provided school readiness integration information
sessions throughout the state to prospective continuation grantees. During these sessions,
participants began to develop an integrated school readiness model among public school district
Prekindergarten programs, Head Start programs, and nonprofit or for-profit child-care centers
serving the student population eligible for public Prekindergarten services.
Texas Education Agency
68
Out of any state or federal funds available to the agency for this purpose, the commissioner may
set aside an amount not to exceed $3 million to implement a competitive procurement system to
award two-year contracts to government organizations, public nonprofit agencies, or communitybased organizations to implement multi-age programs serving three-, four-, and five-year olds
that assure that English language learning children receive appropriate activities to enter school
prepared to succeed. The pilot programs must provide many opportunities for the acquisition of
English, while supporting the child's first language, including social services, appropriate
training and modeling, and research-based curricula and supplies to enhance the development of
both languages. Instruction must be in both languages so that children can learn concepts in the
language they understand while developing their English skills. Programs must include bilingual
education specialists and continued professional education to support the teachers. Priority shall
be given to entities that serve a high percentage of LEP children. A portion of the funds received
by entities participating in this pilot shall be used to perform an evaluation and review of student
performance and improvement.
The Texas Prekindergarten LEP Pilot program was launched in the spring of 2006. The pilot
program must provide many opportunities for the acquisition of English, while supporting the
child’s first language including social services, appropriate training and modeling, and research –
based curricula and supplies to enhance the development of both languages. Instruction must be
in both languages so children can learn concepts in the language they understand while
developing their English skills. Programs must include bilingual education specialists and
continued professional education to support the teachers. Seven (7) pilot program grantees were
awarded $ 1,346,668.00 for the March 15, 2006 – August 31, 2006 grant period and will be
awarded an additional $ 1,346,668.00 for the continuation grant period of September 1, 2006 –
August 31, 2007.
Limited English Proficient Programs
Strategy 1.2.1 Student Success
Strategy 1.2.2 Achievement of Students at Risk
Limited English Proficient – Student Success Initiative
Approximately 711,386 of the state’s 4.5 million public school students exhibit limited
proficiency in English. There are 101 different languages spoken in the homes of these children,
although Spanish is the dominant language of this group. According to results of the 2003
TAKS, the passing rate on all tests taken for students with limited proficiency in English ranged
from 51% in Grade 4 to 12% in Grade 10.
SB 1108, passed by the 78th Texas Legislature, included an amendment that created the Limited
English Proficient – Student Success Initiative (LEP-SSI), which aims at improving the
education for ELL students in Texas. The purpose of the LEP-SSI grant is to provide intensive
programs of instruction for students with limited proficiency in English; and to provide training
materials and other resources to assist teachers in developing the expertise required to enable
LEP students to meet both state performance standards and local graduation requirements.
In 2003, TEA announced the creation of a $10 million state program designed to improve the
schooling of LEP students. To address the needs of the growing LEP population, the $10 million
Texas Education Agency
69
grant program will:




Identify programs and practices that are achieving strong academic results with LEP
students, so that these research-based instructional strategies can be successfully
replicated in other schools;
Develop effective training for teachers of LEP students to provide them with instructional
methods that will work well with this growing population of students;
Link teachers with research-based materials that produce strong academic results for LEP
students; and
Create additional educational support systems, such as newcomer centers, for newly
immigrated LEP students.
Rider 74, Article III, 79th Legislature and TEC, Section 39.024(d)-(e), authorized expenditures
for implementation of intensive programs of instruction for LEP students and for teacher training
resources designed to support intensive, individualized, and accelerated instructional programs
for LEP students.
The goals of the LEP -SSI grant are to:





Increase academic achievement of LEP students as demonstrated through improved
TAKS scores;
Achieve growth in English reading proficiency as measured by RPTE scores;
Increase promotions to the next grade;
Increase rates of credit accrual for secondary students; and
Increase the number of teachers prepared to enable LEP students to meet state
performance expectations, as demonstrated in the number/percentage of teachers
participating in training programs focused on competencies specific to the instruction of
LEP students and a reduction in the number/percentage of teachers of LEP students
teaching under a Bilingual exception or ESL waiver.
The LEP-SSI grant program targets LEP students who have not achieved the “Met Standard”
performance level on all tests of the TAKS; those in Grades 7-12 who are at risk of not
advancing to the next grade level; those who have recently immigrated; and those that have been
in the United States for five years or more and are in “Beginner” status based on their RPTE
score.
The LEP-SSI grant program requires grantees to collaborate with the Institute for Second
Language Achievement (ISLA) at Texas A&M University Corpus Christi. ISLA will offer grant
recipients priority access to professional development resources pertaining to the instruction of
LEP students and program design.
ISLA provides LEP-SSI grantees technical assistance and support prior to the project start date
and throughout the project period. Prior to submitting the grant application, applicants are
required to conduct a comprehensive needs assessment for their district LEP students and design
an implementation plan based on this needs assessment. The implementation plan must meet the
Texas Education Agency
70
requirements of the RFA.
LEP-SSI grant activities must include intensive programs of instruction that provide,
commensurate to student needs and to the extent practicable, individualized and accelerated
instruction, sheltered content area instruction, and, at elementary grade levels, primary language
instruction as well as English in all content areas where Bilingual programs are required.
In addition, each applicant, in collaboration with technical assistance providers from ISLA, must
identify one or more strategies/activities that will be implemented in the project design that will
promote the success of the targeted student population and achieve the goals of the grant
program.
Texas State University System Mathematics for English Language Learners
(TSUS MELL) Project
TEA is partnering with the Texas State University System in the Mathematics for English
Language Learners (TSUS MELL) project (www.tsusmell.org). Project objectives include
conducting research on best practice methods for teaching math to ELL students, creating
professional development for current and preservice teachers, and developing practical tools that
educators can use with ELL students in the classroom. Specific activities include:








Developing research foundations for best practices in math ELL instruction;
Developing math ELL instructional strategy guides for teachers;
Creating Training of Trainers (TOT)-level professional development materials and
workshops for teachers;
Collaborating with TEA math professional development projects to infuse materials into
those trainings;
Collaborating with teacher preservice programs to infuse materials into their curricula;
Hosting math ELL conferences and workshops for educators and preservice programs;
Facilitating a Critical Campuses Partnership to provide intensive training to secondary
schools that have substantial numbers of LEP students failing math TAKS; and
Offering online graduate courses to educators wanting to become more proficient in
teaching math to ELL students.
Student Success Initiative
Strategy 1.2.1 Student Success
High school success starts early. Improving high school completion and fostering a desire for
postsecondary education require instilling values for academic achievement in children early on
and adequately preparing students in the elementary and middle school grades. The SSI, through
the Texas Reading Initiative, the Texas Math Initiative, and recent efforts to improve student
readiness in science, originated during the 76th Legislature in 1999 and was expanded by the 77th
and 78th Legislatures. One component of the SSI mandates grade advancement requirements. As
specified by these requirements, a student may advance to the next grade level only by meeting
the passing standard of these tests or if the student’s Grade Placement Committee (GPC)
Texas Education Agency
71
determines unanimously that the student is likely to perform at the next grade level with
accelerated instruction.
Implementation of the SSI grade advancement requirements are phased in as follows:
1) Beginning in the school year 2002-2003, and continuing thereafter, for the Grade 3
TAKS Reading test;
2) Beginning in the school year 2004-2005, and continuing thereafter, for the Grade 5
TAKS Mathematics tests; and
3) Beginning in the school year 2007-2008, and continuing thereafter, for the Grade 8
TAKS Reading and Grade 8 TAKS Mathematics tests.
As an overall system of support for student academic achievement, SSI builds upon and extends
the work of the Texas Reading and Math Initiatives by ensuring that students perform on grade
level. These initiatives create a strong foundation for high school completion and success. The
SSI model is a comprehensive set of services for students that includes:

Informal and formal assessment of student needs at preceding grades and corresponding
early intervention activities that address those needs;

Research-based instructional programs;

Targeted accelerated instruction informed by multiple testing opportunities;

A GPC that decides, on an individual student basis, the most effective way to support a
student’s academic achievement; and

Accelerated instruction for the following year.
Table 18 provides detailed performance results for the Grades 3 and 5 TAKS Reading and the
Grade 5 TAKS Mathematics tests. The student performance highlights section provides results
of change over time in the percentage of students who met the standard on the TAKS.
Texas Education Agency
72
Table 18:
Grades 3 and 5 TAKS Reading and Grade 5 Mathematics Tests, 2004-2005 School Year
Cumulative Student Performance Results After All Three Administrations of the Tests
Grade 3 Reading Results
English Version
Number
Percent Met
Tested
Standard
Spanish Version
Number
Percent Met
Tested
Standard
All Students
272,389
95%
27,620
89%
Male
135,457
94%
13,822
86%
Female
136,791
96%
13,788
91%
Native-American
992
97%
8
75%
Asian-American
9,713
98%
9
100%
African-American
39,681
92%
35
74%
Hispanic
111,625
93%
27,480
89%
White
110,103
98%
62
92%
Economically Disadvantaged
Yes
144,735
93%
26,236
88%
127,171
98%
1,324
90%
Title I, Part A Participants
187,724
94%
26,803
89%
Nonparticipants
84,265
98%
766
90%
Migrant Participants
4,286
89%
1,250
85%
267,620
42,292
95%
26,305
89%
91%
27,099
89%
Non-LEP (Monitored 1st Year)
5,730
99%
28
96%
Non-LEP (Monitored 2nd Year)
2,226
98%
8
100%
Other Non-LEP
221,633
96%
455
87%
Bilingual Participants
19,378
91%
27,015
89%
Nonparticipants
252,580
96%
570
86%
ESL Participants
17,996
90%
133
78%
Nonparticipants
253,975
96%
27,420
89%
Special Education Participants
14,080
91%
809
70%
Nonparticipants
257,895
95%
26,753
89%
Gifted/Talented Participants
23,530
100%
1,157
100%
Nonparticipants
248,440
95%
26,406
88%
At-Risk Participants
108,672
91%
26,991
89%
Nonparticipants
163,281
98%
581
90%
No
Nonparticipants
Limited English Proficient Participants
Texas Education Agency
73
Grade 5 Reading Results
English Version
Number
Percent Met
Tested
Standard
Spanish Version
Number
Percent Met
Tested
Standard
All Students
278,546
90%
7,999
83%
Male
138,111
90%
3,829
79%
Female
140,280
90%
4,148
86%
Native-American
892
93%
6
83%
Asian-American
9,086
97%
2
---
African-American
38,859
84%
3
---
Hispanic
119,027
86%
7,950
83%
White
110,431
96%
7
86%
Economically Disadvantaged
Yes
148,136
85%
7,545
83%
129,951
96%
407
84%
Title I, Part A Participants
189,826
87%
7,684
83%
Nonparticipants
88,353
96%
275
84%
Migrant Participants
4,549
80%
558
79%
Nonparticipants
273,589
90%
7,401
83%
Limited English Proficient Participants
24,376
67%
7,855
83%
Non-LEP (Monitored 1st Year)
9,515
92%
21
81%
Non-LEP (Monitored 2nd Year)
15,904
91%
5
80%
Other Non-LEP
228,295
92%
74
74%
Bilingual Participants
13,751
68%
7,743
83%
Nonparticipants
264,402
91%
212
76%
ESL Participants
8,980
64%
141
74%
Nonparticipants
269,176
91%
7,809
83%
Special Education Participants
11,790
80%
163
69%
Nonparticipants
266,375
90%
7,798
83%
Gifted/Talented Participants
33,054
99%
152
97%
Nonparticipants
245,112
89%
7,807
83%
At-Risk Participants
88,060
75%
7,820
83%
Nonparticipants
190,098
97%
146
82%
No
Texas Education Agency
74
Grade 5 Math Results
English Version
Number
Percent Met
Tested
Standard
Spanish Version
Number
Percent Met
Tested
Standard
All Students
281,805
92%
6,892
73%
Male
140,637
92%
3,325
72%
Female
141,017
91%
3,555
74%
Native-American
913
93%
6
50%
Asian-American
9,174
98%
2
---
African-American
38,992
83%
2
---
Hispanic
121,479
89%
6,852
73%
White
110,994
96%
8
63%
Economically Disadvantaged
Yes
150,577
87%
6,498
73%
130,734
96%
359
72%
Title I, Part A Participants
192,533
89%
6,599
73%
Nonparticipants
88,878
96%
260
70%
85%
480
70%
276,681
26,233
92%
6,376
73%
79%
6,769
73%
Non-LEP (Monitored 1st Year)
9,649
94%
24
79%
Non-LEP (Monitored 2nd Year)
16,289
94%
3
---
Other Non-LEP
229,164
93%
60
75%
Bilingual Participants
15,196
81%
6,676
73%
Nonparticipants
266,196
92%
185
57%
ESL Participants
9,398
76%
124
52%
Nonparticipants
272,006
92%
6,732
73%
Special Education Participants
14,143
84%
141
65%
Nonparticipants
267,270
92%
6,723
73%
Gifted/Talented Participants
33,106
100%
140
98%
Nonparticipants
248,294
90%
6,723
72%
At-Risk Participants
90,628
80%
6,739
73%
Nonparticipants
190,752
97%
127
68%
No
Migrant Participants
Nonparticipants
Limited English Proficient Participants
Texas Education Agency
4,686
75
The 79th Texas Legislature stipulated in Rider 48 the following funding for SSI: $158,005,369 in
FY 2006 and $158,005,369 in FY 2007. The vast majority of the SSI funding is allocated to the
Accelerated Reading Instruction/Accelerated Math Instruction (ARI/AMI) program. The
commissioner shall expend these funds for allocation to schools for the purpose of
implementation of scientific, research-based programs for students who have been identified as
unlikely to achieve the TAKS reading standard by the end of Grade 3, including those students
with dyslexia and related disorders, students unlikely to achieve the TAKS reading or math
standards by the end of Grade 5, and/or students unlikely to achieve TAKS reading or math
standards in the Grade 8 assessments administered in 2008.
The commissioner has set aside $15 million for intensive reading instruction programs for
schools that have failed to improve student performance in reading and $5 million for intensive
math instruction programs for schools that have failed to improve student performance in math.
As Table 19 indicates, during the 2004-2005 school year, the ARI/AMI program served nearly
450,000 struggling readers and over 360,000 students who were identified as struggling in math.
Table 19:
Total Number of Students Served by the ARI/AMI Program, 1999-2005
Grades Served
School Year
Number of Students Served
ARI
AMI
K
1999-2000
75,340
-
K-1
2000-2001
203,907
-
K-2
2001-2002
304,657
-
K-3
2002-2003
327,668
-
K-4
2003-2004
388,619
273,810
K-5
2004-2005
448,382
361,511
Total
1,748,573
635,321
Source: ARI/AMI Final Evaluation Reports, Texas Education Agency, 2004-2005.
As Table 20 reflects, 555,722 students in Grades K-5 were identified as struggling readers during
2004-2005 and 448,382 of these students (approximately 81%) received accelerated reading
instruction services through the ARI program.
Texas Education Agency
76
Table 20:
Number of Students Identified as Struggling in Reading and Served by the ARI Program,
2004-2005 School Year
Grade
K
1
2
3
4
5
Total
Number of Students
Identified for ARI Program
76,340
107,773
103,337
104,418
75,862
87,992
555,722
Number of Students Served
by ARI Program
58,951
82,101
80,213
88,709
62,399
76,009
448,382
Percent of Identified
Students Served
77.2%
76.2%
77.6%
85.0%
82.3%
86.4%
80.7%
Source: Consolidated Reading Initiative Report, Texas Education Agency, 2004-2005.
Table 21 shows how students who were identified as struggling in reading and/or math at the
beginning of the year fared in these subject areas by the end of the school year. Overall for ARI
students in Grades K-5, almost two-thirds (63%) who were provided accelerated instruction with
ARI funds were reading on grade level by the end of the year. Compared to ARI students, a
slightly larger proportion of AMI students who were provided accelerated instruction in math
were on level by the end of the year. For all AMI students in Grades K-5, 68% who were
provided with accelerated math instruction were on grade level by the end of the school year.
Table 21:
Percent of ARI/AMI Students on Grade Level at the End of the Year,
2004-2005 School Year
Number of Students Served by
ARI
Number of ARI Students Reading
on Grade Level at the End of
Year
Percent of ARI Students Served
Reading on Grade Level by End
of Year
Number of Students Served by
AMI
Number of AMI Students on
Grade Level in Math by End of
Year
Percent of AMI Students Served
on Grade Level in Math by End of
Year
Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Total
58,951
82,101
80,213
88,709
62,399
76,009
448,382
37,285
46,753
45,481
63,855
39,492
47,638
280,504
63.2%
56.9%
56.7%
72.0%
63.3%
62.7%
62.6%
48,808
40,390
45,728
75,057
72,607
78,921
361,511
35,578
26,028
29,360
51,629
48,114
54,173
244,882
72.9%
64.4%
64.2%
68.8%
66.3%
68.6%
67.7%
Source: Consolidated Reading Initiative Report, Texas Education Agency, 2004-2005.
Texas Education Agency
77
In another study related to the SSI (as required by Article III, Rider 45 of the General
Appropriations Act, passed by the 78th Legislature), TEA commissioned a comprehensive
evaluation of the effectiveness of the Teacher Reading Academies (TRAs) and Teacher Math
Academies (TMAs) funded through the SSI. Key findings from that study, conducted by the
Gibson Consulting Group, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, and other research
partners include the following:
Teacher Reading Academies
 Based on statistical analysis, expert reviews, on-site observations and survey results, the
TRAs were consistently effective. The more teachers who were trained at schools, the more
positive the impact on reading test scores.
 Campuses that had higher concentrations of TRA-trained teachers experienced lower
teacher turnover rates.
 National experts on reading and professional development also commended the program
for its instructional content and training methodology, and offered suggestions to make a
good program better.
 The TRA was cost effective, as the total cost-per-participant was significantly lower than
national benchmarks.
Teacher Mathematics Academies
 The statistical analysis showed a positive relationships between TMA teacher training and
higher test scores in some instances (Grades 6 and 7), but showed mixed results in others
(Grade 5).
 Most teachers and administrators ranked the quality of the program high, but less than 40%
of teachers acknowledged that it improved student performance.
 On-site observations indicated that there was limited evidence of the use of many
instructional strategies taught in the academies, such as differentiating instruction for
groups of students, and that most were more appropriate for newer teachers than
experienced teachers.
 National experts on math and professional development gave the program high marks, but
offered more substantive changes to the content of the math training. Like the TRA, the
TMA was shown to be highly cost effective.
Math and Science Initiatives
Strategy 1.2.1 Student Success
The Math and Science Initiatives are targeted to respond directly to the second key challenge
noted above, in which the increasing competitive demands of the global economy are placing a
greater premium on a world-class education, especially in mathematics and science. The focus
on math is also reflected in the SSI requirements of reading and math in Grades 5 and 8, and in
the State priority goal for public education: “To ensure that all students in the public education
system are at grade level in reading and math by the end of third grade and continue reading and
developing math skills at appropriate grade level through graduation.”
Texas Education Agency
78
Enacted by the 77th Texas Legislature in 2001, the Math Initiative, similar to the Reading
Initiative, creates professional development that trains teachers to instruct students with
successful 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. The Math Initiative offers assistance to educators, ranging from the
provision of diagnostic instructional tools to developing research-based professional
development materials.
The Math Initiative also supports research, including:




Examining the success of high-performing schools;
Studying effective teaching methods;
Evaluating student performance; and
Examining changes in teacher instructional practices following professional development
opportunities.
SB 1 (2005), Rider 43, provided funds for the Texas Reading, Math and Science Initiatives. The
fund amounts are: $9 million in General Revenue Funds in FY 2006 and $9 million in General
Revenue Funds in FY 2007, with $14.6 million in federal funds in FY 2006 and $14.6 million in
federal funds in FY 2007.
Another math strategy is the MATHCOUNTS program, funded by Rider 28, with $200,000 for
each year of the biennium.
Specific research and professional development activities related to the mathematics
achievement are being carried out by the Texas State University System, Texas A&M
University-Tarleton, Texas A&M University – Commerce, and The University of Texas at
Austin.
The Science Initiative is based on research of national studies of effective instructive practices in
science, Grades K-12. Over the period covered by this strategic plan, policymakers, program
leaders, and educators will continue to provide resources to strengthen science education with
initiatives focusing on teachers, materials, content, and scientific, research-based intervention
models for struggling students. In addition, the TAKS testing program includes science as one of
the subjects tested in Grades 5, 8, 10, and 11.
Rider 18 provides funds for the Engineering and Science Recruitment Fund, another strategy in
support of science. HB 411, passed by the 78th Legislature in 2003, “Master Science Teachers
and Intensive After-School/Summer School Science Instruction,” requires TEA to analyze
student achievement data from school districts receiving funding for after-school/summer school
programs.
Rider 59, Texas High School Initiative, of SB 1 (General Appropriations Act), passed by the 79th
Legislature in 2005 authorizes the use of $29 million in General Revenue Funds in each fiscal
Texas Education Agency
79
year to support the establishment and implementation of sustainable comprehensive high school
completion and success that encourage students toward postsecondary education and training.
The THSP, a statewide public-private initiative committed to increasing graduation and college
enrollment rates in Texas, launched the T-STEM Initiative in 2006. The numbers of Texas
students who graduate with degrees in math and science are low and are significantly lower
among minority and economically disadvantaged students. The T-STEM Initiative promotes
education strategies that integrate the teaching of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics in a way that challenges students to innovate and invent in an environment that
models real world contexts for learning and work. Students participating in T-STEM education
graduate prepared to pursue postsecondary level coursework and careers in science, technology,
engineering, and math.
The state will be challenged by the shortage of certified science teachers in the public education
system and by the addition of a fourth year of science to the Recommended High School
Graduation Plan. Specific research related to science achievement is being carried out by Texas
A&M University at College Station. Professional development activities related to middle school
science, T-STEM, and high school science subjects are being conducted by the University of
Texas at Austin.
Special Education
Strategy 1.2.3 Students with Disabilities
The special education functions of the agency are aligned under the Deputy Associate
Commissioner for Special Programs, Monitoring, and Interventions. This alignment brings
together the functions of special education programs, special education complaints resolution,
and services for the deaf in the Division of IDEA Coordination. The Special Education
Monitoring Unit of the Division of Program Monitoring and Interventions is charged with
establishing systems of monitoring that align both federal requirements for state supervision and
state parameters for monitoring. Having both of these divisions under the leadership of the
Deputy Associate Commissioner allows the agency to target and integrate efforts to improve
programs and results for students with disabilities.
Division of IDEA Coordination
The IDEA Act of 2004, signed on December 3, 2004, requires each state to develop a six-year
performance plan. This State Performance Plan (SPP) evaluates the state’s efforts to implement
the requirements and purposes of IDEA and illustrates how the state will continuously improve
upon this implementation.
In alignment with IDEA, OSEP has identified five monitoring priorities and twenty indicators to
be included in the SPP. For each of the indicators, the state must report progress on measurable
and rigorous targets and improvement activities over a six-year period of time in the SPP. These
indicators are performance or compliance in nature. The indicator targets are determined by three
methods: federal compliance standards, state agency performance measures as found in Article
III of the State Appropriations Act, and the Texas Steering Committee.
Texas Education Agency
80
The Division of IDEA Coordination works closely with the 20 ESCs to provide districts with
technical assistance, support, and training targeted to improving results for students with
disabilities. Priority areas of improvement include access to the general education curriculum,
positive behavioral supports, evaluation, overrepresentation/disproportionality, low incidence
disabilities, parent involvement, and recruitment/retention of highly qualified personnel.
Additionally, the Division provides policy guidance to the state, administers program funds to
districts, and manages the state’s complaint resolution process.
Special Education Monitoring
Monitoring activities have been redesigned to focus on a data-driven and performance-based
system that is coordinated and aligned to focus on student results and program effectiveness.
Special education monitoring is a part of the new PBM system which encourages continuous
improvement in alignment with the state’s accountability system while ensuring compliance with
federal and state requirements. (Other features of the PBM system are described later in this
document.)
2003-2004 was a transition year for agency monitoring, and a pilot year of PBM monitoring
occurred in 2004-2005. In 2005-2006, the system is being implemented, while evolving as
needed in response to external changes. The PBM system will continue to benefit from public
input, and standard-setting plans and system validation activities will continue to be reflected as
enhanced features of the system.
The purpose of the Special Education Monitoring Unit of the Division of Program Monitoring
and Interventions is to develop and implement integrated program review processes for special
education programs statewide. These reviews serve to promote program effectiveness and ensure
that state supervision and oversight requirements for special education programs are met as
required by state and federal law. Coordination and alignment of state supervision systems are
primary activities of the special education component of PBM system. Because state and federal
law contain significant supervision and oversight requirements that require close coordination
among special education policy, program, and monitoring functions, the Division of Program
Monitoring and Interventions implements integrated program review processes to include district
self-evaluation, on-site review, and the use of data to identify performance and effectiveness
concerns. These performance data include information on such things as student participation in
and performance on state assessments, least restrictive environments, student dropout/completion
rates, disciplinary actions, over identification, and disproportionate representation, as well as
determinations of concern generated through the complaints, mediation and due process systems
and other systems of gathering district data. A goal of the special education component of PBM
is to ensure that all systems of state supervision feed information to one another to allow for
integrated, coordinated systems of agency response and promote true, continuous program
improvement activities for districts.
Texas Education Agency
81
School Improvement and Support Programs
Strategy 1.2.4 School Improvement and Support Programs
TEA provides a broad range of school improvement and support programs for the school
community that increases the potential for student success. These programs support Pre-K-12
learning and development by connecting students, teachers, and parents with a variety of
community resources.
21st Century Community Learning Centers
The 21st CCLC program is authorized under Title IV, Part B, of NCLB. The purpose of the
program is to create or expand the role of community learning centers in providing academic
enrichment opportunities in both foundation and enrichment related to the TEKS, in addition to
other valuable services and activities (e.g., drug and violence prevention, character education,
technology, art, music, recreation) that are intended to complement the students’ regular
academic program during non-school hours (e.g., after school, weekends, and summer). In FY
2006 TEA funded 144 grantees from four different cycles of these 5-year grants totaling over
$84 million.
Investment Capital Fund
The primary purpose of the Investment Capital Fund (ICF) grant program is to help eligible
public schools implement professional development that will incorporate practices and
procedures consistent with deregulation and school restructuring to improve student
achievement. The ICF program is also designed to help schools identify and train parents and
community leaders who will hold the school and the district accountable for achieving high
academic standards. The ICF grants are relatively small in nature (i.e., maximum of $50,000 per
campus). A total of 93 campuses were funded for Cycle 13, which covers the June 1, 2004 to
August 31, 2005 period, 95 campuses were funded for Cycle 14 which covers the April 2, 2005
to August 31, 2006 period, and 94 campuses were funded for Cycle 15 which covers the August
1, 2006 to August 31, 2007 period.
Optional Extended Year Program
The purpose of the Optional Extended Year Program (OEYP) is to assist students academically,
Kindergarten through Grade 12, who are not likely to be promoted to the next grade level,
through three components: extended day, extended week, and extended year. The eligible
districts are determined by the percent of economically disadvantaged students within each
school district. Each identified eligible applicant must submit an application indicating that the
district wishes to participate in the program. Data pertinent to statistical information about
participating campuses, students served and promoted is reported yearly through PEIMS and
annual progress/evaluation reports to TEA.
Communities In Schools
Communities In Schools (CIS) is an exemplary dropout prevention program administered by the
TEA, and authorized under Chapter 33, Subchapter E of the TEC. The mission of CIS is to help
young people of Texas stay in school, successfully learn and prepare for life by coordinating the
Texas Education Agency
82
connection of needed community resources in the school setting. CIS of Texas is a year-round,
school-based social service delivery system, which uses a multidisciplinary case management
approach to serve students. Rider 29, HB 1 (2005) appropriates funding for the operation of CIS
services. The funding allocation for CIS is directed by 19 TAC Chapter 89, Subchapter EE of the
Commissioner’s Rules. CIS currently has 26 501(C)(3) nonprofit boards that operate in 27 areas
of the state.
There are a number of riders that provide for school improvement and support. Under Rider 28,
HB 1 (2003), $12,788,865 is set aside for the CIS program in each fiscal year to be transferred
by interagency transfer voucher to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services for
the CIS program. Over 4.8 million in additional federal TANF funds are also used to fund the
Texas CIS program.
Life Skills Program for Student Parents
Under Rider 61, HB 1 (2005), out of FSP funds appropriated in Strategy 1.2.4, School
Improvement and Support Programs, $10 million in each fiscal year of the biennium is allocated
for the Life Skills Program for Student Parents, TEC Section 29.085. TEA distributes funds for
this program directly to eligible school districts. Any balances as of August 31, 2006 are
appropriated to the 2007 fiscal year for the same purpose.
The Life Skills Program for Student Parents provides integrated programs of educational and
support services to reduce school dropouts, increase high school graduation rates, and enhance
parenting skills for students who are pregnant or parents and at risk of dropping out of school.
The program includes individual counseling, peer counseling, and self-help programs; career
counseling and job-readiness training; child-care for the students’ children on the campus or at a
child-care facility in close proximity to the campus; transportation for children of students to and
from the campus or child-care facility; transportation for students, as appropriate, to and from the
campus or child-care facility; instruction related to knowledge and skills in child development,
parenting, and home and family living; and assistance to students in the program in obtaining
available services from government agencies or community service organizations, including
prenatal and postnatal health and nutrition programs.
Pregnancy Related Services
The Pregnancy Related Services (PRS) program provides students who are pregnant and at risk
of dropping out of school with counseling services; health services; transportation for the
students and students’ child(ren); instruction related to parenting knowledge and skills, including
child development, home and family living, and appropriate job readiness training; child-care for
the student’s child(ren); and case management and service coordination. In addition, the PRS
program provides home instruction to students who are unable to attend school during the
prenatal and postpartum recovery periods of pregnancy.
United States Senate Youth Program
The United States Senate Youth Program was established in 1962 by United States Senate
Resolution 324. The program is funded by the William Randolph Hearst Foundation and
annually provides two student leaders from each state, with outstanding leadership abilities and a
Texas Education Agency
83
strong commitment to volunteer service, the opportunity for a week in Washington experiencing
their national government in action. Delegates hear major policy addresses by senators, cabinet
members, officials for the Departments of State and Defense and directors of federal agencies, as
well as participate in a meeting with a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Each delegate is
awarded a $5,000 College Scholarship for undergraduate studies. The student delegates selected
rank academically in the top 1% of their state and continue to excel and develop impressive
qualities that are often directed toward public service after high school graduation.
General Educational Development
General Educational Development (GED) tests are designed to provide an opportunity for people
who have not received a high school level educational diploma to obtain a credential that
documents high school-level academic skills. The GED test consists of five tests, one each in
mathematics, science, social studies, writing skills, and interpreting literature and the arts.
The GED Unit’s mission is to build capacity for consistent testing services throughout the state
in order that all eligible candidates have an opportunity to earn a high school equivalency
credential. This credential assists in employment opportunities, military service and continuing
academic achievement in institutions of higher learning.
The GED Unit has three goals:
 To ensure the credibility and acceptance of Texas certificates of high school equivalency
by maintaining the integrity of the state testing program;
 To provide leadership that encourages testing centers to make equitable testing services
available in local communities; and
 To issue certificates and maintain records in a timely, accurate, and efficient manner.
The GED Unit acts as liaison between TEA and the GED Testing Service of the American
Council on Education. It provides leadership and staff development to over 200 testing centers
in the state, issues equivalency certificates to qualified candidates, and maintains records of
testing activities.
Rider 43, HB 1 (2003) funds the School Improvement and Parental Involvement Initiative. It
authorizes the commissioner to allocate $850,000 in each year of the 2004-2005 biennium to the
AVANCE family support and education program. School counselors have many duties and
responsibilities related to designing and implementing a comprehensive school program. The
Texas Legislature passed SB 158 and SB 518 pertaining to the work of the school counselor. SB
158 requires each counselor at an elementary, middle or junior high school, including openenrollment charter schools offering these grades to advise students and their parents or guardians
regarding the importance of higher education, which includes coursework designed to prepare
students for higher education, financial aid availability and other requirements.
SB 518 amends TEC Section 33.001, 33.005-33.006 and requires all school counselors to
assume responsibilities for working with school faculty and staff, students, parents, and the
community to plan, implement, and evaluate a developmental guidance and counseling program.
Texas Education Agency
84
SB 1470 and Section 41 of HB 2319, passed by the Texas Legislature, provides a High School
Equivalency Program (HSEP) that permits districts to continue offering GED test preparation
programs for students in Texas. This program provides an alternative for high school students
age 16 and over who are at risk of not graduating from high school under normal circumstances
and earning a high school diploma. The purpose of the HSEP is to prepare eligible students to
take the High School Equivalency Examination. School districts as well as open-enrollment
charter schools may apply for authorization to operate a HSEP in Texas.
Although this program is offered by the state of Texas, TEA recognizes that this program does
not provide the same social experiences and learning opportunities as a four year high school
program and strongly endorses the principle that all students stay in school and earn their
diplomas.
Driver Education and Traffic Safety Program
The Driver Education and Traffic Safety Program provides the foundation of knowledge,
understanding, skills, and experiences necessary for the novice driver and parent, guardian, or
adult mentor to launch and continue the lifelong learning process of legal and responsible
reduced-risk driving practices in the Highway Transportation System. Teachers instruct students
in this program through a combination of classroom and in-car (actual or simulated) instruction
techniques that include modeling, knowledge assessment, skill assessment, guided observation,
and parental/mentor involvement. The program includes traffic laws, driver preparation, vehicle
movements, driver readiness, risk reduction, environmental factors, distractions, alcohol and
other drugs, adverse conditions, vehicle requirements, consumer responsibilities, and driver
responsibilities.
Achievement of Students at Risk
Strategy 1.2.2 Achievement of Students at Risk
A constant theme in this strategic plan is the planning for current and future change in the
demographic composition of Texas’ students. With the growth of the Hispanic population, Texas
not only faces the challenge that many of these children will have limited proficiency in English,
but also the challenge that this demographic group is also underrepresented in terms of high
school achievement and postsecondary preparation. Growth is also faster in major urban areas
that serve at-risk populations. These schoolchildren must not be left behind. TEA’s activities and
initiatives such as THSP, LEP, Early Childhood SSI (ARI/AMI), and as well as School
Improvements and Support Services all serve at-risk students.
Adult Education and Family Literacy
Strategy 1.2.5 Adult Education & Family Literacy
Adult Education and Family Literacy initiatives serve the following functions:

Provide leadership for the implementation of adult and community education policy;
Texas Education Agency
85





Promote workplace literacy and transition to postsecondary or training for adult education
students;
Provide program development and support, staff development, instructional improvement,
technical assistance, data collection and management information system, content standard
development, and quality monitoring and evaluation of programs;
Coordinate programs for basic and secondary education, English literacy, civics, welfare
recipients, workplace literacy, citizenship training, homeless adults, institutionalized and
criminal offenders, and family literacy;
Promote adult literacy training to bolster welfare reform, provide assistance in instructional
and fiscal operations, support for GED testing centers; and
Implement state leadership projects for program improvement and teacher training/staff
development, curriculum development, distance education, guidance on adults with
learning disabilities, financial literacy, industry-specific curriculum, a workforce literacy
resource center, a quality management information system, a clearinghouse, and assistance
in the implementation of effective practices for adult learners.
Adult education programs provide out-of-school youth and adults with opportunities to acquire
basic academic skills, life survival skills, and a secondary school equivalency credential
necessary for employment or postsecondary education. TEA’s responsibilities for adult
education link the agency to crucial workforce planning activities developed and managed by
TWIC.
Special initiatives for family literacy focus on parents and children by providing training for
undereducated parents in parenting skills, intergenerational activities, and early childhood.
Programs such as those established for families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF), help single parents or unemployed adults to achieve independence from
welfare through education and become effective first teachers for their children.
The following represent key adult education and family literacy programs:




The Adult Education and Family Literacy Programs (Title II of the Workforce Investment
Act): The adult education program in Texas provides literacy, English language proficiency
for LEP adults, basic academic and functional context skills, and secondary level
proficiencies for out-of-school youth and adults who are beyond the age of compulsory
school attendance and who function at less than a secondary completion level.
Adult Education of TANF Recipients: Provides adult education instruction to recipients of
TANF. Recipient of TANF benefits are required to participate in adult basic education and
job training programs as a condition for eligibility. The overall aim is to reduce the number
of long-term welfare recipients.
English Literacy and Civics Education:
Provides instruction on the rights and
responsibilities of citizenship, naturalization procedures, civic participation, and U.S.
history and government so that these recipients can acquire the skills and knowledge to
become active and informed parents, workers, and community members.
Corrections Education and Other Institutionalized Individuals: The adult program in
Texas provides literacy, English language proficiency for LEP adults, basic academic and
functional context skills, and secondary level proficiencies for those incarcerated in a
Texas Education Agency
86
correctional facility and other institutionalized adults who function at less than a secondary
completion level.
TEA has implemented state-level joint planning and coordination between Adult Education and
Even Start since 1990. In fact, most adult education programs in Texas have a direct
collaborative relationship with the Even Start family literacy project(s) in their geographic area.
In addition, Workforce Investment Act Title II Section 223 State Leadership funds provide
extensive support for family literacy projects. A family literacy resource center was funded in
2004 by USDOE, Title 1-B.
Adult Education and Family Literacy provides information and updates to the Texas Work
Explorer system. The data entered and maintained in the system will provide information,
technical assistance, and guidance to students and local Adult Education/Family Literacy
providers in the education of adults 16 years old or older.
Texas LEARNS
Texas LEARNS, a program run by the State Office of Adult Education and Family Literacy and
housed at the Harris County Department of Education under an agreement with the TEA,
administers the adult education program in Texas. Texas LEARNS provides operational
functions including nondiscretionary grant management, technical program assistance, and
statewide support services. The agreement maximizes the resources available to support the
functions of the Texas Adult Education and Family Literacy Program. The TEA Division of
Discretionary Grants is responsible for discretionary and monitoring functions. The educational
mission continues to ensure that all Texas adults have the skills necessary to function effectively
in the workplace, in the community, and in their personal and family lives.
Adult education is provided in Texas by a cooperative of grantees that compete for state and
federal funds. Texas LEARNS maintains a current directory of all local Adult Education and
Family Literacy Providers in Texas adult education.
Employers as well as current and future workers can locate contact information for current
providers in each community by searching the online Directory of Providers on the Texas Center
for Adult Literacy and Learning (TCALL) website.
Professionals in the Texas Adult Education Community are provided Professional Development
through The Project GREAT Adult Education and Family Literacy Regional Centers of
Excellence. Calendars of training opportunities for Texas Adult Educators are posted on the
TCALL website.
TEA/Texas LEARNS provides links to the Texas Workforce Development System (TWDS) to
promote success for its customers - employers, current workers and future workers of Texas.
During the development of TWDS, TEA/Texas LEARNS will be diligent to provide the links
making TWDS a convenient and ready access to relevant and comprehensive adult education
information.
Texas Education Agency
87
Goal 2: Operational Excellence
The TEA will create a system of accountability for student performance that is supported by
challenging assessments, high-quality data, supportive school environments, highly qualified
teachers, and high standards of student, campus, district, and agency performance.
The second goal of the agency, Operational Excellence, focuses on stakeholders. Individual and
institutional accountability are the driving forces of standards-based reform. Texas is nationallyrecognized among states in developing and implementing a state system of accountability,
designed to support and recognize achievement and growth by students, schools, districts, and
the public education system. The Texas accountability system has played a large role in the
decade of academic achievement gains by Texas students.
Accountability has many other values and meanings that are of strategic importance in the public
education system. It serves as a broad umbrella that subsumes various subsystems and functions
that the agency directs for monitoring and accountability purposes in the public education system
(e.g., PBM, Special Education, NCLB, LEP students). This larger concept is more closely tied to
agency functions and enables the development of meaningful and measurable strategies and
strategic action plans for these important subsystems.
Operational Excellence includes the following:







Driving continuous improvement in student achievement and school and public education
system performance through integration of curriculum, accountability, and assessment;
Supporting effective school environments that ensure students and schools have the
instructional materials, educational technology, and safety they need to succeed;
Supporting and exemplifying individual and operational excellence, in which
accountability functions to drive individuals, organizations, and systems to excellence
through continuous improvement;
Supporting public education with highly qualified teachers and high performing employees,
which is closely tied to the above support for operational excellence and high-performance
systems, since these promote the recruitment, retention, and advancement of highperforming teachers and employees;
Providing resources and guidance to schools for compliance with federal and state
requirements;
Providing research and evaluations, including longitudinal studies, to assist schools, the
agency, stakeholders, and the public education system as a whole with the objective data
they need for informed decision-making; and
Ensuring the integrity of PEIMS.
Strategies for achieving the goal of creating a system of Operational Excellence include the
following programs:
 Accountability and Assessment as Interdependent, Mutually-Reinforcing System;
 State Accountability System;
Texas Education Agency
88






Assessment System;
Effective School Environments;
Develop and Support Highly Qualified Teachers;
Transformation of Grants and Formula Funding Administration: eGrants and Consolidated
Entitlement Management System (CEMS);
Performance-Based Monitoring; and
Strategic Planning and Performance-Management System.
Accountability and Assessment as Interdependent, Mutually-Reinforcing System
Strategy 2.1.1 Assessment and Accountability System
The central role of accountability works in concert with assessment to create an interdependent,
mutually reinforcing system that drives performance improvement for individuals, schools,
districts, programs, and the education system as a whole. The emphasis on the state assessment
results in the accountability ratings system illustrates the interdependence of the two systems.
The State Accountability Indicators include:








TAKS Reading/ ELA;
TAKS Writing;
TAKS Mathematics;
TAKS Social Studies;
TAKS Science;
SDAA II;
Completion Rate (Grades 9-12); and
Annual Dropout Rate (Grades 7-8).
Another dimension of this complex, interdependent system is its interaction with the new federal
accountability system under NCLB. Federal law requires every state to implement “high-quality
annual student academic assessment that includes, at a minimum, academic assessments in
mathematics, reading/language arts, and science that will be used as the primary means of
determining the yearly performance of the state and of each LEA and school.” All public school
districts, campuses, and the state are evaluated annually for AYP. The Texas AYP Plan approved
by the USDE meets the requirements in NCLB, maintains the integrity of the Texas assessment
program, and provides a mechanism for evaluating district and campus AYP. School districts,
campuses, and the state are required to meet AYP criteria on three measures:



Reading/Language Arts;
Mathematics; and
Either Graduation Rate (for high schools and districts) or Attendance Rate (for elementary
and middle/junior high schools).
State Accountability System
Strategy 2.1.1 Assessment and Accountability System
Texas Education Agency
89
The commissioner of education sets the standards for each accountability rating category within
parameters specified in statute. Beginning with the accountability system established in 1994,
accountability standards were designed to phase in increasingly higher expectations for districts
and campuses. Between 1995 and 2001, expectations for acceptable performance were raised
every year. In 2002, the system was made more rigorous by increasing the TAAS passing rate
standards at the Academically Acceptable/Acceptable level for reading, mathematics, and writing
performance; evaluating Grade 8 TAAS social studies results for all rating levels; and requiring
lower dropout rates to earn the Recognized and Academically Acceptable/Acceptable ratings.
The state accountability system integrates:





The statewide curriculum;
The state criterion-referenced assessment system;
District and campus accountability;
District and campus recognition for high performance and significant increases in
performance; sanctions for poor performance; and
School, district, and state-level reports.
During the 2002-2003 school year, Texas developed a new state accountability system in order
to incorporate the results from the new TAKS assessments and to include the results for students
receiving special education services on the SDAA. The overall design of the new accountability
rating system is an improvement model. For each measure used in the ratings evaluation,
campuses and districts can meet the standard for Academically Acceptable or Recognized by
meeting either an absolute performance standard or an improvement standard. These
improvement criteria allow a gate out of Academically Unacceptable and are incorporated
without increasing the number of indicators and measures in the system. Higher absolute
performance standards can be established without penalizing large numbers of campuses and
districts that realistically cannot be expected to reach these standards for several years, especially
given the increase in the number of indicators and measures in the system. Conversely, lower
performing campuses and districts are rewarded for making gains. Since gains are required on
each measure for which the absolute standard is not met, no subject or student group is
neglected. Evaluation of student group performance, considered a strength of the former state
accountability system, is maintained.
The accountability system is a progressive model in which the standards rise over time to support
schools during the transition period with challenging but attainable goals. For example, the
TAKS standard for all subjects for a Recognized campus and district rating is set at:



70% passing standard for each subject in 2004 through 2006;
75% passing standard for each subject in 2007 and 2008; and
80% passing standard for each subject in 2009 (where it is expected to remain).
The standard for Academically Acceptable was set at the following levels for the initial ratings
released in 2004 under the new state accountability system:
 Reading/ELA, Writing, Social Studies: 50%;
 Mathematics: 35%; and
Texas Education Agency
90

Science: 25%.
With the increased rigor of the student passing standards to the Panel Recommended standards
for Grades 3-10 and to 1 SEM for Grade 11, the 2005 accountability standards remained
constant. In 2006, the Academically Acceptable standards increase by 10 percentage points for
reading/ELA, writing, and social studies; by 5 percentage points to 40% for mathematics; and by
5 percentage points to 35% for science.
For 2007, the Academically Acceptable standards increase by 5 percentage points for all subjects
— to 65% for reading/ELA, writing, and social studies; to 45% for mathematics; and to 40% for
science. In 2008, the Academically Acceptable standards increase by 5 percentage points for
mathematics and science. In 2009, the Academically Acceptable standards increase by 5
percentage points for all subjects. In 2010, the Academically Acceptable standards increase by 5
percentage points for mathematics and science.
Reflective of accountability and assessment working together to support, not penalize, schools,
campuses and districts not meeting the absolute standard for any TAKS subject (all students or
any student group) or SDAA II (all students) can meet the accountability criteria for that measure
by demonstrating Required Improvement.
In line with the strategic focus on high school completion and a P-16 vision, state statute requires
Texas to adopt the NCES dropout definition for 2005-2006 leavers. Students leaving school to
enter an alternative program to work toward a high school diploma or GED certificate are
dropouts under the NCES definition. Additionally, the GPAs, which promote and recognize
completion of advanced courses, dual enrollment courses, college admission test results (e.g.,
SAT/ACT), and AP/IB results, strengthen system-wide focus on high school completion and
success.
Assessment System
Strategy 2.1.1 Assessment and Accountability
The quality of an assessment system can be measured by how well it aligns with the curriculum
and good classroom instruction. The history of assessment in Texas traces a significant and
continuous increase in its rigor. A statewide curriculum was first implemented in 1985. The
SBOE updated the statewide curriculum in 1997. The TEKS, the updated state-mandated
curriculum, was implemented in 1998. To measure this new curriculum and increase the scope
and depth of the assessment system, the 76th Texas Legislature enacted a new assessment
program to be implemented by the 2002-2003 school year. This assessment program, the TAKS,
includes more of the TEKS than the previous assessment (TAAS) did, and asks questions in
more authentic ways to reflect good classroom instruction and minimize “drilling to the test.”
The Texas assessment system, including TAKS, Texas English Language Proficiency
Assessment System (TELPAS) for LEP students, and the alternative assessments for certain
students receiving special education services, is the leading testing system in the country due to
its focus on quality and its very close collaboration with its primary customers, schools. Current
Texas teachers are involved extensively in the development of every test before it is ever given
Texas Education Agency
91
to a student. Chapter 39, Subchapter B of the TEC mandates the assessment of student
achievement with criterion-referenced, knowledge- and skills-based tests.
The TAKS program currently measures students’ performance in the state-mandated curriculum,
the TEKS. The exit-level TAKS Mathematics section must include at least algebra I and
geometry; ELA must include at least English III and writing; social studies must include early
American and U.S. history; and science must include at least biology, integrated chemistry, and
physics. The assessment instruments must be designed to assess a student’s mastery of the
minimum skills necessary for high school graduation and readiness to enroll in an institution of
higher education. In addition to the exit level tests in mathematics, ELA, science, and social
studies at Grade 11, TAKS measures mathematics at Grades 3 through 8 without the aid of
technology and at Grades 9 and 10 with the aid of technology; reading at Grades 3 through 9;
writing, including spelling and grammar, at Grades 4 and 7; ELA, including writing, at Grade 10;
social studies at Grades 8 and 10; and science at Grades 5, 8 and 10.
The SDAA II measures the academic progress of students receiving special education services
for whom TAKS, even with allowable accommodations, is not an appropriate measure of
academic progress. These students are receiving instruction in the TEKS on or near grade level
or in instructional levels K through 9 in reading, K through 10 in mathematics, K through 9 in
writing, and 10 ELA. SDAA II is administered to students enrolled in Grades 3 through 9
reading; Grades 3 through 10 mathematics; Grades 4 and 7 writing; and Grade 10 ELA.
TELPAS includes the RPTE, which currently measure language proficiency in English for LEP
students in Grades 3 through 12 and Texas Observation Protocols (TOP), which measure English
language proficiency in reading, writing, listening, and speaking in Grades K through 2 and
writing, listening, and speaking in Grades 3 through 12.
In November 2002, the SBOE adopted a TAKS passing standard transition plan, following an
intensive standard-setting process involving state policymakers and other stakeholders, testing
experts, teachers and administrators, university curriculum experts, and the public. This
transition plan included a phase in of standards over three years beginning at two standard errors
of measurement (2 SEM) below the final panel-recommended passing standard. In the 20022003 school year, the passing standard for the tests in Grades 3 through exit level were set at 2
SEM below the panel-recommended standards. The passing requirements were raised to 1 SEM
for the Grades 3-10 tests for the 2003-2004 school year, while the standards for the exit-level
tests remained at 2 SEM. Students in Grades 3-10 were required to meet the panel-recommended
passing standards beginning in the 2004-2005 school year. The exit level passing standards were
increased to 1 SEM in that school year. Beginning in the 2005-2006 school year, exit level
students were required to achieve the panel-recommended standard. The exit-level standard that
was in place at the time the student entered Grade 10 is the standard that will be maintained
throughout the student’s high school career.
The 2001 NCLB Act requires that science be assessed in each of the following grade spans: 3-5,
6-9, and 10-12 by the 2007-2008 school year. At the state level, SB 1108 and HB 411, passed by
the 78th Texas Legislature in 2003, mandated the development of a Grade 8 science assessment
to be administered to students no later than the 2006-2007 school year. Grade 8 science is
scheduled to be included in the state accountability system in the 2007-2008 school year. In
Texas Education Agency
92
October 2005, the SBOE adopted a TAKS passing standard transition plan for the new Grade 8
science assessment. In the 2005-2006 school year, students were required to meet a 2 SEM
passing standard. In the 2006-2007 school year, students will be required to meet a 1 SEM
passing standard on the Grade 8 science test, and in the following school year, students will be
required to meet the panel-recommended passing standard.
In December 2005, the governor issued an executive order requiring the development of new
end-of-course assessments in the subjects currently tested by the exit-level TAKS as part of his
college readiness initiative. An end-of-course assessment in Algebra I is already in place. New
assessments are being developed in geometry, biology, chemistry, physics, and U.S. history.
Under the current schedule, the geometry and biology tests will be field-tested in the spring of
2007 and implemented in the spring of 2008. Physics, chemistry, and U.S. history items are
scheduled to be field-tested in the spring of 2008 and implemented in the spring of 2009.
Federal requirements of the IDEA and NCLB acts require the development of new alternative
assessments for students receiving special education services for whom TAKS is not appropriate.
TAKS-Inclusive (TAKS-I) assessments were developed to meet the IDEA requirement that
students with disabilities be included in all state assessment. TAKS-I was implemented in the
spring of 2006 in the grades and subjects not assessed by SDAA II: Grades 5, 8, 10, and exit
level science; Grades 8, 10, and exit level social studies; and exit level mathematics and ELA.
These assessments are the same as the TAKS tests with some formatting changes and expanded
accommodations and are administered to students working on or near grade level. Beginning in
the 2007-2008 school year, TAKS-I assessments will be expanded to also include reading,
mathematics, and writing in the grades in which TAKS tests are administered.
The TAKS-Alternate (TAKS-Alt) alternative assessment program will be implemented in spring
2008 and will assess students with the most significant cognitive disabilities in Grades 3 through
9 reading; Grades 3 through 10 and exit level mathematics; Grades 4 and 7 writing; Grades 5, 8,
10, and exit level science; Grades 8, 10, and exit level social studies; and Grades 10 and exit
level ELA. This population of students is currently assessed through locally determined alternate
assessments.
TAKS-Modified (TAKS-M) is an alternative assessment currently being developed for students
receiving special education who do not meet the participation requirements for TAKS-Alt and
for whom TAKS or TAKS-I is not appropriate. The details of this assessment will be determined
once the final federal regulations regarding the assessment of this population of students have
been issued by the USDE.
NCLB also requires the assessment of LEP students in their acquisition of the English language
in four domains: reading, writing, listening, and speaking. These requirements resulted in the
development of the TOP, which measures LEP students’ acquisition of the English language in
listening, speaking, and writing in Grades 3 through 12 and reading, writing, listening, and
speaking in Grades K through 2. The RPTE currently assesses reading proficiency in English in
Grades 3 through 12. RPTE II, which will replace RPTE I in spring 2008, will expand the
academic contexts in which English language proficiency in reading is measured, assessing to a
greater degree than RPTE I the kind of reading students encounter in science and mathematics
courses. RPTE II is also being expanded to include Grade 2. This shift in the test design will
Texas Education Agency
93
ensure that the language proficiency levels reported more fully address the academic language
proficiency required for reading in core content areas. In addition, the AYP requirements of
NCLB required two changes in the RPTE program that were implemented in spring 2005. RPTE
now includes an additional rating of advanced high (previously the ratings were beginning,
intermediate, and advanced) and LEP students are required to continue to take RTPE annually
until they are no longer classified as LEP. Previously when a student achieved the highest rating,
the student was no longer required to take RPTE.
In addition, NCLB requires that all LEP students in Grades 3 through 8 and 10, including recent
immigrants who may be exempted from statewide assessments by their language proficiency
assessment committees as allowed under the TEC, be assessed in mathematics. Linguistically
accommodated tests (LAT) in mathematics were developed in Grades 3 through 8 and 10 to
comply with these requirements. LAT simplification guides were developed and provided for
test administrators to use with students who receive this linguistic accommodation. These secure
guides delineate ways to appropriately simplify the language used on the LAT tests.
Table 22 depicts the assessments currently required by state or federal statute or regulations.
This table does not include the new TAKS-M and TAKS-Alt assessments currently being
developed or the new end-of-course assessments currently under development.
Texas Education Agency
94
Table 22:
State and Federally Required Assessments by Grade and Subject 2005-2006
End-ofEnglish TAKSa
Grade
SDAA IId/TAKS-Ij
Spanish TAKS
TELPASe
K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
i
10
b
11
12
Coursek
g
TOP
TOP
TOP
Math
Math
Math
Math
Math
Math
Math
Math
Math
Math-LATh
Math-LAT
Math-LAT
Math-LAT
Math-LAT
Math-LAT
Math-LAT
Reading
Reading Writing
Reading
Reading
Reading Writing
Reading
Reading
c
ELA
ELA
Science
Math
Math
Math
Math
Science Social Studies
Reading
RPTEf
Reading Writing
RPTE
Reading
Science
RPTE
Reading
RPTE
Reading Writing
RPTE
Reading
Science Social Studies RPTE
Reading
RPTE
ELA
Social Studies RPTE
Math
ELA
Science Social Studies RPTE
RPTE
Reading
Math
Reading Writing
Math
Reading
Science Math
Reading
Math
Math
Math
Math
Science Social Studies
Science Social Studies
TOP
TOP
TOP
TOP
TOP
TOP
TOP Algebra I
TOP
TOP
TOP
a
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills.
b
Exit Level.
c
English Language Arts includes reading, which is required both federally and by the state and writing, which is only required by the state.
d
State-Developed Alternative Assessment II.
e
Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System.
f
Reading Proficiency Test in English.
g
Texas Observation Protocols.
h
Linguistically Accommodated Testing is federally required for state-exempted limited English proficient students.
i
NCLB requires the assessment of reading and math in at least one high school grade.
j
TAKS-Inclusive is required by the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
k
The agency is required to develop and administer an Algebra I end-of-course test, but the test is voluntary for districts.
State Required Only
Federally Required Only
State and Federally Required
Effective School Environments
Strategy 2.2.1 Educational Technology
Strategy 2.2.2 Safe Schools
The expanded concept of accountability covers strategies supporting effective school
environments (Objective 2.2), in which students and schools have the instructional materials,
educational technology, and safety they need to succeed.
Instructional Materials
Among the agency efforts related to instructional materials is streamlining the textbook
management process by allowing electronic ordering and shipping of textbooks. A number of
improvements have been made in the textbook adoption process to allow for more public
participation and greater quality assurance. The number of electronic instructional materials
available to schools is also increasing. Proclamation 2001 called for instructional materials for
the Technology Applications curriculum area, with an emphasis on electronic materials. A new
Texas Education Agency
95
subscription-based pricing model was also implemented with the Technology Applications
instructional materials. There is also an increased focus on accessibility standards for web-based
materials and the exploration of digital content as well as traditional print materials.
Educational Technology
Senior leadership in the strategic planning forums identified educational technology as a major
strategic focus in order to support school improvement. Some of the strategies under educational
technology include:



Develop online instructional materials and assessments;
Expand distance learning opportunities; and
Utilize technology to improve school safety.
The Technology Immersion Pilot (TIP) was launched in 2004 to examine the impact of
technology immersion on student achievement. The program is designed to immerse an entire
middle school campus with a one-to-one wireless mobile device. A federal evaluation grant
allows for the comprehensive study of 22 immersed middle school campuses as compared to 22
traditional middle school campuses and will provide valuable insight into the impact of
technology immersion in the classroom. These grants focus on serving high need students
through funds from the Enhancing Education Through Technology program of NCLB. The
Educational Technology Advisory Committee is working on a new long-range plan for
technology, 2006-2020, that provides recommendations to prepare students with 21st century
skills. Technology planning tools include the Texas Campus and Teacher STaR Charts and the
online Texas ePlan system.
The agency is also implementing a statutorily-required pilot program that allows school districts
to offer electronic courses through a designated campus or full-time program serving students
throughout the district. Electronic courses are defined as an educational program or course that
includes use of the Internet or other electronic media, and in which a student and teacher are in
different locations for a majority of the student’s instructional period.
Safe Schools
The Safe Schools Division has the following main functions:




Provides leadership to school districts by providing information needed for the creation of
local policies with regard to Chapter 37 [Discipline; Law and Order] of the TEC;
Coordinates with the Texas School Safety Center (TxSSC), specifically the Center for Safe
Communities and Schools to research, develop and disseminate best practices on discipline
management and effective instructional practices for Disciplinary Alternative Education
Programs;
Serves as the central point of contact within the agency for agency staff, parents, students,
public and private agencies, and others seeking clarification concerning discipline, law and
order under the TEC;
Collects PEIMS 425 Records Data from all school districts relating to disciplinary actions
required by Chapter 37 of the TEC and federal law;
Texas Education Agency
96


Provides technical assistance related to school safety to districts throughout the state in
conjunction with the TxSSC; and
Works with the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission and other agencies on issues
affecting school safety.
Performance-Based Monitoring System
Strategy 2.3.5 Central Administration
The PBM system is closely aligned with the strategic intent of the agency organization, state
statute, and the overall goals of high academic performance and program effectiveness. HB
3459, enacted in 2003 by the 78th Texas Legislature, mandated important changes in the
monitoring that TEA is authorized to conduct. The new legislation, combined with 2003 and
2004 reorganizations of the agency, transformed program monitoring from a stand-alone,
cyclical, compliance-based onsite monitoring system to a data-driven, results-based system of
coordinated and aligned agency monitoring activities. The PBM system fits well with the
agency’s focus on results and exemplifies the goal of operational excellence.
The following objectives guided the development of the PBM system:

Performance-Based: The system is designed to focus on student performance and
program effectiveness and to address program compliance concerns within the context of
improving student performance.

Data-Driven: Comprehensive data collection systems enable the agency to evaluate
student performance and program effectiveness at the state level.

Comprehensive Evaluation with Targeted Interventions: Every program that TEA is
authorized to monitor is evaluated every year in every district. Targeted interventions are
implemented based on performance concerns and as needed to validate the student
performance and program effectiveness data that are submitted to TEA by districts.

Coordination and Consistency: Indicators and standards are aligned across the system
with coordinated interventions appropriate to the areas of concern and consistent across
program areas.

Public Input and Accessibility: The system is shaped by input from educators,
policymakers, and others. Performance information generated by the PBM system is
accessible to the public.

System Evolution and Validation: The system will be phased in over several years and
will continue to evolve in response to ongoing validation, improved performance, research
results, and changes that occur outside of the system.
2003-2004 was a transition year for agency monitoring, and a pilot year of PBM monitoring
occurred in 2004-2005. In 2005-2006, the data integrity component of PBM was piloted, and
Texas Education Agency
97
data integrity interventions—aligned with other PBM interventions—were also piloted during
the same time period. As the PBM system moves forward to 2006-2007 and beyond, ongoing
system development and implementation will be informed by the following:

Continued response to external changes: The PBM system will adapt to changes that
occur in state and federal law, student assessments, data reporting systems, and any other
changes that have an impact on the PBM system’s indicators and interventions.

Phase-in of standard setting plan: As the PBM system matures, it will incorporate a
phased-in standard setting plan for the different performance and program effectiveness
indicators. In addition, the PBM system will incorporate changes in standards that occur in
the state and federal accountability systems.

Ongoing system validation: Random review and validation activities will help ensure the
PBM system is effectively meeting its intended objectives. As additional years of
monitoring and interventions data become available, future development of the PBM
system will be informed by these data results.

Public input: Ongoing opportunities will be provided for the public to provide input into
the PBM system.
Educator Quality
Strategy 2.3.1 Improving Teacher Quality
During the period covered by this strategic plan, the public education system will be challenged
by increased retirement rates among teachers, teacher shortages in critical areas, high turnover
among new teachers, and the challenge to continue funding initiatives already in place. In
addition, the federal NCLB legislation raises the bar for teacher certification and standards by
requiring a highly qualified teacher in every classroom by the 2005-2006 school year. The state
plan is currently being revised to extend the highly qualified deadline to the end of the 20062007 school year.
There are a number of targeted professional development activities incorporated in larger
comprehensive initiatives such as the Texas Reading First Initiative (TRFI), the LEP-SSI grant
program, T-STEM, and the Reading, Math and Science initiatives included in the SSI. Under
Rider 50 (HB 1, 2003), $1.2 million in General Revenue in each year of the 2004-2005 biennium
is allocated for Master Reading and Master Mathematics Teacher stipends for school districts
with certified Master Reading and/or Master Mathematics teachers. Any state funds previously
distributed to regional ESCs for teacher training that were unspent as of September 1, 2003,
estimated to be $5.6 million, shall also be directed to be used for these stipends.
TRAs have now been developed for Grades K-4 that provide scientifically research-based, grade
level appropriate training that addresses diagnostic assessment, classroom reading instruction
and intervention support for students who struggle with reading concepts. These academies are
Texas Education Agency
98
offered throughout the year through the Texas regional ESC infrastructure and are available to
teachers online.
In addition to the TRAs, the state has created professional development for district and campus
administrators that underscore the critical role instructional leaders play in the implementation of
effective reading programs. Administrators are trained to monitor the classroom implementation
of skills gained from TRA training and to use screening, diagnostic and progress monitoring data
to establish professional development, budget priorities, and most importantly to monitor student
success.
Developing shared strategies for the development of highly qualified new teachers is a major
focus of the P-16 Council. TEA is also conducting several evaluations of teacher training. For
example, Rider 45 (78th Legislature, 2003) provided for an evaluation of teacher training
activities funded through the SSI, which encompasses the Texas Reading, Math, and Science
Initiatives. The evaluation reviewed: 1) the effectiveness of teacher training programs in
furthering student achievement outcomes; and 2) the efficiency of these programs in using
allocated funds (described in the SSI section of this strategic plan).
Under Rider 61, “Funds for Teacher Mentoring Programs” (HB 1, 2003), TEA allocated funds
stipulated not to exceed $350,000 in each year of the 2004-2005 biennium to the SBEC for the
operation, marketing, and support of school district-based teacher mentoring programs.
eGrants and Transformation of Grants
Strategy 2.3.2 Agency Operations
A mission-critical goal of the agency, under the leadership of the Office for Planning, Grants,
and Evaluation (OPGE), is the continued development and implementation of a funding system
for discretionary and formula grants (annually about $3 billion in state and federal dollars). The
purpose of this system is to optimize the utilization and impact of scarce public funds on students
and schools. This system has two main drivers: 1) it requires a strategic focus throughout the
agency on customer-oriented, continuous process improvement in the efficient and effective
administration of grants and funds; and 2) it requires promising/best practices in performance
management and evaluation so that the agency can track, analyze, and accurately report on grant
performance. An efficient grant performance management system enables grantees to improve
individual programs and the agency to determine which activities and educational strategies are
yielding the best results. More importantly, leveraging technology via automation enables the
agency to communicate grant performance data clearly and effectively to stakeholders to better
serve the legislative and policy-making process with accurate information about the impact
various initiatives are having on student achievement.
eGrants
A leading strategy of the agency is the transition from a manual grants submission system to one
in which grants are submitted electronically through eGrants. eGrants is a comprehensive web
portal that provides online submission, tracking, review and processing of P-12 and adult
education grant applications. eGrants is an easy, efficient, and effective system designed to speed
Texas Education Agency
99
processing of grants so that schools can dedicate more resources to helping students and less to
processing applications, managing financial accounts, and submitting compliance reports.
eGrants interfaces with the Grant Interface to the Financial system for submission of notice of
grant awards, and exports completed grant applications, attachments and index values to the
agency’s document management application, FileNET, for electronic retention and retrieval.
eGrants virtually eliminate most documents that were traditionally paper, including the
publication of paper competitive RFAs, application forms, amendments, financial reports, and
program progress and evaluation reports. This, by nature, reduces administrative burden. In
2005, the TEA received the “Best of Texas” award in the category Best Application Serving the
Public for the eGrants system.
Features in eGrants that help to reduce the administrative burdens on the customer (i.e., school
districts, charter schools, and non-profits) are:
 the provision of online help, instructions and guidelines;
 the streamlining of budget pages to collect budget information according to program
components and only that budget information that is necessary according to cost principles;
 automated calculations in budget schedules;
 edit messages where specific information is incomplete or lacking;
 the use of pre-populated fields where possible pulling from other agency data sources to
pre-fill fields and minimize the data entry for grantees; and
 online reporting allowing grantees to submit financial and program information online thus
eliminating printing and mailing costs of paper applications.
During school year 2003-2004, the agency conducted the first eGrants pilot project of the
Charter School Start-Up and Even Start Family Literacy grants. Since then, an additional 61
grant programs will have been administered and funded through the eGrants system by the end
of the 2006 fiscal year.
It is estimated that 64% of the agency’s grant applications will be processed through the eGrants
system by the end of the 2006 fiscal year. By the end of 2007, it is expected that approximately
95% of all agency grants and compliance reports will be administered through eGrants, and by
2009 all program evaluation and progress reports will be collected through the eGrants
system. 20
Consolidated Entitlement Management System
Still under development, Consolidated Entitlement Management System (CEMS, formerly
known as CEAS) reflects a technology upgrade of previous agency systems for administering
and managing formula funding entitlements. These entitlements cumulatively total about $4
billion a year when budgeted and rollover amounts are included. The goal of CEMS is to create a
seamless integration with the agency grants application system (eGrants) and offer a centralized
20
It is not expected that the percentage of grant applications in eGrants will reach 100% because the production of
grant applications in electronic format requires development time which may not be available for some grant
programs.
Texas Education Agency
100
entitlement management system that will improve the processing of these funds both by agency
staff and customers. This system will also enhance agency capacity to ensure that formula
funding entitlements are better utilized by schools, made available as quickly as possible, and
that financial reporting and accounting are made as easy as possible for customers.
Research and Evaluation
Providing Information Based on High-Quality Data and Comprehensive Analyses
All Strategies, especially Achievement of Students at Risk
The agency is committed to providing research and evaluations, including longitudinal studies, to
assist schools, agency management, stakeholders, and the public education system as a whole
with the analyses they need for informed decision-making. The agency maintains several critical
educational data collections, including the PEIMS, state assessments, national tests, advanced
courses examinations, and eGrants that support research and analysis. Modeling, analysis, and
research are critical components of indicator development in the Texas ratings system and in the
Academic Excellence Indicator System. In addition, numerous campus, district, regional, and
state reports are released as data tables on the Web or as detailed, topical annual reports. An
important objective of the eGrants system is to design, collect, and analyze short-term interim
progress reports and evaluation data that link grant activities and strategies to outcomes. Agency
personnel respond to hundreds of requests annually for policy research and data analyses for
legislators, senior management, stakeholders, and the general public.
The agency is currently evaluating the performance of numerous state and federally-funded
education initiatives designed to improve student achievement results and impact other key
program outcomes. The agency is evaluating initiatives in several key areas: high school
projects; programs addressing limited proficiency in English issues; early childhood education;
teacher professional development; out-of-school learning opportunities; SSI programs;
comprehensive school reform, and other initiatives, such as charter schools, teacher incentive
pay programs and career and technology education programs. The agency utilizes a mix of
external, third-party evaluators and agency staff to conduct these program evaluation studies.
The agency is currently evaluating a number of different grant programs designed to improve
high school graduation rates, and improve college readiness for high school graduates in Texas.
TEA has partnered with Texas A&M University and Gibson Consulting/Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory to conduct comprehensive evaluations of the first two cycles of the
Texas High School Completion and Success grant program. TEA is also evaluating the High
School Redesign and Restructuring program, the Middle College/Early College High School
Expansion grant program, T-STEM, the Texas High School Dropout Prevention and Reentry
program, Comprehensive School Reform-High School grants, and the Texas Online Preparation
for College Admissions Tests program.
Other ongoing evaluations include programs targeting LEP students as part of the LEP-SSI.
Evaluations of the LEP-SSI programs include assessment of institutes designed to train and
certify bilingual teachers as well as analysis of the effect that those teachers then have on the
achievement of their LEP students. The LEP-SSI program also funds a Prekindergarten pilot
Texas Education Agency
101
program. Evaluation of this pilot program will assess the impact of dual-language learning
programs on LEP children under age five.
The agency has partnered with the SCECD at the University of Texas Health Science Center in
Houston to evaluate the effectiveness of initiatives aimed at improving school readiness for preschool children.
Evaluations of programs funded through the SSI include annual reports on the ARI/AMI
program and an evaluation of the Intensive Reading Instruction/Intensive Math Instruction
program. In addition to these state-funded evaluations, the agency has contracted with the Texas
Institute for Measurement, Evaluation and Statistics (TIMES) at the University of Houston to
evaluate the effectiveness of the federally-funded Texas Reading First Initiative.
The agency has completed one major teacher professional development study related to the
effectiveness of the TRAs and TMAs funded through the SSI over the 1999-2003 period. A
new, legislatively-mandated study of promising professional development programs
implemented at the regional and local levels is currently underway and a report will be issued to
the 79th Legislature no later than December 1, 2006.
Additional programs servicing at-risk students that are currently being evaluated by TEA include
out-of-school learning programs such as 21st CCLC, the OEYP, the multi-year evaluation of the
TIP program, and the federally-funded Career and Technology Education program.
A multi-year evaluation of the Governor’s Educator Excellence Award Program will commence
in summer 2006, with subsequent evaluations of the teacher incentive grant programs ( i.e., The
Awards for Student Achievement, and The Educator Excellence Awards) funded during the
spring of 2006 special legislative session through the passage of HB 1.
These evaluations seek to determine whether the grant program is having the desired effect on
student achievement as measured by variables including, but not limited to, TAKS passing rates,
dropout/completion rates, attendance rates, grade retention rates, credit accrual, post-secondary
education planning and enrollment, and the violence/drug use incident rate. In addition to
determining the effect that the grant program had on student-level outcomes, program
evaluations conducted by TEA also seek to determine what aspects of the program (i.e., grant
activities and strategies) had the greatest impact, which will inform development of future grant
programs.
Texas Education Agency
102
FY 2007 – 2011 STRATEGIC PLAN STRUCTURE
Goal 1
Program Leadership: The TEA will provide leadership to create a public
education system that continuously improves student performance and supports
public schools as the first choice of parents and grandparents. The Agency will
fully satisfy its customers and stakeholders by providing resources, challenging
academic standards, high-quality data, and timely and clear reports on results.
Objective 1.1 Public Education Excellence: All students in the Texas public education
system will have the resources needed to achieve their full academic potential to
fully participate in the civic, social, economic, and educational opportunities of
our state and nation.
Strategy 1.1.1
Foundation School Program - Equalized Operations: Fund
the Texas public education system efficiently and equitably;
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:
Continue to 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 TEA will lead the public education
system so that all students receive a quality education and 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.
Strategy 1.2.1
Student Success: Support schools so that all Texas students
have the knowledge and skills, as well as the instructional
programs, they need to succeed; 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 1.2.2
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
students in at risk situations receive a quality education.
Texas Education Agency
103
Goal 2
Strategy 1.2.3
Students with Disabilities: Develop and implement
programs that help to ensure all students with disabilities
receive a quality education.
Strategy 1.2.4
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.
Strategy 1.2.5
Adult Education and Family Literacy: Develop adult
education and family literacy programs that encourage literacy
and lead all adults to achieve the basic education skills they
need to contribute to their families, communities, and the
world.
Operational Excellence: The TEA will create a system of accountability for
student performance that is supported by challenging assessments, high-quality
data, supportive school environments, highly qualified teachers, and high
standards of student, campus, district, and agency performance.
Objective 2.1 Accountability: The TEA will sustain high levels of accountability in the state
public education system through challenging and attainable federal and state
performance standards.
Strategy 2.1.1
Assessment and Accountability: Continue to provide a
preeminent state assessment system that will drive and
recognize improvement in student achievement by providing a
basis for evaluating and reporting student performance. The
state’s accountability system, which is interdependent with the
assessment system, will continue to drive and recognize
improvement by campuses and districts in education system
performance.
Objective 2.2 Effective School Environments: The TEA will support school environments
that ensure educators and students have the materials they need to receive a
quality education.
Strategy 2.2.1
Educational Technology: Implement educational
technologies that increase the effectiveness of student learning,
instructional management, professional development, and
administration.
Strategy 2.2.2
Safe Schools: Enhance school safety and support schools in
maintaining a disciplined environment that promotes student
learning. Reduce the number of criminal incidents on school
campuses, enhance school safety, and ensure that students in
Texas Education Agency
104
the Texas Youth Commission and disciplinary and juvenile
justice alternative education programs are provided the
instructional and support services needed to succeed.
Strategy 2.2.3
Child Nutrition Programs: Implement and support efficient
state child nutrition programs.
Strategy 2.2.4
Windham School District: Work with the TDCJ to lead
students to achieve the basic education skills they need to
contribute to their families, communities, and the world.
Strategy 2.2.5
Instructional Materials: Provide students equitable access to
instructional materials and technologies supporting the Texas
Essential Knowledge and Skills.
Objective 2.3 Educator Recruitment, Retention and Support: The TEA will create an
accountability system that supports the recruitment, retention, and support of
highly qualified teachers and high performing employees in school districts,
charter schools, and the TEA so that all students in the Texas public education
system receive a quality education.
Strategy 2.3.1
Improving Teacher quality: Support educators through
access to quality training tied to the Texas Essential
Knowledge and Skills; develop and implement professional
development initiatives that encourage P-16 partnerships.
Support regional education service centers to 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.
Strategy 2.3.2
Agency Operations: Continuously improve a customerdriven, results-based, high-performing public education
system through a strategic commitment to efficient and
effective business processes and operations.
Strategy 2.3.3
State Board for Educator Certification Operations:
Administer services related to educator credential, retention,
recruitment, and professional standards and conduct.
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: Continue to purchase,
develop, and implement information systems that support
students, educators, and stakeholders.
Texas Education Agency
105
Strategy 2.3.6
Texas Education Agency
Certification Exam Administration: Ensure that candidates
for educator certification or renewal of certification
demonstrate the knowledge and skills necessary to improve
academic performance of all students in the state. Estimated
and nontransferable.
106
Self-Evaluation and Opportunities for Improvement
As part of the strategic planning process, the agency sought the input of internal and external
stakeholders. In the spring of 2006, agency employees were invited to participate in focus
groups, as were ESC directors and core curriculum group members, superintendents, and
teachers and students. The purpose of the focus group sessions was to create a forum for
participants to identify what they saw as agency strengths and weaknesses. They were also asked
to identify what they saw as opportunities for the TEA to improve, and any threats that the
agency and/or the Texas public school system faces.
The most salient and frequent issues raised during the focus groups fell into the following eight
categories:
 Structure of the TEA Organization;
 Data Depth, Breadth and Quality;
 Internal and External Communication;
 Technology: Current and Potential Use;
 Agency Leadership;
 Changing State Demographics;
 Teacher Recruitment and Retention; and
 Funding issues.
Structure of the TEA Organization
The change in the structure of the agency in 2003 to centralize functions and eliminate non-core
functions moved the agency toward creating continuity and had emphasized partnership and
collaboration across the agency. The consolidation was described as an efficient method for
enhanced communication and cost-effectiveness and a model for school districts.
One threat mentioned by internal participants was the data center consolidation and the potential
negative effect this might have on agency operations and information security.
Data Breadth, Depth and Quality
The quality, quantity and integrity of data collected through PEIMS was mentioned by both
internal and external stakeholders as a strength of the agency and an important resource to
further guide, shape and improve education initiatives.
Internal and External Communication
Stakeholder feedback with regard to communication with the agency was mixed. While ESC
directors and superintendents remarked on TEA’s responsiveness to them and appreciated the
various methods of communication (e.g., newsletters, Internet, e-mail), they saw room for
improvement, especially in regard to use of technology that is already in place. One such means
is the Texas Education Telecommunications Network (TETN) that ESC participants thought
would be useful to replace travel to certain mandatory meetings in Austin.
Internal participants mentioned that forums fostered collaboration and open communication and
Texas Education Agency
107
remarked that this type of facilitated discussion might also prove helpful at the departmentallevel.
Technology: Current and Potential Use
Superintendents and teachers in attendance agreed that the website was very useful for their
purposes, allowing them access to information at any time they needed it. As with any
technology, there was still a sense that more could be done to improve navigation, and to
improve its power for information dissemination.
The migration from paper grant applications to eGrants online grant applications was specifically
mentioned as a strength by participants in the internal focus groups as well as the superintendent
and ESC director focus groups.
Internally there was a sense that the agency intranet was very useful for facilitating
communication across the agency, but internal employees also expressed a desire to see an
improved agency website.
Agency Leadership
Both internal and external forum participants agreed that the leadership at TEA was strong.
There was a greater sense of open communication from past years. Participants were of the
opinion that leadership worked to foster this open communication. Several participants
mentioned that they felt that the leadership had good relationships with external partners. A
concern however, was the sense that stronger succession planning was needed to ensure the
continuity of strong leadership at TEA.
Changing State Demographics
Every focus group agreed that the changing demography of the state of Texas necessitates a
proactive approach. The Texas school system must continue to address the changing needs
associated with the changing ethnic and socioeconomic composition of Texas schoolchildren.
Teacher Recruitment and Retention
Teacher recruitment and retention was another topic that was mentioned in every focus group.
Additionally, with the integration of SBEC into the agency, access to certification data can
potentially be used to evaluate on the impact of some professional development programs on
certifications.
Funding Issues
Another concern that all participants raised was the issue of funding. Particular concern was
expressed over funding cuts, unfunded mandates and the challenges associated with meeting the
needs of Texas schoolchildren under these circumstances.
Texas Education Agency
108
List of Appendices
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Appendix F:
Appendix G:
Appendix H:
Appendix I:
Description of Agency’s Planning Process
Current Organizational Chart, Specific Functions of Each Agency Office,
and Agency Culture
Five-year Projections for Outcomes
List of Measure Definitions
Workforce Plan FY 2007-2011
Texas Education Agency 2006 Customer Satisfaction Survey
Survey of Organizational Excellence
Workforce Development System Strategic Planning
Glossary of Acronyms
Texas Education Agency
109
Appendix A:
Description of Agency’s Strategic Planning Process
TEA agency strategies are clearly aligned with its mission to provide public education leadership
and support operational excellence. Texas faces great change in the coming years and TEA is
continuously planning to meet these challenges.
This past biennium, the performance measures unit of the Division of Planning and Grant
Reporting, undertook a major project with the development of the Performance Measure
Reporting System (PMRS) which streamlines the management of performance measures across
the agency. The development of the PMRS provided the opportunity for TEA to reassess and
refine its measures with greater depth and focus. Frequent meetings were held between the
performance measures unit and agency measure owners to review and revise their measures, and
train them on reporting with the new system.
With the incorporation of SBEC and SBEC-related measures, the agency also necessarily
undertook the planning effort of aligning SBEC strategies to the TEA budget structure. Similar
performance measure planning work was conducted with measure owners of former SBEC
measures as well as meetings with the division of Budget to discuss the best method of
incorporating SBEC strategies into the TEA budget structure.
A strategic planning kick-off meeting regarding the agency planning process was held to initiate
and inform agency staff. Staff from the Division of Budget, OPGE, and the Planning and Grant
Reporting Division provided an overview of the planning cycle in regard to the strategic plan,
performance measures and the preparation of the Legislative Appropriations Request.
Agency staff was also invited to attend two agency focus groups meetings which promoted open
discussion about the strengths, weaknesses of the agency and the opportunities and threats that
the agency faces.
In addition to internal staff meetings, TEA customers and stakeholders were invited to participate
in several strategic planning focus groups. ESC directors and core curriculum group members,
superintendents, and teachers and students were invited to attend these focus groups, which also
gauged stakeholder opinions on the strengths and weakness of the agency as well as the
opportunities and threats.
Agency leadership also was asked to convene for discussions particular to key issues for the
strategic plan, agency strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, and to discuss the agency
visions, mission and goals.
Texas Education Agency
110
Appendix B:
Current Organizational Chart and Specific Functions Agency Offices
Governor
State Board of
Education
Internal Audit1
Bill Wilson
1Includes
Performance Audit
Governmental Relations 2
2Includes
TCWEC
Commissioner of Education
Shirley Neeley
Chief Investment Officer
Permanent School Fund
Holland Timmins
General Counsel
David Anderson
Chief Deputy Commissioner
Robert Scott
Communications
Debbie Graves Ratcliffe
Education Initiatives
Christi Martin
Associate Commissioner
Educator Quality and
P16 Initiatives
Patricia Hayes
Associate Commissioner
Standards and Programs
Susan Barnes
Deputy Associate
Commissioner of
Educator
Certification
and Standards
Ray Glynn
Deputy Associate
Commissioner
Standards and
Alignment
Sharon Jackson
Deputy Associate
Commissioner
Special Programs,
Monitoring, and
Interventions
Gene Lenz
Educator
Standards
Karen Loonam
Curriculum3
George Rislov
IDEA4
Coordination
Kathy Clayton
Educator
Credentialing
Roman Echazarreta
Investigations
Doug Phillips
P-16
Coordination
Patricia Hicks
Student
Assessment
Lisa Chandler
Program Monitoring
and Interventions5
Laura Taylor
Instructional
Materials and
Educational
Technology
Anita Givens
NCLB Program
Coordination
Cory Green
Educator
Excellence
LeeAnn Dumas
Texas Education Agency
4Includes Special
Education Programs,
Special Education
Complaints, and Deaf
Services
SBOE Support
Renee Jackson
Associate Commissioner
Accountability
and Data Quality
Criss Cloudt
Deputy Associate
Commissioner
Data Development,
Analysis,
and Research
Vacant
Deputy Associate
Commissioner
Accountability and
Performance
Monitoring
Vacant
Associate Commissioner
Support Services
Ernest Zamora
Deputy Associate
Commissioner
School Support
Services
Judith de la Garza
Deputy Associate
Commissioner
Agency Services
Walter Tillman
Associate Commissioner
Planning, Grants,
and Evaluation
Nora Hancock
Deputy Associate
Commissioner
Planning and
Evaluation
Joseph Shields
Deputy Associate
Commissioner/
Chief Financial Officer
Shirley Beaulieu9
Accountability
Research
Karen Dvorak
Performance
Reporting
Shannon Housson
High School
Completion and
Student Support6
Vacant
Human Resources
Harvester Pope
Planning and Grant
Reporting
Ellen Montgomery
PEIMS
Marsha Headley
Performance-Based
Monitoring
Rachel Harrington
Driver Training
Victor Alegria
Agency
Infrastructure
Bill Hoppe
Discretionary
Grants
Administration
Earin Martin
Accounting
Ai-Ching Reed
Formula Grants
Administration8
Ellsworth Schave
Purchasing and
Contracts
Norma Barrera
Information Analysis
Nina Taylor
Policy
Coordination
Cristina De La
Fuente-Valadez
111
Governance and
General Inquiries
Ron Rowell
Charter Schools
Mary Perry
Associate Commissioner
Finance and Information
Technology
Adam Jones
School Finance9
Lisa Dawn-Fisher
Budget
Dana Aikman
State Funding
Vacant
Forecasting and
Analysis
Belinda Dyer
Financial Audits10
Rita Chase
Education Services7
Philip Cochran
6Includes
GED,
PEP, Guidance
Counseling,
Safe Schools,
CIS, In-School
GED, and InSchool Driver
Training
7Includes ESC
Liaison, Waivers,
Adult Education and
Correspondence
Management
8Includes
NCLB,
Migrant, IDEA,
CATE, and ESC
Funding
9 Includes
FEMA
reimbursement
Includes Grant
Monitoring
10
Chief Information
Officer
John Cox
Deputy CIO
Rick Goldgar
Project
Management
Office
Sharon Gaston
Specific Functions of Each Agency Office
Section 7.055. Commissioner of Education Powers and Duties.
(a) The commissioner has the powers and duties provided by Subsection (b).
(1)
The commissioner shall serve as the educational leader of the state.
(2)
The commissioner shall serve as executive officer of the agency and as executive
secretary of the board.
(3)
The commissioner shall carry out the duties imposed on the commissioner by the
board or the legislature.
(4)
The commissioner shall prescribe a uniform system of forms, reports, and records
necessary to fulfill the reporting and record keeping requirements of this title.
(5)
The commissioner may delegate ministerial and executive functions to agency
staff and may employ division heads and any other employees and clerks to
perform the duties of the agency.
(6)
The commissioner shall adopt an annual budget for operating the Foundation
School Program (FSP) as prescribed by Subsection (c).
(7)
The commissioner may issue vouchers for the expenditures of the agency and
shall examine and must approve any account to be paid out of the school funds
before the comptroller may issue a warrant.
(8)
The commissioner shall file annually with the governor and the Legislative
Budget Board a complete and detailed written report accounting for all funds
received and disbursed by the agency during the preceding fiscal year.
(9)
The commissioner shall have a manual published at least once every two years
that contains Title 1 and this title, any other provisions of this code relating
specifically to public primary or secondary education, and an appendix of all
other state laws relating to public primary or secondary education and shall
provide for the distribution of the manual as determined by the board.
(10) The commissioner may visit different areas of this state, address teachers'
associations and educational gatherings, instruct teachers, and promote all aspects
of education and may be reimbursed for necessary travel expenses incurred under
this subdivision to the extent authorized by the General Appropriations Act.
(11) The commissioner may appoint advisory committees, in accordance with Chapter
2110, Government Code, as necessary to advise the commissioner in carrying out
the duties and mission of the agency.
(12) The commissioner shall appoint an agency auditor.
(13) The commissioner may provide for reductions in the number of agency
employees.
(14) The commissioner shall carry out duties relating to the investment capital fund
under Section 7.024.
(15) The commissioner shall review and act, if necessary, on applications for waivers
under Section 7.056.
(16) The commissioner shall carry out duties relating to regional Education Service
Centers (ESCs) as specified under Chapter 8.
Texas Education Agency
112
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)
(32)
The commissioner shall distribute funds to open-enrollment charter schools as
required under Subchapter D, Chapter 12.
The commissioner shall adopt a recommended appraisal process and criteria on
which to appraise the performance of teachers, a recommended appraisal process
and criteria on which to appraise the performance of administrators, and a job
description and evaluation form for use in evaluating counselors, as provided by
Subchapter H, Chapter 21.
The commissioner shall coordinate and implement teacher recruitment programs
under Section 21.004.
The commissioner shall perform duties in connection with the certification and
assignment of hearing examiners as provided by Subchapter F, Chapter 21.
The commissioner shall carry out duties under the Texas Advanced Placement
Incentive Program under Subchapter C, Chapter 28.
The commissioner may adopt rules for optional extended year programs under
Section 29.082.
The commissioner shall monitor and evaluate Prekindergarten programs and other
child-care programs as required under Section 29.154.
The commissioner, with the approval of the board, shall develop and implement a
plan for the coordination of services to children with disabilities as required under
Section 30.001.
The commissioner shall develop a system to distribute to school districts or
regional ESCs a special supplemental allowance for students with visual
impairments as required under Section 30.002.
The commissioner, with the assistance of the comptroller, shall determine
amounts to be distributed to the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
and the Texas School for the Deaf as provided by Section 30.003 and to the Texas
Youth Commission as provided by Section 30.102.
The commissioner shall establish a procedure for resolution of disputes between a
school district and the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired under
Section 30.021.
The commissioner shall perform duties relating to the funding, adoption, and
purchase of textbooks under Chapter 31.
The commissioner may enter into contracts concerning technology in the public
school system as authorized under Chapter 32.
The commissioner shall adopt a recommended contract form for the use,
acquisition, or lease with option to purchase of school buses under Section
34.009.
The commissioner shall ensure that the cost of using school buses for a purpose
other than the transportation of students to or from school is properly identified in
the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) under Section
34.010.
The commissioner shall perform duties in connection with the public school
accountability system as prescribed by Chapter 39.
Texas Education Agency
113
(33)
(34)
(35)
(36)
(37)
(38)
(39)
The commissioner shall perform duties in connection with the equalized wealth
level under Chapter 41.
The commissioner shall perform duties in connection with the FSP as prescribed
by Chapter 42.
The commissioner shall establish advisory guidelines relating to the fiscal
management of a school district and report annually to the board on the status of
school district fiscal management as required under Section 44.001.
The commissioner shall review school district audit reports as required under
Section 44.008.
The commissioner shall perform duties in connection with the guaranteed bond
program as prescribed by Subchapter C, Chapter 45.
The commissioner shall cooperate with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating
Board in connection with the Texas partnership and scholarship program under
Subchapter P, Chapter 61.
The commissioner shall suspend the certificate of an educator or permit of a
teacher who violates Chapter 617, Government Code.
 The commissioner shall adopt rules relating to extracurricular activities
under Section 33.081 and approve or disapprove University Interscholastic
League rules and procedures under Section 33.083. The Office of the
Commissioner/Chief Deputy Commissioner:
o Provides leadership to public school districts, charter schools, and
campuses;
o Manages the Texas Education Agency (TEA);
o Provides coordination with the state legislature and other branches of
state government, as well as the U.S. Department of Education;
o Develops and administers student educational program standards;
o Provides funding to local school districts while ensuring proper use of
state and federal funds;
o Manages the state accountability system using school performance
data, conducting educational research; providing useful information
bases;
o Monitors student educational programs for compliance with state and
federal regulations; and
o Supports agency operations, including carrying out duties related to
the Permanent School Fund.
The Office of Educator Quality and P-16 Initiatives:
 Provides management oversight for the Department of Educator Quality and P-16
Initiatives;
 Provides direct oversight of all educator certification, accountability, and professional
discipline areas;
Texas Education Agency
114






Develops and administers educator standards and assessments, approves/regulates
educator preparation programs. Completes state/federal accountability reporting and
conducts data analysis and research;
Approves and issues the appropriate educator credentials to qualified individuals.
Provides consultative services and technical support related to the issuance of
educator certificates in the state;
Ensures the safety of public school children by investigating criminal history
information complaints of misconduct by applicants for, and holders of, Texas
teaching credentials;
Provides management oversight of P-16 policy coordination and activities;
Provides management oversight for policy development of educator quality issues,
educator recruitment, retention, mentoring and recognition, administrator quality,
mentoring and recognition, and educator preparation program quality; and
Protects the safety and welfare of Texas school children by enforcing standards of
conduct for educators and applicants.
The Office of Standards and Programs:
 Provides administrative leadership and supervision to 11 agency divisions;
 Oversees the curriculum implementation of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills
(TEKS) assessment;
 Develops and implements the student assessment system;
 Administers instructional materials adoptions and distribution;
 Administers program oversight for the NCLB federal legislation;
 Oversees the divisions serving students with disabilities; and
 Provides leadership to school districts, colleges, universities, regional ESCs,
professional organizations, and individuals regarding school improvement.
The Office of Accountability and Data Quality:
 Provides leadership for all of the accountability functions of the agency;
 Develops the state and federal accountability rating systems;
 Conducts research functions of the agency;
 Oversees public education data reporting standards, performance reporting, and
coordination of agency rulemaking;
 Issues the annual accountability ratings for districts and campuses and oversees the
Academic Excellence Indicator System;
 Develops and implements the Adequate Yearly Progress federal reporting system;
 Coordinates the Performance-Based Data Management Initiative for federal
reporting; and
 Plans and develops standards, implementation, collection, management, and
documentation of PEIMS data.
Texas Education Agency
115
The Office of Support Services:
 Provides leadership for the operational functions of the agency;
 Administers all the infrastructure needs of the agency, including office space, supply,
printing, and postage;
 Administers the agency human resource function;
 Provides appropriate technical and logistical support for the performance of division
functions
 Establishes standards of effectiveness and implementation guidelines for agency
programs supporting successful completion of high school;
 Oversees charter schools and a number of programs supporting high school
completion for at-risk students;
 Provides appropriate intervention strategies relative to agency assigned school
sanctions and manages those sanctions;
 Oversees and supports regional ESCs and Adult Education
 Provides oversight for the process of waiving certain laws, rules and regulations by
the commissioner;
 Provides oversight for the administration of the driver training division;
 Ensures compliance by the school districts and charter schools with state and federal
laws, rules, and regulations;
 Conducts complaint investigations, if necessary; and
 Oversees the Division of governance and general inquiries, correspondence
management, and agency-wide administration of Public Information Requests
The Office for Planning, Grants, and Evaluation:
 Manages discretionary grants;
 Manages entitlements and formula funding;
 Develops TEA strategic and business plans;
 Evaluates grant performance and results;
 Reports performance and results;
 Facilitates discretionary and formula funding to districts and other grantees;
 Manages the Request for Applications and Standard Application System processes;
 Administers and manages all fiscal/legal aspects of discretionary grants and formula
funding; and
 Ensures fiscal compliance and fiscal integrity.
The Office of Finance & Information Technology:
 Coordinates and manages resources to support department and division functions;
Texas Education Agency
116





Provides school finance and compliance communications both internal and external to
the agency;
Conducts meetings internal and external to the agency to facilitate activities relevant
to the division functions;
Allocates and distributes state funds to public school districts and charter schools;
Conducts audits of state funds; and
Provides support for the legislative process through a fiscal analysis function.
Texas Education Agency
117
Appendix C:
Five-year Projections for Outcomes
-
Code
1.1.1
Measure Title
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Percent of Students Completing High
School
95.50%
94.60%
94.60%
94.60%
94.60%
94.60%
1.1.2
Percent of African-American Students
Completing High School
93.90%
93.30%
93.30%
93.30%
93.30%
93.30%
1.1.3
Percent of Hispanic Students Completing
High School
92.90%
91.80%
91.80%
91.80%
91.80%
91.80%
1.1.4
Percent of White Students Completing High
School
97.80%
97.10%
97.10%
97.10%
97.10%
97.10%
1.1.5
Percent of Asian-American Students
Completing High School
98.10%
97.40%
97.40%
97.40%
97.40%
97.40%
1.1.6
Percent of Native American Students
Completing High School
96.80%
94.00%
94.00%
94.00%
94.00%
94.00%
1.1.7
Percent of Economically Disadvantaged
Students Completing High School
93.40%
92.00%
92.00%
92.00%
92.00%
92.00%
1.1.8
Percent of Equalized Revenue in the FSP
96.40%
99.69%
99.61%
99.49%
99.30%
99.20%
1.1.9
Percent of Students in Districts with
Substantially Equal Access to Revenues
74.46%
72.47%
71.49%
70.16%
69.39%
68.48%
1.1.10
Average Local Tax Rate Avoided from State
Assistance for Debt Service
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
1.1.11
Percent of Eligible Districts Receiving
Funds from the Instructional Facilities
Allotment
54.00%
54.00%
54.00%
54.00%
54.00%
54.00%
Texas Education Agency
118
Code
Measure Title
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
1.2.1
Percent Students Graduating under the
Distinguished Achievement HS Program
NEW
NEW
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
1.2.2
Percent of Students at State-Funded High
Schools Who Take and Pass Advanced
Academic Courses
NEW
NEW
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
1.2.3
Percent of Students who Take and Pass
Advanced Academic Courses
NEW
NEW
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
1.2.4
Percent of Students Who Meet The Higher
Education Readiness Component on the Exit
Level TAKS
NEW
NEW
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
1.2.5
Percentage of Texas High School Project
Campuses With Improved Graduation Rates
NEW
NEW
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
1.2.6
Percent of Students with Disabilities Who
Graduate High School
95.50%
94.60%
94.60%
94.60%
94.60%
94.60%
1.2.7
Percent Eligible Students Taking AP/IB
Exams
25.00%
20.00%
21.00%
22.00%
23.00%
24.00%
1.2.8
Percent AP/IB Exams Qualifying for
Potential College Credit or Advanced
Placement
60.00%
50.00%
50.50%
51.00%
51.50%
52.00%
1.2.9
Percent of Career and Technology Students
Placed on the Job or in a Postsecondary
Program
75.00%
75.10%
75.20%
75.30%
75.40%
75.50%
1.2.10
Percent of Students Exiting Bilingual / ESL
Programs Successfully
68.00%
69.00%
70.00%
71.00%
72.00%
73.00%
1.2.11
Percent of Limited English Proficient (LEP)
Students Making Progress in Learning
NEW
NEW
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Texas Education Agency
119
Code
Measure Title
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
English
1.2.12
Percent of Students Retained in Grade 3
3.20%
3.20%
3.30%
3.30%
3.30%
3.30%
1.2.13
Percent of Students Retained in Grade 5
NEW
NEW
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
1.2.14
Percent of Students Retained in Grade 8
NEW
NEW
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
1.2.15
Percent of Students Retained in Grade
5.00%
5.00%
5.10%
5.10%
5.20%
5.20%
1.2.16
Percent of Students that Meet the Passing
Standard in Third Grade Reading
NEW
NEW
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
1.2.17
Percent of Students that Meet the Passing
Standard in Fifth Grade Reading
NEW
NEW
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
1.2.18
Percent of Students that Meet the Passing
Standard in Fifth Grade Math
NEW
NEW
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
1.2.19
Percent of Students that Meet the Passing
Standard in Eighth Grade Reading
NEW
NEW
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
1.2.20
Percent of Students that Meet the Passing
Standard in Eighth Grade Math
NEW
NEW
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
1.2.21
Percent of Students in State-Funded OEYPs
Promoted to the Next Grade Level as a
Result of the Programs
91.50%
92.00%
92.50%
93.00%
93.50%
94.00%
1.2.22
Percent of Adult Learners Who Complete
the Level in Which They are Enrolled
70.00%
72.00%
73.00%
74.00%
74.00%
74.00%
1.2.23
Percent of Campuses Receiving ICF Grants
Showing Improvement for All Students on
all Portions of the TAKS Test.
46.00%
49.00%
51.00%
53.00%
55.00%
57.00%
1.2.24
Percent of Parents in AVANCE Programs
Who Complete Level Enrolled
45.00%
48.00%
52.00%
55.00%
58.00%
61.00%
Texas Education Agency
120
Code
Measure Title
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
1.2.25
Percent of CIS Case-Managed Students
Remaining in School
95.00%
95.00%
95.00%
95.00%
95.00%
95.00%
1.2.26
Percent of Campuses That Meet AYP
77.00%
75.00%
75.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
1.2.27
Percent of Students with Disabilities
Exceeding the Federal AYP Cap for
Reading/ELA
NEW
NEW
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
1.2.28
Percent of Students with Disabilities
Exceeding the Federal AYP Cap for Math
NEW
NEW
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
1.2.29
Percent of Career and Technology Students
Retaining Placement in a Job or in a
Postsecondary Program
80.50%
80.80%
81.00%
81.30%
81.50%
81.80%
1.2.30
Percent of Students Achieving a Degree or
Credential through Completion of a
Secondary Career and Technology
Education Program
79.00%
79.10%
79.20%
79.30%
79.40%
79.50%
1.2.31
Percent of Adult Education Participants
Obtaining Employment After Exiting an
Adult Education Program
30.00%
31.00%
32.00%
33.00%
34.00%
35.00%
1.2.32
Percent of Adult Education Participants
Who Retained Employment After Exiting an
Adult Education Program
55.00%
56.00%
57.00%
58.00%
59.00%
60.00%
1.2.33
Percent of High School Diplomas or GED
Issued to Adults as a Result of Program
Participation
67.00%
68.00%
69.00%
70.00%
71.00%
72.00%
2.1.1
Percent of Students Passing All Tests Taken
65.00%
68.00%
71.00%
73.00%
75.00%
77.00%
2.1.2
Percent of African-American Students
48.00%
51.00%
53.00%
56.00%
57.00%
59.00%
Texas Education Agency
121
Code
Measure Title
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Passing All Tests Taken
2.1.3
Percent of Hispanic Students Passing All
Tests Taken
52.00%
57.00%
59.00%
61.00%
63.00%
65.00%
2.1.4
Percent of White Students Passing All Tests
Taken
82.00%
84.00%
87.00%
90.00%
92.00%
93.00%
2.1.5
Percent of Asian-American Students Passing
All Tests Taken
86.00%
89.00%
91.00%
93.00%
95.00%
96.00%
2.1.6
Percent of Native American Students
Passing All Tests Taken
72.00%
75.00%
78.00%
81.00%
83.00%
85.00%
2.1.7
Percent of Economically Disadvantaged
Students Passing All Tests Taken
55.00%
58.00%
61.00%
63.00%
65.00%
67.00%
2.1.8
Percent Students Passing TAKS Reading
86.00%
89.00%
91.00%
92.00%
94.00%
95.00%
2.1.9
Percent Students Passing TAKS
Mathematics
74.00%
77.00%
79.00%
81.00%
83.00%
84.00%
2.1.10
Percent of Students Whose Assessment
Results are Included in the Accountability
System
91.00%
91.00%
93.00%
93.00%
95.00%
95.00%
2.1.11
Percent of Special Ed Students Who are
Tested and Included in the Accountability
System
85.00%
85.00%
91.00%
91.00%
93.00%
93.00%
2.1.12
Percent of LEP Students Who are Tested
and Included in the Accountability System
85.00%
85.00%
85.00%
85.00%
90.00%
90.00%
2.1.13
Annual Statewide Dropout Rate for all
Students
1.10%
2.80%
2.80%
2.80%
2.80%
2.80%
2.1.14
Percent of Districts Rated Exemplary or
28.00%
13.00%
23.00%
8.00%
16.00%
16.00%
Texas Education Agency
122
Code
Measure Title
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Recognized
2.1.15
Percent of Campuses Rated Exemplary or
Recognized
42.00%
30.00%
40.00%
22.00%
30.00%
30.00%
2.1.16
Percent Districts with Upgraded Ratings
60.00%
65.00%
75.00%
70.00%
70.00%
70.00%
2.1.17
Percent of Campuses with Upgraded Ratings
55.00%
55.00%
65.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
2.1.18
Percent of Districts Rated Below
Academically Acceptable
5.00%
9.00%
11.00%
16.00%
21.00%
21.00%
2.1.19
Percent of Campuses Rated Low Performing
5.00%
8.00%
11.00%
15.00%
19.00%
19.00%
2.1.20
Percent Charter Schools Rated Low
Performing
21.00%
24.00%
24.00%
28.00%
30.00%
30.00%
2.1.21
Percent of Graduates Who Take the SAT or
ACT
62.40%
63.00%
63.50%
64.00%
64.50%
65.00%
2.1.22
Percent of High School Graduates Needing
Remediation
42.50%
42.20%
41.80%
41.40%
41.10%
40.70%
2.2.1
Percent of Campuses Rated Developing
Tech or Above on the Texas Star Chart for
Teaching and Learning with Technology
94.00%
94.00%
94.00%
94.00%
95.00%
95.00%
2.2.2
Percent of Campuses Rated Developing
Tech or Above on the Campus Star Chart
for Distance Learning
NEW
NEW
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
2.2.3
Percent of Campuses Rated Advanced Tech
or Above on the Campus Star Chart for
Student to Computer Ratio
NEW
NEW
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
2.2.4
Annual Drug Use & Violence Incident Rate
on School Campuses, per 1,000 Students
21.50
21.00
20.75
20.50
20.25
20.00
Texas Education Agency
123
Code
Measure Title
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
2.2.5
Percent of Incarcerated Students Who
Complete the Level in Which They are
Enrolled
34.00%
34.00%
34.00%
34.00%
34.00%
34.00%
2.2.6
Percent Eligible Windham Inmates Served
by a Windham Education Program in Past 5
Years
87.00%
87.00%
87.00%
87.00%
87.00%
87.00%
2.2.7
Percent of Textbook Funds Spent on Digital
Content
2.50%
2.70%
2.90%
4.50%
5.50%
6.50%
2.2.8
Percent of Students Passing GED Tests Windham
73.00%
73.00%
73.00%
73.00%
73.00%
73.00%
2.2.9
Percent of Career and Technology
Certificates - Windham
75.00%
75.00%
75.00%
75.00%
75.00%
75.00%
2.3.1
Percent High Need Campuses that Receive a
Master Reading Teacher Grant
22.00%
23.00%
24.00%
25.00%
26.00%
27.00%
2.3.2
Percent of Highly Qualified Teachers
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
2.3.3
Turnover Rate for Teachers
14.60%
16.30%
16.60%
16.90%
17.10%
17.40%
2.3.4
Percent of Formula Grant Applications
Processed within 60 days
65.00%
67.00%
70.00%
72.00%
75.00%
77.00%
2.3.5
Percent of Discretionary Grant Applications
Processed within 60 days
61.63%
63.00%
65.00%
67.00%
69.00%
71.00%
2.3.6
Percent of School District Annual Textbook
Orders Processed by May 31st
90.00%
91.00%
92.00%
93.00%
94.00%
95.00%
2.3.7
TEA Turnover Rate
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
2.3.8
Percentage of Eligible Campuses Awarded
Grants Under Awards for Student
NEW
NEW
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Texas Education Agency
124
Code
Measure Title
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Achievement Program
2.3.9
Teacher Retention Rate at Campuses
Participating in the Student Achievement
Program.
NEW
NEW
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
2.3.10
Percentage of Eligible Campuses Awarded
Grants Under the Educator Excellence
Awards Program
NEW
NEW
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
2.3.11
Teacher Retention Rate at Campuses
Participating in the Educator Excellence
Awards Program
NEW
NEW
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
2.3.12
Percent of Public School Teachers Who Are
African-American
9.10%
9.20%
9.40%
9.50%
9.60%
9.70%
2.3.13
Percent of Public School Teachers Who Are
Hispanic
19.60%
19.90%
20.10%
20.30%
20.50%
20.70%
2.3.14
Percent of Public School Administrators
Who Are Minorities
32.90%
33.30%
33.50%
33.70%
34.00%
34.50%
2.3.15
Percent of Teachers Who Are Certified
92.50%
92.80%
93.00%
93.20%
93.40%
93.70%
2.3.16
Percent of Teachers Who Are
Employed/Assigned to Teaching Positions
For Which They Are Certified
89.10%
89.30%
89.50%
89.70%
89.90%
90.10%
2.3.17
Percent of Teachers Who Are Fully
Certified
90.40%
90.50%
90.75%
90.90%
91.10%
91.30%
2.3.18
Percent of Teachers Who Are
Employed/Assigned to Teaching Positions
for Which They Are Fully Certified
85.00%
85.70%
86.10%
86.45%
87.00%
87.10%
2.3.19
Percent of Complaints Resulting In
40.00%
42.00%
42.00%
42.00%
42.00%
42.00%
Texas Education Agency
125
Code
Measure Title
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Disciplinary Action
2.3.20
Percent of Documented Complaints
Resolved Within Six Months
70.00%
70.00%
70.00%
70.00%
70.00%
70.00%
2.3.21
Percent of Educator Programs Rated
“Accredited”
97.00%
97.50%
98.00%
98.50%
99.00%
100.00%
2.3.22
Percent of Surveyed Customer Respondents
Expressing Overall Satisfaction with
Services Received
67.16%
69.32%
70.40%
71.48%
72.56%
73.64%
2.3.23
Percent of Credentialed Educators With No
Recent Violations
99.00%
99.00%
99.00%
99.00%
99.00%
99.00%
2.3.24
Percent of Certification Exams Based on
State Standards
89.00%
91.00%
93.00%
95.00%
97.00%
99.00%
2.3.25
Percent of Certification Exams
Administered Online
8.00%
17.00%
26.00%
35.00%
44.00%
53.00%
Texas Education Agency
126
Appendix D:
List of Measure Definitions
Goal 1
Program Leadership: The TEA will provide leadership to create a
public education system that continuously improves student performance
and supports public schools as the first choice of parents and
grandparents. The Agency will fully satisfy its customers and
stakeholders by providing resources, challenging academic standards,
high-quality data, and timely and clear reports on results.
Objective 1.1 Public Education Excellence: All students in the Texas public
education system will have the resources needed to achieve their full
academic potential to fully participate in the civic, social, economic, and
educational opportunities of our state and nation.
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 in response to requirements
such as TEC §§39.051 and 39.182.
DATA SOURCE:
PEIMS.
PEIMS submissions from districts:
101
(demographic) records; 110 (enrollment) records; 400 (attendance) records; 203
(leaver) records and GED test files.
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: Reported once annually. Prior year data reported.
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 in response to requirements
such as TEC §§39.051 and 39.182.
DATA SOURCE:
PEIMS.
PEIMS submissions from districts:
101
(demographic) records; 110 (enrollment) records; 400 (attendance) records; 203
(leaver) records and GED test files.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Completion is expressed as a percentage. The
numerator includes all African-American students out of a final cohort who
Texas Education Agency
127
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: Reported once annually. Prior year data reported.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
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 in response to requirements
such as TEC §§39.051 and 39.182.
DATA SOURCE:
PEIMS.
PEIMS submissions from districts:
101
(demographic) records; 110 (enrollment) records; 400 (attendance) records; 203
(leaver) records and GED test files.
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: Reported once annually. Prior year data reported.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
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 in response to requirements
such as TEC §§39.051 and 39.182.
DATA SOURCE:
PEIMS.
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 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: Reported once annually. Prior year data reported.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.5 Percent of Asian-American Students Completing High School
Texas Education Agency
128
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 in response to requirements
such as TEC §§39.051 and 39.182.
DATA SOURCE:
PEIMS.
PEIMS submissions from districts:
101
(demographic) records; 110 (enrollment) records; 400 (attendance) records; 203
(leaver) records and GED test files.
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: Reported once annually. Prior year data reported.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
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 in response to requirements
such as TEC §§39.051 and 39.182.
DATA SOURCE:
PEIMS.
PEIMS submissions from districts:
101
(demographic) records; 110 (enrollment) records; 400 (attendance) records; 203
(leaver) records and GED test files.
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: Reported once annually. Prior year data reported.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
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 in response to
requirements such as TEC §§39.051 and 39.182.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS submissions from districts: 101 (demographic) records;
110 (enrollment) records; 400 (attendance) records; 203 (leaver) records, and
GED test files.
Texas Education Agency
129
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: Reported once annually. Prior year data reported.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.8 Percent of Equalized Revenue in the FSP
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 state and local revenue data are
extracted from the agency's district planning estimate (DPE) model from the FSP
master file. Data for charter schools are included. The most current data for
recapture costs are extracted from the agency's Chapter 41 computation model.
Estimates are used if final year-end data are not available in time for reporting.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Unequalized revenue includes funds raised by tax
effort above the state funding formulae caps. For M&O taxes, the Tier II biennial
rate cap is determined by the M&O collections in the last year of the preceding
biennium. Unequalized M&O revenue is that which exceeds the Tier II biennial
rate cap. For debt taxes, the cap is determined by the debt tax collections in the
last year of the preceding biennium and by the amount of debt funded by the
Existing Debt Allotment and the Instructional Facilities Allotment. Unequalized
revenue 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 $305,000 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.
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.
Texas Education Agency
130
PURPOSE: To measure the percentage of students in districts with equal access to
revenues.
DATA SOURCE: The most current applicable annual attendance and property
value data are extracted from the agency's DPE model from the FSP master file.
Data for charter schools are included. Computations are based on final year-end
attendance data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: This measure is computed by determining which
districts have revenue levels per 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. 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
Texas Education Agency
131
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 State Information Depository (SID) maintains the state’s
official records related to the issuance of bonds by school districts. TEA
maintains a database of these records and receives an updated file each year from
the SID that includes information about when the debt was issued and the annual
debt service schedule. The SID file 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 percentage of eligible districts that
participate in the IFA program. The SID data and the IFA data are maintained in
Access databases in the State Funding Division.
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: Fund
the Texas public education system efficiently and equitably;
ensure that formula allocations support the state’s public
education goals and objectives and are accounted for in an
accurate and appropriate manner.
(i)
OUTPUT MEASURES
1.1.1.1
Total 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, near-final
Texas Education Agency
132
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 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 in attendance at openenrollment charter schools statewide.
DATA SOURCE: At the end of each reporting period, staff members in
the Division of State Funding tally the reported ADA of each charter
school.
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 charters statewide.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
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 students in at-risk situations served.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS fall (first) submission, student in at-risk
situations 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.
1.1.1.4
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.
Texas Education Agency
133
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.
1.1.1.5
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.
(ii)
EFFICIENCY MEASURES
1.1.1.1
Average Instructional Expenditure Per Student in Average Daily
Attendance
DEFINITION:
The statewide average expenditure on classroom
instruction per student in average daily attendance (ADA).
PURPOSE: To report the statewide average expenditure on classroom
instruction per student in average daily attendance (ADA).
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 and debt service 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
Texas Education Agency
134
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: Expenditures in general fund, special
revenue fund, and enterprise fund 701(child nutrition program),
(excluding SSA fund codes) and capital projects fund reported in
function codes 11, 36, 93 and 95 and object codes 6112 through 6499
divided by expenditures reported in function codes 11-52, 92, and 95
and object codes 6112 through 6499.
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.
(iii)
EXPLANATORY MEASURES
1.1.1.1
Percent of FSP 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.
DATA SOURCE: Foundation School Program payment system, PEIMS,
and agency surveys of tax collection information.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: For the fourth quarter, local taxes will
reflect the projected tax collection information supplied 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
Texas Education Agency
135
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 Student in Average Daily Attendance
DEFINITION: State aid per pupil is money paid to a school district by
the state with funds from the Foundation School Fund (FSF), the
Available School Fund (ASF), 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 student in weighted average daily
attendance 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 in
terms of state aid per ADA.
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.
1.1.1.3
Amount of Local Revenue Per Student in Average Daily Attendance
Texas Education Agency
136
DEFINITION: Local revenue per average daily attendance (ADA) 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 average daily attendance.
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. Final year-end
average daily attendance is 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
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.
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.
Texas Education Agency
137
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.1.5
Compensatory Education ADA
DEFINITION: The estimated number of students in average daily
attendance 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 nonfoundation 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.
1.1.1.6
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.
Texas Education Agency
138
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.1.7
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.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.1.1.8
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 nonfoundation 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.
Texas Education Agency
139
1.1.1.9
Number of Students Receiving Special Education Services
DEFINITION: The number of students reported on annual Federal Child
Count (IDEA-B) who are receiving special education services.
PURPOSE: To report the number of students who receive special
education services.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Total number of students receiving special
education services reported by districts through PEIMS.
DATA LIMITATIONS: N/A.
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/ESL 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 students coded LEP and
served in bilingual or ESL programs as reported in the PEIMS fall
enrollment for all districts, and charters.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported on the fall PEIMS submission of
enrollment services data at the end of October.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
Texas Education Agency
140
1.1.1.12 Number of Students Served by Gifted and Talented Programs
DEFINITION: The number of students identified according to 19 TAC
§89.1 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:
Continue to operate an equalized school facilities program by
ensuring the allocation of a guaranteed yield of existing debt
and disbursing facilities funds.
(i)
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: PEIMS budget detail.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: State and local funds will be reported as
an estimate from the winter submission of budgeted financial
Texas Education Agency
141
information in PEIMS, and will include budget Interest and Sinking
Fund tax collections, fund 599.
DATA LIMITATIONS: PEIMS data.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
Objective 1.2 Student Success and Achievement: The TEA will lead the public
education system so that all students receive a quality education and 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.
OUTCOME MEASURES
1.2.1 Percent of Students Graduating Under the Distinguished Achievement High
School Program
DEFINITION: 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. A student entering Grade 9 in the 20042005 school year and thereafter must enroll in the courses necessary to complete
the curriculum requirements for the recommended high school program or the
advanced program unless the student, the student's parent or other persons
standing in parental relation to the student, and a school counselor or school
administrator agree that the student should be permitted to take courses under the
minimum high school program.
PURPOSE: To report participation of students in the distinguished achievement
high school program.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS database.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of students graduating from the
distinguished achievement high school program will be collected through
PEIMS. This number collected will be divided by the total number of students
graduating who receive a diploma.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
1.2.2 Percent of Students at Texas High School Project Publicly-Funded High
Schools who Successfully Complete an Advanced Course
DEFINITION: Advanced Courses include dual enrollment courses. Dual
enrollment courses are those for which a student gets both high school and college
credit. Deciding who gets credit for which college course is described in Texas
Administrative Code §74.25. The course for which credit is awarded must
provide advanced academic instruction beyond, or in greater depth than, the
essential knowledge and skills for the equivalent high school course. The Public
Texas Education Agency
142
Education Information Management System (PEIMS) Data Standards lists all
courses identified as advanced, with the exception of courses designated only as
dual enrollment. Dual enrollment courses are not shown, as the courses vary from
campus to campus and could potentially include a large proportion of all high
school courses.
PURPOSE: To report the percentage of high school students who successfully
complete an advanced course.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS database
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of high school students who pass at
least one advanced course will be collected through PEIMS. This number
collected will be divided by the total number of high school students.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
Desired Performance: Higher than target.
1.2.3 Percent of Students who Take and Pass Advanced Academic Courses
Definition: An advanced course, which includes dual enrollment and IB courses,
is a course that must provide advanced academic instruction beyond, or in greater
depth than, the essential knowledge and skills for the equivalent high school
course.
Purpose: The purpose of the High School Allotment is to ensure all students are
prepared for college level work. This measure will assess the number of students
taking advanced-level courses in high school.
Data Source: PEIMS database.
Method of Calculation: The number of students in grades 9-12 who received
credit for at least one advanced or dual enrollment course divided by number of
students in grades 9-12 who received credit for at least one course.
Data Limitations: Updated annually only.
Calculation Type: Noncumulative.
New Measure: Yes.
Desired Performance: Higher than target.
1.2.4 Percent of Students who Meet the Higher Education Readiness Component
on the Exit Level TAKS
Definition: The Higher Education Readiness Component (HERC) is a scale
score of a 2200 or above on the exit-level TAKS English language arts with a
written composition score of ‘3’ or higher on the writing component. The HERC
is a scale score of 2200 or above for the exit-level TAKS mathematics. This
performance measure will measure the number of students who meet the HERC
standard in both English language arts and mathematics.
Purpose: The purpose of the High School Allotment is to ensure all students are
college ready. This measure will assess the percentage of students who
demonstrate college preparedness on the exit-level exam.
Data Source: PEIMS database.
Texas Education Agency
143
Method of Calculation: The number of students scoring a 2200 or above on
their exit-level TAKS mathematics and English language arts with a written
composition score of ‘3’ or higher on the writing component divided by the
number of students who take the exit-level TAKS.
Data Limitations: Updated annually only.
Calculation Type: Noncumulative.
New Measure: Yes.
Desired Performance: Higher than target.
1.2.5 Percentage of Texas High School Project Campuses With Improved
Graduation Rates
DEFINITION: Measures the percentage of high school campuses receiving funds
to implement High School Redesign, Texas Science, Technology, Engineering
and Math programs, and Four-Year Early College programs, with improved
graduation rates three or more years subsequent to the initiation of the program.
PURPOSE: The primary purpose of Texas high school grant project programs is to
implement programs that target 9th through 12th grade students in order to
increase graduation rates.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is the number of campuses funded
through the THSP in the base year (e.g., FY 2006) and each subsequent fiscal
year which experienced an improvement in their graduation rate three years after
the implementation of the program. The denominator is the total number of
campuses in the denominator represents all campuses funded through the THSP in
the base year and each subsequent year. For campuses in their first year of
eligibility for the measure (i.e., they were funded 3 years prior to the current
graduate rate year), graduation rate improvement will be calculated as the
difference in graduation rate for the base year (e.g., FY 2006) and the calculation
year (e.g., FY 2009). If the campus is in the 2nd or subsequent year of eligibility
of the measure, the improvement in campus graduation rate improvement will be
measured by the year to year improvement in graduation rates (e.g., FY 2009 vs.
FY 2010 rates).
DATA LIMITATIONS: Revised measure
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.6 Percent of Students With Disabilities Who Graduate High School
DEFINITION: The percentage of students with disabilities out of a 9th grade cohort
who, in four years' time, graduate high school.
PURPOSE: To report the high school graduation 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: Graduation is expressed as a percentage. The
numerator includes all students with disabilities out of a final cohort who
Texas Education Agency
144
graduated 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.
1.2.7
Percent of Eligible Students Taking Advanced Placement/International
Baccalaureate Exams
DEFINITION: The percent of public school 11th and 12th graders taking AP/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.
1.2.8 Percent of AP/IB Exams Qualifying for Potential College Credit or Advanced
Placement
DEFINITION: Students who score a 3 and above on an AP exam or 4 and above
on an 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 CB, the IBO, and the TEA Division of Accountability
Research.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The CB and IBO 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 IBO until after the end of the fiscal
year (August 31).
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
Texas Education Agency
145
1.2.9 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) PEIMS records; (2) Texas Higher Education Coordinating
Board (THECB) records of postsecondary enrollments; and (3) wage and
unemployment records from the Texas Workforce Commission.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The THECB receives PEIMS records from TEA
and wage/unemployment insurance data from TWC and compares PEIMS seed
records for a given year with postsecondary and employment placements the
second quarter after students exit from high school to determine students’
placement status.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Follow-up data currently only 75% of the eligible
population. Some placements cannot be determined, such as enrollments in outof-state postsecondary institutions; individuals who are self-employed; exiters
who are incarcerated; exiters who are deceased; and exiters who enter the
military.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.10 Percent of Students Exiting Bilingual/ESL 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.DEMOGRAPHIC DOB(yr)F) and student-level data tapes. English-version
TAKS data-(grade 3 March only, grades 4-12).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Percentage will be calculated by dividing the
number of former LEP students in the current year who pass the Reading/RLA
and Writing sections of the English-version TAKS by the number of former LEP
students in the current year who took the English-version Reading/RLA test. list
of former LEP students in Grades 3-12 submitted by school districts was matched
by student ID numbers to the current year English-version TAKS data.
DATA LIMITATIONS: PEIMS data is limiting due to the fact that it does not
indicate the number of students that met the cut off score for the norm-referenced
assessment and the high mobility of the LEP population.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.11 Percent of Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students Making Progress in
Learning English
Texas Education Agency
146
MEASURE DEFINITION: This measure will report the percentage of LEP students
making progress in learning English based on the state’s Annual Measurable
Achievement Objectives (AMAOs), as approved by the U.S. Department of
Education.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the measure is to identify an increase or decrease in the
number of districts with annual increases in the percentage of LEP students
making progress in learning English.
DATA SOURCE: The TELPAS Composite Score integrates the results of the
Reading Proficiency Test in English (RPTE) and the Texas Observation Protocols
(TOP).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Number of LEP students progressing at least one
proficiency level on the TELPAS Composite Rating from one year to the next
divided by number of LEP students assessed on the TELPAS over a two year
period.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Spring 2005 is first year of available data. This will be
baseline data.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative
NEW MEASURe: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.12 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)
(11).
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_STUDENT(yr-1),
P.ATTEND_DEMOGRAPHIC(yr-1), P.DEMOGRAPHIC(yr-1),
P.SPECED_STUDENT(yr-1)F, P.ATTEND_SPECED(yr-1),
P.GRADUATE<yr>, DS.PEI.STU.DET.DEMOGRAPHIC.DOB.YR<yr-1>.V8,
P.ENROLL<YR>F, P.NONENR(YR)>F.
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. PEIMS
data reported once annually. Prior year data reported.
Texas Education Agency
147
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
1.2.13 Percent of Students Retained in Grade 5
DEFINITION: The percentage of students repeating Grade 5
PURPOSE: Promotion from Grade 5 to Grade 6 is evidence that a student has
mastered the knowledge and skills required in Grade 5. Students who master the
knowledge and skills required in Grade 5 are prepared to be successful in Grade
6. Retention rates, disaggregated by grade level, are required by TEC §39.182(a)
(11).
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_STUDENT(yr-1),
P.ATTEND_DEMOGRAPHIC(yr-1),
P.DEMOGRAPHIC(yr-1),
P.SPECED_STUDENT(yr-1)F,
P.ATTEND_SPECED(yr-1),
P.GRADUATE<yr>, DS.PEI.STU.DET.DEMOGRAPHIC.DOB.YR<yr-1>.V8,
P.ENROLL<YR>F, P.NONENR(YR)>F.
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. PEIMS
data reported once annually. Prior year data reported.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target
1.2.14 Percent of Students Retained in Grade 8
DEFINITION: The percentage of students repeating Grade 8
PURPOSE: Promotion from Grade 8 to Grade 9 is evidence that a student has
mastered the knowledge and skills required in Grade 8. Students who master the
knowledge and skills required in Grade 8 are prepared to be successful in Grade
9. Retention rates, disaggregated by grade level, are required by TEC §39.182(a)
(11).
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_STUDENT(yr-1),
P.ATTEND_DEMOGRAPHIC(yr-1),
P.DEMOGRAPHIC(yr-1),
P.SPECED_STUDENT(yr-1)F,
P.ATTEND_SPECED(yr-1),
Texas Education Agency
148
P.GRADUATE<yr>, DS.PEI.STU.DET.DEMOGRAPHIC.DOB.YR<yr-1>.V8,
P.ENROLL<YR>F, P.NONENR(YR)>F.
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. PEIMS
data reported once annually. Prior year data reported.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
1.2.15 Percent of Students Retained in Grade
DEFINITION: The statewide retention rate for Grades P-12 is reported. The
retention rate reflects the percentage of students repeating a grade, and is reported
in response to requirements in TEC 39.182 (a)(11).
PURPOSE: To determine the percent of students who are retained in grade.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS. PEIMS views accessed: P.ATTEND_STUDENT(yr1), P. ATTEND DEMOGRAPHIC (yr-1), P.DEMOGRAPHIC(yr-1),
P.SPECED_STUDENT(yr-1)F, P.ATTEND_SPECED(yr-1), P.GRADUATE(yr),
DS.PEI.STU.DET.DEMOGRAPHIC.DOB.YR(yr).V8, P.ENROLL (yr)F, 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
1.2.16 Percent of Students That Meet the Passing Standard in Third Grade Reading
Definition: Percent of students that meet the passing standard on the state reading
assessment in third grade and meet the requirements for grade advancement under
the Student Success Initiative.
Purpose: To demonstrate the impact of implementation of the Student Success
Initiative on student academic achievement.
Data Source: Student assessment data.
Method of Calculation: Determine the percent of students passing the Grade 3
Reading TAKS after all three administrations in a given year.
Data Limitations: Student assessment data is reported once a year.
Texas Education Agency
149
Calculation Type: Noncumulative.
New Measure: Yes.
Desired Performance: Higher than target.
1.2.17 Percent of Students That Meet the Passing Standard in Fifth Grade Reading
DEFINITION: Percent of students that meet the passing standard on the state
reading assessment in fifth grade and meet the requirements for grade
advancement under the Student Success Initiative.
PURPOSE: To demonstrate the impact of implementation of the Student Success
Initiative on student academic achievement.
DATA SOURCE: Student assessment data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Determine the percent of students passing the
Grade 5 Reading TAKS after all three administrations in a given year.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Student assessment data is reported once a year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.18 Percent of Students That Meet the Passing Standard in Fifth Grade Math
Definition: Percent of students that meet the passing standard on the state math
assessment in fifth grade and meet the requirements for grade advancement under
the Student Success Initiative.
Purpose: To demonstrate the impact of implementation of the Student Success
Initiative on student academic achievement.
Data Source: Student assessment data.
Method of Calculation: Determine the percent of students passing the Grade 5
Math TAKS after all three administrations in a given year.
Data Limitations: Student assessment data is reported once a year.
Calculation Type: Noncumulative.
New Measure: Yes.
Desired Performance: Higher than target.
1.2.19 Percent of Students That Meet the Passing Standard in Eighth Grade
Reading
DEFINITION: Percent of students that meet the passing standard on the state
reading assessment in eighth grade and meet the requirements for grade
advancement under the Student Success Initiative.
PURPOSE: To demonstrate the impact of implementation of the Student Success
Initiative on student academic achievement.
DATA SOURCE: Student assessment data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Determine the percent of students passing the
Grade 8 Reading TAKS after all three administrations in a given year.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Student assessment data is reported once a year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
Texas Education Agency
150
1.2.20 Percent of Students That Meet the Passing Standard in Eighth Grade Math
DEFINITION: Percent of students that meet the passing standard on the state math
assessment in eighth grade and meet the requirements for grade advancement
under the Student Success Initiative.
PURPOSE: To demonstrate the impact of implementation of the Student Success
Initiative on student academic achievement.
DATA SOURCE: Student assessment data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Determine the percent of students passing the
Grade 8 Math TAKS after all three administrations in a given year.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Student assessment data is reported once a year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.21 Percent of Students in State-Funded OEYPs 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 OEYP which meets the requirements of TEC §29.082.
PURPOSE: To report the achievement of students participating in the OEYP.
DATA SOURCE: District reports the PEIMS 407 report due at a predetermined
date in the fourth submission to PEIMS in September. The report is queried as to
criteria for promotion: By Law and Code (90% attendance and proficiency), or by
district rule only by proficiency attained.
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 participating in the OEYP promoted by
the total number of students enrolled in OEYP as obtained through the 407PEIMS
report as a result of proficiency.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data reported once annually. Prior year data reported.
Self-reported by school districts. The district has 30 days after the required
submission date to revise and make any corrections. The report is available in
November of each year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.22 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. Completion is based on the number of students with 12
hours and a baseline assessment who completed a progress assessment and
increased their adult education level by one or more levels. Adult education uses
an open-entry/open-exit system (i.e., students are enrolling and exiting throughout
Texas Education Agency
151
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 have 12 hours or
more who completed the requirements for their level(s). Divide by the total
number of adults who took the baseline assessment, attended instruction.
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: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.23 Percent of Campuses Receiving ICF Grants Showing Improvement for All
Students on All Portions of the TAKS Test.
DEFINITION: Percent of campuses receiving ICF grants which demonstrate an
increase in the percent of students that met all standards on all TAKS tests.
PURPOSE: To determine the gains in student achievement for students
participating in the program.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS reports (by campus). Student-level data tapes 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 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 overall student
achievement (or) growth on all portions of TAKS for all students.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.24 Percent of Parents in AVANCE Programs Who Complete Level Enrolled
DEFINITION: The number of parents participating in AVANCE programs who
progress at least one level in the ABE or ESL Program or who pass at least one
GED test during the reporting period. The reporting period is the fiscal year.
PURPOSE: To report the performance of AVANCE programs.
DATA SOURCE: Each local AVANCE office will collect data from its program
participants and/or service providers. Data collected by local AVANCE offices
will be reported to the national office in San Antonio.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of parents participating in AVANCE is
calculated by totaling the number of AVANCE participants enrolled in ABE,
Texas Education Agency
152
ESL, or GED programs who progress at least one level in the ABE or ESL
program or who pass at least one GED test divided by the total number of
AVANCE participants enrolled in ABE, ESL, or GED programs.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data from third party. Outside agency control.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.25 Percent of CIS Case-Managed Students Remaining in School
DEFINITION: This measure reports the ratio of the case managed students served
by CIS that stay in the public school system.
PURPOSE: This measure is an indicator of progress made by CIS local programs
to keep at risk students in school.
DATA SOURCE: The data used for this measure is recorded in the Communities In
Schools Tracking Management System (CISTMS) by each CIS local program.
In order to be classified as “case-managed,” a student must meet the CIS state
definition of case management as listed in the Campus Implementation
Requirements (CIR). The CISTMS generates a report that provides the number of
case managed students according to the state requirements. A CIS case managed
student is counted as remaining in school if they are still enrolled in school at the
end of the school year.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is the total number of CIS case
managed students in grades 7 through 12 that remain in school at the end of the
school year. The denominator is the total number of CIS case-managed students
in grades 7 through 12 served. Divide the numerator by the denominator and
multiply by 100 to express the result as a percentage. Students who leave school
before the end of the school year for any reason other than for the leaver codes
listed below are counted as school leavers when reporting the CIS stay in school
performance measure.
01
Graduated
03
Died
16
Return to home country
24
College, pursue degree
60
Home schooling
66
Removed by Child Protective Services
78
Expelled, cannot return
81
Enroll in Texas private school
82
Enroll in school outside Texas
83
Administrative withdrawal
85
Graduated outside Texas, returned, left again
86
Received GED outside Texas
DATA LIMITATIONS: The agency is dependent upon the CIS local programs for
data. There are instances in which some students’ stay in school status is
“unknown” and CIS programs are unable to determine if they were still enrolled
in school at the end of the school year. These participants are considered school
leavers for the purpose of calculating the numerator of this measure.
Texas Education Agency
153
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.26 Percent of Campuses That Meet AYP
DEFINITION: A campus receives an AYP status of Meets AYP because its
performance met or exceeded the established federal accountability criteria for
AYP.
PURPOSE: To report campus AYP status.
DATA SOURCE: Federal accountability system data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of campuses receiving the Meets AYP
status in the federal accountability system is divided by the total number of
campuses in the state that are evaluated for AYP.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data for this measure are available in the fourth quarter of
the fiscal year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.27 Percent of Students with Disabilities Exceeding the Federal AYP Cap for
Reading/ELA
DEFINITION: Federal regulations related to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB) require that the annual results for students with disabilities taking
alternative assessments may not be counted as proficient in the Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) performance calculations if these results exceed the federal AYP
cap.
PURPOSE: This measure will report the percent of students with disabilities who
achieve proficiency on alternative assessments in reading/English language arts
(ELA) but are counted as non-proficient due to the federal AYP cap.
DATA SOURCE: Federal Accountability System data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of students with disabilities achieving
proficiency on alternative assessments in reading/ELA but are counted as nonproficient due to the federal AYP cap is divided by the total number of students
with disabilities enrolled at the time of testing in the grades evaluated for AYP.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Calculation of the federal cap will be subject to the final
federal regulations on use of assessments based on modified achievement
standards. Data for this measure are available in the fourth quarter of the fiscal
year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target. The goal is for the total number of
students with disabilities who demonstrate proficiency on alternative assessments
to not exceed the federal AYP cap.
1.2.28 Percent of Students with Disabilities Exceeding the Federal AYP Cap for
Math
Texas Education Agency
154
DEFINITION: Federal regulations related to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB) require that the annual results for students with disabilities taking
alternative assessments may not be counted as proficient in the Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) performance calculations if these results exceed the federal AYP
cap.
PURPOSE: This measure will report the percent of students with disabilities who
achieve proficiency on alternative assessments in math but are counted as nonproficient due to the federal AYP cap.
DATA SOURCE: Federal Accountability System data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of students with disabilities achieving
proficiency on alternative assessments in math but are counted as non-proficient
due to the federal AYP cap is divided by the total number of students with
disabilities enrolled at the time of testing in the grades evaluated for AYP.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Calculation of the federal cap will be subject to the final
federal regulations on use of assessments based on modified achievement
standards. Data for this measure are available in the fourth quarter of the fiscal
year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target. The goal is for the total number of
students with disabilities who demonstrate proficiency on alternative assessments
to not exceed the federal AYP cap.
1.2.29 Percent of Career and Technology Students Retaining Placement in a 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 levels four and five quarters after graduation (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) PEIMS records; (2) THECB records of postsecondary
enrollments; and (3) wage and unemployment records from the TWC.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The THECB receives PEIMS records from TEA
and wage/unemployment insurance data from TWC and compares PEIMS seed
records for a given year with postsecondary and employment placements four and
five quarters after students exit from high school to determine students’ placement
status.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Follow-up data currently captures only about 75% of the
eligible population. Some placements cannot be determined, such as enrollments
in out-of-state postsecondary institutions; individuals who are self-employed;
exiters who are incarcerated; exiters who are deceased; and exiters who enter the
military.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
Texas Education Agency
155
1.2.30 Percent of Students Achieving a Degree or Credential through Completion of
a Secondary Career and Technology Education program
DEFINITION: Percent of secondary students pursuing a coherent sequence in
career and technology education, who have attained a high school diploma and
have left secondary education in the reporting year.
PURPOSE: To determine educational achievement status of students with a
concentration in career and technology education.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS record submissions from school districts.
METHOD OF CALCULATIOn: The percentage of Career and Technology students
coded as 2 (coherent sequence) and 3 (Tech Prep) who have received a diploma
and are not enrolled the following school year.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Refinements in methodology are expected as more
comprehensive withdrawal data becomes available in PEIMS.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.31 Percent of Adult Education Participants Obtaining Employment After
Exiting an Adult Education Program
DEFINITION: The percent of students who obtained employment before the end
of the first quarter after the program exit quarter.
PURPOSE: To determine the percent of students who found employment that were
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 numerator
(the total number of adults with a primary or secondary goal of finding
employment who found employment the quarter after their exit quarter) and the
denominator (the total number of adults with a primary or secondary goal of
finding employment who exit the program) based on UI data matching.
DATA LIMITATIONS: A report is compiled at the end of the program year. Data
is available at the end of the fiscal year for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarters of the
school year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.32 Percent of Adult Education Participants Who Retained Employment After
Exiting an Adult Education Program
DEFINITION: The percent of students who retained employment in the third
quarter after their exit quarter.
PURPOSE: To determine the percent of students who retained employment who
were served by state adult education cooperatives.
DATA SOURCE: Annual individual student data submitted by adult education
Texas Education Agency
156
providers in August through TEA's adult education management information
system and data match from the THECB.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Using individual student data submitted by adult
education providers in August of each year and data matches from THECB, the
agency computes the total number of adults with a primary or secondary goal of
finding employment who found employment and the total number of adults who
were employed with a primary or secondary goal of advancing or retaining
employment based on UI data matching. Calculations are determined by the
numerator (the total number of adults with a primary or secondary goal of finding
employment who found employment and are still employed and the total number
of adults who were employed with a primary or secondary goal of advancing or
retaining employment who continued employment) with the denominator (the
total number of adults with a primary or secondary goal of finding employment
who found employment and the total number of adults who were employed with a
primary or secondary goal of advancing or retaining employment).
DATA LIMITATIONS: A report is compiled at the end of the program year. Data
is available at the end of the fiscal year for the 3rd quarter of the school year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.33 Percent of High School Diplomas or GED issued to Adults as a Result of
Program Participation
DEFINITION: The percent of students who obtained certification of attaining
passing scores on the GED tests, or who obtains a diploma, or state recognized
equivalent, documenting satisfactory completion of secondary studies (high
school or adult high school diploma).
PURPOSE: To determine the percent of students who obtained a Certificate of
Completion for an Equivalency Diploma (GED) or High School Diploma.
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 with a primary or secondary goal of obtaining an Equivalency Diploma
based on a data match with the GED Unit at TEA. The numerator is the number
of GED recipients matching with the GED database divided by the denominator
which is the total number of adult students who had a primary or secondary goal
of obtaining a GED or High School Diploma.
DATA LIMITATIONS: A report is compiled at the end of the program year.
Information must be matched using four criteria.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
Strategy 1.2.1
Texas Education Agency
Student Success: Support schools so that all Texas
students have the knowledge and skills, as well as the
157
instructional programs, they need to succeed; 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.
(i)
OUTPUT MEASURES
1.2.1.1
Number of Students Served in Pre-Kindergarten Grant Programs
DEFINITION: Number of Pre-Kindergarten students served in grant
programs exclusive of OEYP which is funded by State Compensatory
funding. Number of students participating in discretionary and formula
grants.
PURPOSE: Represents supplementary funding that targets prekindergarten 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 kindergarten 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 and formula
grants serving this age group.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The data for this measure are available only in the
fourth quarter.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.1.2
Number of Students Participating in the SSI ARI 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: Add the number of students who were
identified by an early reading assessment from the Commissioner’s List
of Early Reading Instruments and who were referred to the local school
district’s accelerated reading program.
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.
1.2.1.3
Number of Students in Tech-Prep Programs
Texas Education Agency
158
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.
1.2.1.4
Number of Students Served in Summer School Programs for
Limited English-Proficient 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 will be PEIMS submission
P.DEMOGRAPHIC (yr) E WHERE BIL_ESL_ SUMMER =”1”.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Count the number of LEP students who
have been flagged as participants using the bilingual/ESL Summer
School Indicator Code. These participants are reported in the extended
year PEIMS collection.
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.
1.2.1.5
Number of Secondary Students Served from Grades 9 through 12
DEFINITION: A count of students enrolled in public schools in grades 9
through 12.
PURPOSE: To report the number of students enrolled in high school.
DATA SOURCE: Fall collection of data on student enrollment as reported
in PEIMS.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: No calculation is required.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually at the end of the third
quarter.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
Texas Education Agency
159
(iii)
EXPLANATORY MEASURES
1.2.1.1 Number of Campuses Receiving Texas High School Project Funds
DEFINITION: Measures the total number of campuses receiving public
funds through the Texas High School Project.
PURPOSE: The primary purpose of Texas High School Project programs
is to implement programs that target 6th through 12th grade students in
order to increase graduation rates.
DATA SOURCE: Discretionary Grants reporting system.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Combine the number of campuses
receiving public funds through the Texas High School Project in each year
of the biennium.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Campuses receiving funds exclusively from the
private partners in the Texas High School Project will not be included in
this count.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.1.2 Number of High School Campuses Receiving Texas High School
Project Funds for Purposes of Comprehensive Reform
DEFINITION: Measures the number of campuses receiving public funds
for intensive campus-wide reform efforts through the Texas High School
Project.
PURPOSE: The primary purpose of Texas High School Project programs
is to implement programs that target 6th through 12th grade students in
order to increase graduation rates.
DATA SOURCE: eGrants
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Combine the number of campuses
receiving public funds through the Texas High School Project for purposes
of high school redesign, early college implementation, or Texas Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Math projects in each year of
the biennium.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Campuses receiving coordinated funds from the
private partners in the Texas High School Project will not be included in
this count.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
Strategy 1.2.2
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 students in at risk situations receive a
quality education.
OUTPUT MEASURE
Texas Education Agency
160
1.2.2.1
Number of Title I Campuses Rated Exemplary or Recognized
DEFINITION: The number of Title 1, Part A campuses identified in the
Consolidated Application for Federal Funding that receives an
exemplary or recognized rating on the statewide public school
accountability system. Campuses are rated exemplary or recognized
because their performance met or exceeded the established
accountability standard for exemplary or recognized ratings.
PURPOSE: To report performance of campuses receiving Title I funds.
DATA SOURCE: Accountability system files and Consolidated
Application for Federal Funding.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of campuses receiving the
exemplary or recognized ratings will be obtained form the statewide
public school accountability system. This number, which includes all
campuses, will be compared against the Title 1, Part A campuses on the
Consolidated Application for Federal Funding. Campuses receiving
Title 1, part A funds and rated exemplary or recognized will be counted
for this measure.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data is available in the fourth quarter.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
EXPLANATORY MEASURE
1.2.2.1 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 federal, state and local funding sources.
PURPOSE: To identify and certify migrant students in order to target
appropriate services under Title 1, Part C – Education of Migratory
Children.
DATA SOURCE: New Generation System (NGS), a database for
encoding migrant student data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Districts and ESC NGS data specialist are
responsible for encoding migrant student demographic data into the
NGS database between the September 1 and August 31 reporting period.
A snapshot of the data from this reporting period is taken annually in
early November to generate a statewide unduplicated count of migrant
students (ages (3-21).
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data limited to period reported.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
Texas Education Agency
161
Strategy 1.2.3 Students with Disabilities: Develop and implement programs
that help to ensure all students with disabilities receive a quality
education.
OUTPUT MEASURES
1.2.3.1
Number of Students Served by Regional Day Schools for the Deaf
DEFINITION: The number of students with auditory impairments served
by the Regional Day School Programs for the Deaf.
PURPOSE: To report students with auditory impairments served by the
Regional Day School Programs for the Deaf.
DATA SOURCE: The annual Texas State Survey of Deaf and Hard-ofHearing Students.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number is taken from the annual
Texas State Survey of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students.
DATA LIMITATIONs: Data is available in the third quarter.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.3.2
Number of Students with Auditory Impairment in Regional Day
Schools for the Deaf Who Graduate from High School
DEFINITION: The number 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 State Survey of Deaf and
Hard-of-Hearing Students.
PURPOSE: To report the number of students who graduate from the
regional day school program for the deaf.
DATA SOURCE: Annual Texas State Survey of Deaf and Hard-ofHearing 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: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.3.3
Number of Students Served by Statewide Programs for the Visually
Impaired
DEFINITION: The 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 Registration of Visually Impaired Students.
Texas Education Agency
162
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data is available in the third quarter.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
1.2.3.4
Number of Developmental Disabilities State Plan Activities Initiated
DEFINITION: The number of TCDD State Plan activities initiated is a
manual count of each State Plan objective for which grants or staff
activity was initiated, or reinitiated, during the state fiscal year. The
State Plan is a five-year plan of the Texas Council for Developmental
Disabilities approved by the federal Administration on Developmental
Disabilities.
PURPOSE: Measure shows measurable effort to initiate activities in the
TCDD State Plan.
DATA SOURCE: The number is a manual count of each Plan objective
for which grants or staff activity was initiated, or reinitiated, during the
state fiscal year. The State Plan is a five-year plan approved by the
federal Administration on Developmental Disabilities.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: A manual count of each plan objective for
which grants or staff activity was initiated, or reinitiated, during the state
fiscal year.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.3.5
Number of Developmental Disability State Plan Activities
Completed
DEFINITION: The number of TCDD State Plan activities completed is a
manual count of all Plan objectives for which planned activities were
completed during the state fiscal year. The TCDD State Plan is a fiveyear Plan approved by the federal Administration on Developmental
Disabilities.
PURPOSE: Completion of State Plan activities measures progress in
implementing the TCDD State Plan.
DATA SOURCE: A manual count of all State Plan objectives for which
planned activities were completed during the state fiscal year.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: A manual count of all State Plan activities
completed during the state fiscal year.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
EFFICIENCY MEASURE
1.2.3.1
Administrative Costs of the DDC as Percent of All DDC Costs
Texas Education Agency
163
DEFINITION: Administrative cost is a calculation of the current period
TCDD administrative expenses plus grants reimbursements times the
TEA federally approved indirect cost rate.
PURPOSE: This is an indication of what it costs to provide
administrative support to TCDD.
DATA SOURCE: The agency’s Financial Information System is the
source of data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: A calculation of the current period TCDD
administrative expenses (TCDD fiscal year expenditures plus grant
reimbursements) times the TEA federally approved indirect cost rate
which is then divided by total TCDD expenses year to date (less federal
benefits).
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
Strategy 1.2.4
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.
OUTPUT MEASURES
1.2.4.1
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.
1.2.4.2
Number of Campuses with Texas 21st CCLC Grant Funds
1.2.4.2 Number of Campuses with Texas 21st Century Community
Learning Center Grant Funds Grant Funds
DEFINITION: The number of campuses that are participating in the
Texas 21st CCLC.
Texas Education Agency
164
PURPOSE: To report the number of campuses with Texas 21st CCLC
grant funds.
DATA SOURCE: The fiscal agent of each grant submits term reports
entered through the TEA 21st Century Tracking System in which each
center documents the participating campuses identified by the 9-digit ID
in which the participating students are enrolled.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Addition of all campuses represented
within current fiscal year (September 1- August 31).
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.4.3
Number of Students Served by State-Funded OEYP
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 the PEIMS 407 report due at a specified
date in the fourth submission of PEIMS in September.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: A tally of the number of students obtained
through the 407 PEIMS report served in the districts state-funded
OEYPs that met the criteria for eligibility and submitted applications
and were approved to implement the OEYP in a given fiscal year.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data reported annually. Prior Year data. Self
reported by districts validated through PEIMS through the 407 PEIMS
report. The district has 30 days after the required date of submission to
revise and make any necessary corrections. After that date it is
submitted to PEIMS for validation. The report is not available until
mid-November. As a Quarterly Measurement, only “0” can be entered
until the PEIMS report is released.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.4.4
Number of Schools with Approved State-Funded OEYP
DEFINITION: A count of the number of schools receiving services
through an approved state-funded OEYP which meets the requirements
of TEC §29.082.
PURPOSE: To report the number of schools with approved OEYPs.
DATA SOURCE: District reports the PEIMS 407 report due at a specified
date in the fourth submission of PEIMS in September.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The report requested from the 407 PEIMS
report can be queried to calculate and validate the number of schools
that had students participating in the OEYP program.
Texas Education Agency
165
DATA LIMITATIONS: The district has 30 days after the required date of
submission to revise and make any necessary corrections. After that
date it is submitted to PEIMS for validation. The report is not available
until mid-November.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.4.5
Number of Case-Managed Students Participating in CIS
DEFINITIONS: This measure reports the number of case-managed
students participating in the CIS program.
PURPOSE: CIS is a specific program model designed to keep youth in
school, this measure is an indicator of the number of students served by
the local CIS programs.
DATA SOURCE: The number of students case-managed as reported by
local CIS programs in the Communities In Schools Tracking
Management (CISTMS).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Case managed student records are
retrieved from the CISTMS. The number of case managed students in
the CIS program is computed for each reporting period, quarterly and
cumulative totals.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The agency is dependent on CIS programs to
provide accurate and timely data in the CISTMS. On rare occasions the
contracted service providers may serve the same youth in more than one
program area. When this occurs, the youth may be counted more than
once. The amount of duplication is less than 1% for any given month.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than Target.
EFFICIENCY MEASURE
1.2.4.1 Average State Cost Per CIS Participant
DEFINITION: This measure reports the average state cost per case
managed student served by CIS.
PURPOSE: This measure is an indicator of the total state costs (does not
include costs used by agency for admin and CIS state office) used for
CIS to provide services to case managed students in order to keep them
in school. This measure helps to determine the cost effectiveness of the
services provided by CIS.
DATA SOURCE: The total program reimbursements for all CIS local
programs are taken from the internal “CIS Quarterly Program Expenses
Report” used to track monthly reimbursements. The report is generated
from the expenditure reports submitted by each of the CIS local
program. This document is updated monthly as expenditure reports are
submitted. The number of case managed students served is retrieved
from the CISTMS.
Texas Education Agency
166
METHOD OF CALCULATION: For quarterly calculations, the numerator is
the total expenditures of the local CIS programs for the reporting period.
The denominator is the total number of case managed students served
for the reporting quarter. For Year-to-date calculations, the numerator is
the total expenditures of the local CIS programs from the beginning of
the year through the reporting quarter. The denominator is the number
of case managed students served from the beginning of the year through
the reporting quarter.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data provided in each quarter is an estimate. An
accurate cost cannot be fully determined until the end of year when all
student data and final reimbursements are determined. Final annual data
is updated in the fifth quarter. All CIS local programs may not submit
their monthly expenditures forms timely thus those expenditures will not
be included in the quarter reporting period. The fifth quarter reporting
will capture and report correctly all the expenditures for the fiscal year.
The data collected are reported to TEA by the CIS local programs
through data entry into the CISTMS.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
EXPLANATORY MEASURE
1.2.4.1
Number of Open-Enrollment Charter Schools
DEFINITION: The number of open-enrollment charter (OEC) schools
that are authorized by statute and approved by the State Board of
Education (SBOE).
PURPOSE: To report the number of OEC schools in the state.
DATA SOURCE: SBOE minutes summarized in a document, the
Summary of Charter Awards and Closures Report, which is maintained
by the Division of Charter Schools.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: A tally of the number of schools approved
by the SBOE through an RFA process is maintained by the Division of
Charter Schools in a document entitled Summary of Charter Awards and
Closures Report.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.4.2
Number of Campus or Campus Program Charter Schools
DEFINITION: The number of campus or campus program charter
schools.
PURPOSE: To identify the number of campus and campus program
charter schools.
DATA SOURCE: Information provided by school districts that authorize
and operate campus or campus program charter schools.
Texas Education Agency
167
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of campus or campus program
charter schools reported by school districts through PEIMS is counted
by Division of Charter Schools staff.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Self-reported. Districts are not required to report to
TEA that they have approved a campus or campus program charters.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.4.3
Percent of Independent School Districts with Campuses In CIS
Program
DEFINITION: This measure provides a method to report the participation
ratio of ISD’s campuses served by the Communities in Schools (CIS)
program.
PURPOSE: This measure is intended to show the extent to which the CIS
program is available to youth throughout the state of Texas.
DATA SOURCE: The numerator for this measure is the total number of
independent school districts (ISD’s) with campuses participating in the
CIS program as reported in the CISTMS. The denominator for this
measure is the total number of all independent school districts in the
state of Texas as reported by TEA.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator for this measure is the total
number of independent school districts (ISD’s) with campuses
participating in the CIS program as reported in the CISTMS. The
denominator for this measure is the total number of all independent
school districts in the state of Texas as reported by TEA. Divide the
numerator by the denominator and multiply by 100 to express as a
percentage.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The data collected are reported by the CIS
providers into the CISTMS.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
Strategy 1.2.5
Adult Education and Family Literacy: Develop adult
education and family literacy programs that encourage
literacy and lead all adults to achieve the basic education
skills they need to contribute to their families,
communities, and the world.
OUTPUT MEASURES
1.2.5.1
Cooperatives
Number of Students Served Through State Adult Education
DEFINITION: The number of students served by state adult education
cooperatives. Local adult education providers maintain enrollment
records of students.
Texas Education Agency
168
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 captured in the State Management
System with a baseline assessment and at least one hour of contact in a
program. 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: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
1.2.5.2
1.2.5.3
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.
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.
Texas Education Agency
169
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.
Goal 2
Operational Excellence: The TEA will create a system of
accountability for student performance that is supported by challenging
assessments, high-quality data, supportive school environments, highly
qualified teachers, and high standards of student, campus, district, and
agency performance.
Objective 2.1 Accountability: The TEA will sustain high levels of accountability in
the state public education system through challenging and attainable
federal and state performance standards.
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 data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of students who met the standard 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 data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of African-American students who met
the standard on all TAKS tests taken as a percent of the total number of AfricanAmerican students tested. This measure is based on students tested in Grades 311 in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
Texas Education Agency
170
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 data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of Hispanic students who met the
standard 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 data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of White students who met the
standard 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.
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 data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of Asian-American students who met
the standard on all TAKS tests taken as a percent of the total number of AsianAmerican students tested. This measure is based on students tested in Grades 311 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 data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of Native American students who met
the standard on all TAKS tests taken as a percent of the total number of Native
Texas Education Agency
171
American students tested. This measure is based on students tested in Grades 311 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 data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of economically disadvantaged
students who met the standard 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 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 Passing TAKS Reading
DEFINITION: Percent of students reading at grade level.
PURPOSE: To measure student performance in reading.
DATA SOURCE: Student-level data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of students who met the standard on
TAKS reading as a percent of the total number of students tested in reading. This
measure is based on students tested on Grades 3-11 in reading.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.1.9 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 data.
Texas Education Agency
172
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of students who met the standard on
TAKS mathematics as a percent of the total number of students tested in
mathematics. This measure is based on students tested in Grades 3-11 in
mathematics.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.1.10 Percent of Students Whose Assessment Results are Included in the
Accountability System
DEFINITION: Percent of students whose assessment results are included in the
accountability rating 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 non-mobile 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.
2.1.11 Percent of Special Education Students Who are Tested and Included in the
Accountability System
DEFINITION: Percent of special education students who are tested and whose
results are included in the accountability rating system.
PURPOSE: To determine the percentage of special education students who take
tests.
DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data (student assessment files).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of non-mobile 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.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.1.12 Percent of LEP Students Who are Tested and Included in the Accountability
System
Texas Education Agency
173
DEFINITION: Percent of limited English-proficient (LEP) students who are tested
and whose results are included in the accountability rating 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 non-mobile 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.
2.1.13 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; and in response to other
reporting requirements such as TEC §39.182 (a)(7) .
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.DEMOGRAPHIC(yr-1), P.ENROLL(yr-1)F,
P.SPECED_STUDENT(yr-1)F, and P.ATTEND_SPECED(yr-1). PEIMS views
accessed to prepare the numerator: P.DEMOGRAPHIC_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 annual dropout rate for Grades 7-12 is
determined by using a standard equation for all collection and reporting
requirements. 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. The
state dropout definition will be changing for 2005-06 dropout data reported in Fall
2007 and is consistent with the NCES definition implemented by changes in
PEIMS leaver reporting.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
2.1.14 Percent of Districts Rated Exemplary or Recognized
DEFINITION: A district is rated exemplary or recognized because its performance
met or exceeded the established accountability requirements for exemplary or
recognized ratings.
PURPOSE: To report district ratings.
Texas Education Agency
174
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: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.1.15 Percent of Campuses Rated Exemplary or Recognized
DEFINITION: Campuses are rated exemplary or recognized because their
performance met or exceeded the established accountability requirements 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: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.1.16 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.
2.1.17 Percent of Campuses with Upgraded Ratings
DEFINITION: Percent of campuses rated academically unacceptable 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 that earned an
Academically Unacceptable rating in the prior year are identified. Among these,
Texas Education Agency
175
a count is made of the number which earned an improved rating in the current
year.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Campuses which are no longer in operation are not
included in the denominator, nor are campuses that were not rated for any reason.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.1.18 Percent of Districts Rated Below Academically Acceptable
DEFINITION: A district is rated below academically acceptable because its
performance did not meet the requirements for an academically acceptable rating
in the accountability rating system.
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: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
2.1.19 Percent of Campuses Rated Academically Unacceptable
DEFINITION: Campuses are rated academically unacceptable because their
performance does not meet the requirements for an academically acceptable rating
in the accountability rating system.
PURPOSE: To report campus ratings.
DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of campuses rated academically
unacceptable is divided by the total number of eligible campuses in the state.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
2.1.20 Percent of Charter Schools Rated Academically Unacceptable
DEFINITION: Charter schools are rated academically unacceptable because their
performance does not meet the requirements for an academically acceptable rating
in the accountability rating system.
PURPOSE: To report performance for charter schools.
DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of charter schools rated academically
unacceptable is divided by the total number of charter schools in the
accountability system.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
Texas Education Agency
176
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
2.1.21 Percent of Graduates Who Take the SAT or College Admission Testing
(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:
P.DEMOGRAPHIC_GRAD_DOB(yr-1), P.GRADUATE (yr-1), P. ATTEND
_DEMOGRAPHIC(yr-1)F, P.ATTEND_SPECID(yr-1), and P. CAMPUS.
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.
2.1.22 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
Texas Education Agency
177
documented reasons. Data does not include non-exempt Texas public high school
graduates who do not take the test.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
Strategy 2.1.1 Assessment and Accountability: Continue to provide a
preeminent state assessment system that will drive and
recognize improvement in student achievement by providing a
basis for evaluating and reporting student performance. The
state’s accountability system, which is interdependent with the
assessment system, will continue to drive and recognize
improvement by campuses and districts in education system
performance.
OUTPUT MEASURES
2.1.1.1
Number of Campuses Rated Academically Unacceptable for Two
Out of the Three Most Current Years
DEFINITION: Number of campuses rated academically unacceptable 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 academically
unacceptable 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.
Texas Education Agency
178
2.1.1.3
Number of Student Texas Tests Administered
DEFINITION: Student tests administered.
PURPOSE: To report the number of subject area examinations taken.
DATA SOURCE: Student-level data.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of subject area examinations
taken by students in the statewide assessment program.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.1.1.4
Number of LEAs Participating at the Most Extensive Intervention
Stage Based on PBMAS Results
DEFINITION: In response to House Bill 3459 (passed during the 78th
legislative session), the agency developed a performance-based
monitoring system to replace the former District Effectiveness and
Compliance (DEC) monitoring system. Two components of the new
system are (1) the Performance-Based Monitoring Analysis System
(PBMAS), which generates annual reports of LEAs’ performance on a
series of indicators and (2) an interventions framework which requires
LEAs with the greatest degree of performance concern to engage in a
series of graduated interventions that are focused on continuous
improvement planning. This measure will report the annual number of
LEAs participating at the most extensive intervention stage based on
their PBMAS results.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this measure is to identify an increase or
decrease in the annual number of LEAs participating at the most
extensive intervention stage based on their PBMAS results. The
PBMAS consists of key indicators of performance and program
effectiveness that are used to identify LEAs in need of monitoring
intervention(s). The agency will engage with LEAs identified through
the PBMAS by implementing graduated interventions which are based
on the LEA’s level of performance and the degree to which that
performance varies from established standards.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS, AEIS, AYP, and Student Assessment data used
in each year’s PBMAS.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The PBMAS includes performance-based
indicators for each of the following program areas: bilingual
education/English as a Second Language, career and technology
education, special education, and No Child Left Behind. These
indicators evaluate a variety of measures, including student performance
on statewide assessments as well as dropout rates and AYP status.
Each LEA’s performance on a PBMAS indicator is used to determine
LEAs’ assigned stage of monitoring intervention. Monitoring
interventions range from least extensive to most extensive.
Texas Education Agency
179
DATA LIMITATIONS: Baseline targets may be difficult to predict and
may not be stable because of (a) the phase-in of higher standards in the
PBMAS TAKS indicators and its potential effect on the number of
districts not meeting the standard; (b) lack of longitudinal data in a new
system [PBMAS]; and (c) the impact of other changes in state and
federal law that may have effects on the PBMAS that can’t be
anticipated at this time.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower 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. 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.DEMOGRAPHIC_GRAD_DOB01, P.OVER_REPORT_GRAD01,
P.OVER_REPORT_DROP01, P.DEMOGRAPHIC_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
Texas Education Agency
180
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.
2.1.1.2
Compliance Audit and Review Ratios
DEFINITION: In response to House Bill 3459, 78th Legislature, the
agency developed a compliance monitoring system to complement its
performance-based monitoring system. These two systems replaced the
former district effectiveness and compliance monitoring system. The
compliance audit and review ratios provide an indication of the degree to
which the agency has satisfied its state and federal compliance
monitoring responsibilities.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the compliance monitoring system is to
ensure that the agency complies with Section 76.770 and 80.40(a) of
Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section _____.400(d)(3) of
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133 and Section
7.021(b)(1) of the Texas Education Code (TEC), in accordance with
TEC §7.027. To achieve this objective, the compliance monitoring
system will use a risk assessment methodology and audits and reviews
of independent school districts, open-enrollment charter schools,
regional education service centers and other entities (the grantees) to
assess their compliance with federal laws and regulations and grant
requirements.
DATA SOURCE: Auditors will use a Microsoft Access database to track
project assignments, including the grantees selected for audit or review,
the risk indicators that constituted the basis for selection, the federal and
state programs affected, the status of project completion, the conduct of
onsite visits, project findings and other relevant information.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: For a specified time period, the total
number of grantees audited or reviewed divided by the total number of
grantees.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The calculation of the performance measure noted
above will depend on the availability of data regarding the total number
of grantees, the total number of grants awarded and the total dollar
amount of grants awarded on a specified snapshot date. In addition, both
the compliance and performance-based monitoring systems are still
undergoing development.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
Texas Education Agency
181
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than Target.
Objective 2.2 Effective School Environments: The TEA will support school
environments that ensure educators and students have the materials they
need to receive a quality education.
OUTCOME MEASURES
2.2.1 Percent of Campuses Rated as Developing Tech or Above on the Texas Star
Chart for Teaching and Learning with Technology
DEFINITION: Percent of campuses rated as Developing Tech or above on the
Texas Star Chart for teaching and learning with technology.
PURPOSE: To assess campus 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: Campuses 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 Percent of Campuses Rated Developing Tech or Above on the Campus Star
Chart for Distance Learning
DEFINITION: Percent of campuses that are rated Developing Tech or above on the
Texas STaR Chart for Distance Learning.
PURPOSE: To assess campus proficiency in the area of distance learning
DATA SOURCE: Texas Star Indicators database – the data from the online
indicator survey is captured in a database.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Campuses 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: The data is self-reported.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.2.3 Percent that Advanced Tech or Above on the Campus Star Chart for Student
to Computer Ratio
DEFINITION: Percent of campuses that are rated Advanced Tech or above on the
Texas STaR Chart for Students per Computer.
PURPOSE: To assess campus proficiency in the area of distance learning.
DATA SOURCE: Texas Star Indicators database – the data from the online
indicator survey is captured in a database.
Texas Education Agency
182
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Campuses 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: The data is self-reported.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative
NEW MEASURE: Yes
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.2.4 Annual Drug Use and Violence Incident Rate on School Campuses, per One
Thousand Students
DEFINITION: The rate of incidents of on-campus drug use and violence, per one
thousand students, as reported by the districts to the agency.
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, 36, 37, 41, 46,
47, and 48.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of incidents reported statewide will be
multiplied by the state's total enrollment, and that number will be multiplied by
1000.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data is self-reported by school districts and may be overor 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.
2.2.5 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.
Texas Education Agency
183
2.2.6 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.
2.2.7 Percent of Textbook Funds Spent on Digital Content
DEFINITION: Electronic learning systems are defined as instructional materials,
adopted by the SBOE for use in public schools, whose primary method of
instruction is electronic.
PURPOSE: To purchase all state-adopted instructional materials with textbook
funds, based on the number of students enrolled in the public schools for a given
year.
DATA SOURCE: EMAT database.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Divide the total expenditures for electronic learning
systems by the total state expenditures for all adopted materials for the fiscal year.
Include purchases of all new materials as well as purchases of continuing contract
instructional materials.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Self-reported data.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.2.8 Percent of Students Passing GED Tests - Windham
DEFINITION: The percentage of students enrolled in Windham Educational
Programs that passed the GED tests in a state fiscal year.
PURPOSE: To assess the educational attainment of Windham inmates.
DATA SOURCE: Windham School District GED database.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: A count of the number of students in the Windham
Educational Programs that passed the GED during the fiscal year divided by the
total number of students in the Windham Educational Programs that have taken
the GED test during the fiscal year. These numbers are attained from the
Windham School District GED Database and reported annually.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative
Texas Education Agency
184
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.2.9 Percent of Career and Technology Certificates – Windham
DEFINITION: This measure counts the percent of offenders awarded a career and
technology certificate by the Windham School District in a state fiscal year.
PURPOSE: To assess the educational attainment of the Windham inmates in
career and technology.
DATA SOURCE: Windham School District database.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is the number of participants that
receive a Certificate during a fiscal year. The denominator is the number of
participants that completed or dropped from the program during a fiscal year.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
Strategy 2.2.1 Educational Technology: Implement educational
technologies that increase the effectiveness of student learning,
instructional management, professional development, and
administration.
OUTPUT MEASURES
2.2.1.2
Number of District Technology Plans with Approval Certification
DEFINITION: Districts must have an approved technology plan to be
eligible to receive federal technology funds under NCLB Title II, Part D,
and the E-Rate Telecommunications Discount Program.
PURPOSE: To measure the number of districts with approved plans.
DATA SOURCE: Texas ePlan online technology plan submission system.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Actual number of plans submitted via the
Texas ePlan system that have been approved.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data is available at the end of the fiscal year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
Strategy 2.2.2 Safe Schools: Enhance school safety and support schools in
maintaining a disciplined environment that promotes student
learning. 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 succeed.
OUTPUT MEASURE
Texas Education Agency
185
2.2.2.1
Number of Referrals in Disciplinary Alternative Education
Programs (DAEPs)
DEFINITION: This is the number of students referred to a TEC §37.008
DAEP.
PURPOSE: Use of DAEPs is an essential aspect of a safe schools
strategy.
DATA SOURCE: TEA's data; PEIMS 425 Record.
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 DAEP more than once
during the school year.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data is self-reported by school districts and may
be over or under reported. 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.
2.2.2.2
Number of Students in DAEPs
DEFINITION: This is the number of students served by a TEC §37.008
DAEP.
PURPOSE: Use of Disciplinary alternative education programs is an
essential aspect of a safe schools strategy.
DATA SOURCE: TEA's data; PEIMS 425 Record Report.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: This measure counts un-duplicated
referrals of students, and is a count of students referred in the prior
school year. One student will be counted once during the school year,
no matter how many times the student is sent to the TEC §37.008 DAEP
in that year.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data is collected once a year by TEA. Data is
self-reported by school districts and reflects student referrals in the prior
school year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
2.2.2.3
Number of LEAs Participating in Monitoring Interventions Related
to Discipline Data and Programs
DEFINITION: This measure will report the number of LEAs requiring
intervention as identified by the performance-based and/or discipline
data integrity monitoring systems. In response to TEC §37.008(m-1),
the agency has developed a process for electronically evaluating LEAs’
discipline data, including disciplinary alternative education program
data. The system is designed to identify LEAs that have a high
probability of having inaccurate discipline data, of failing to comply
with Chapter 37, Texas Education Code requirements, and/or of
Texas Education Agency
186
disproportionately placing/removing certain student groups to
disciplinary settings.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the measure is to identify an increase or
decrease in the number of LEAs participating in the performance-based
monitoring system for reasons related to student discipline and/or the
discipline data integrity monitoring system on a year to year basis. The
PBM and discipline data integrity monitoring systems use an analysis
system, consisting of key indicators of program effectiveness, as well as
indicators of data integrity, to identify LEAs in need of monitoring
intervention(s). The agency will engage with LEAs identified through
the system by implementing graduated interventions which are based on
the LEA’s level of performance and/or data concern and the degree to
which that performance and/or data concern varies from established
standards.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS data used in each year’s PBMAS and data
integrity systems.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Indicators pertaining specifically to a
LEA’s disciplinary data and practices are used to determine districts’
assigned level of intervention. Interventions will range from least
extensive to most extensive. LEAs are identified through indicators in
the discipline data integrity analysis system and PBMAS for special
education. The PBMAS for special education currently includes three
indicators related to disciplinary removals. LEAs are evaluated on these
discipline and program area indicators on an annual basis, and
performance levels are assigned based on the extent to which each
LEA’s performance or data concern varies from established standards.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Baseline targets may be difficult to predict and
may not be stable because of (a) ongoing consideration of discipline
issues in interim Legislative charges and possible legislative changes to
Chapter 37 of the Texas Education Code; (b) lack of longitudinal data in
a new system [PBMAS and data integrity]; and (c) the impact of other
changes in state and federal law that may have effects on the PBMAS
and data integrity indicators that can’t be anticipated at this time.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
Strategy 2.2.3 Child Nutrition Programs: Implement and support efficient
state child nutrition programs.
OUTPUT MEASURES
2.2.3.1
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.
Texas Education Agency
187
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 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.
2.2.3.2
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 2.2.4 Windham School District: Work with the TDCJ to lead
students to achieve the basic education skills they need to
contribute to their families, communities, and the world.
Texas Education Agency
188
OUTPUT MEASURES
2.2.4.1
Number of Contact Hours Received by Inmates within the
Windham School District
DEFINITION: This measure gives the total number of contact hours per
year received by inmates at campuses within the Windham School
District.
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. The best 180 days of school attendance for each campus are
summed to give the total number of contact hours for the year.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data source limited to period reported.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.2.4.2
Number of Offenders Passing 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: A count of the number of offenders that
passed the GED during the fiscal year is attained from the Windham
School District GED Database and reported annually during the fourth
quarter.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.2.4.3
Number of Students Served in Academic Training – Windham
DEFINITION: The number of students served by a Windham Academic
Educational Program in the State Fiscal Year.
PURPOSE: To assess the number of students utilizing a Windham
Academic Educational Program during the State Fiscal Year.
DATA SOURCE: Windham School District database.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: A count of the number of students that
are enrolled in a Windham Academic Educational Program during the
fiscal year. These numbers are attained from the Windham School
District Attendance Database and reported annually.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
Desired Performance: Higher than target.
Texas Education Agency
189
2.2.4.4
Number of Students Served in Career and Technology Training –
Windham
DEFINITION: The number of secondary students who participate in
career and technology courses in a state fiscal year.
PURPOSE: To assess the number of students utilizing Windham career
and technology education during the state fiscal year.
DATA SOURCE: Windham School District database.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: A count of the number of students that
are enrolled in Windham career and technology education during the
fiscal year. These numbers are obtained from the Windham School
District Attendance Database and reported annually.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
EFFICIENCY MEASURE
2.2.4.1
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.
Strategy 2.2.5 Instructional Materials: Provide students equitable access to
instructional materials and technologies supporting the Texas
Essential Knowledge and Skills.
Objective 2.3 Educator Recruitment, Retention and Support: The TEA will create
an accountability system that supports the recruitment, retention, and
support of highly qualified teachers and high performing employees in
school districts, charter schools, and the TEA so that all students in the
Texas public education system receive a quality education.
OUTCOME MEASURES
Texas Education Agency
190
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 Highly Qualified Teachers
DEFINITION: Percent of core academic subject area teachers who are highly
qualified per NCLB.
PURPOSE: This promotes a higher standard for teachers and improves the quality
of education. This data is also reported to the USDE.
DATA SOURCE: LEA Highly Qualified Compliance Report.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Divide the total number of highly qualified teachers
by the total number of teachers.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Data are self-reported by LEAs in the late Summer-early
Fall after the completion of the school year. Data will be available in December
following the end of the school year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.3.3 Turnover Rate for Teachers
DEFINITION: Average district 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 district 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
Texas Education Agency
191
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 winter and represents
information about the prior school year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
2.3.4 Percent of Formula Grant Applications Processed Within 60 Days
DEFINITION: Percent of formula grant applications from applicants that are
processed within a 60-day cycle as determined from calendar days, not business
days.
PURPOSE: The measure provides information as to whether TEA is processing
formula grants for grantees in a timely manner.
DATA SOURCE: All formula grant information will be tracked by the Formula
Grants Division.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The date the grant is received at TEA is the
beginning date and the date that the NOGA is approved is the completed date.
The total number of grants that are completed in less than or equal to 60 days will
be divided by the total number of grants processed for grantees.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Until all grants are administered in the eGrants application,
there is not a single data source for tracking and logging grant actions and
progress through the award cycle.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
Desired Performance: Higher than target.
2.3.5 Percent of Discretionary Grant Applications Processed Within 60 Days
DEFINITION: Percent discretionary grant applications from applicants that are
processed within a 60-day cycle as determined from calendar days, not business
days.
PURPOSE: The measure provides information as to whether TEA is processing
discretionary grants for grantees in a timely manner.
DATA SOURCE: Discretionary grant information will be tracked by the
Discretionary Grants Division.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: For competitive discretionary grants, the date the
grant application was selected for funding by the Commissioner or
Commissioner’s designee is the beginning date and the date that the Notice of
Grant Award (NOGA) is approved will be used as the date completed. For noncompetitive discretionary grants, such as continuation grants or other noncompetitive discretionary grants, the date the grant application was received in
Texas Education Agency
192
TEA is the beginning date and the date that the NOGA is approved will be used as
the date completed. The total number of grants that are completed in less than or
equal to 60 days will be divided by the total number of grants processed for
grantees.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Until all grants are administered in the eGrants application,
there is not a single data source for tracking and logging grant actions and
progress through the award cycle.
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: No.
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 fiscal year to the average headcount
(filled positions) for the fiscal year.
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, Education Service Centers, etc.
DATA SOURCE: Month end data downloaded from USPS.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Total year-to-date number of separations (vacated
positions) for the fiscal year is divided by the average headcount (filled positions)
in a 12-month period beginning September through August.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The average filled positions for each month may vary
slightly throughout the fiscal year.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
2.3.8 Percentage of Eligible Campuses Awarded Grants Under Awards for
Student Achievement Program
Texas Education Agency
193
DEFINITION: Measures the percentage of campuses awarded the Awards for
Student Achievement Program that complete and submit an application to receive
a grant.
PURPOSE: The primary purpose of the Awards for Student Achievement
Program is to encourage and sustain excellent instruction at campuses with
greater than average percentages of economically disadvantaged students.
DATA SOURCE: eGrants
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Divide the total number of campuses eligible to
apply for the Awards for Student Achievement Program that complete and submit
an application to receive a grant by the total number of eligible campuses.
DATA LIMITATIONS: New grant program. No benchmark data.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.9 Teacher Retention Rate at Campuses Participating in the Awards for
Student Achievement Program
DEFINITION: Measures the percentage of teachers retained at
campuses participating in the Awards for Student Achievement Program.
PURPOSE: The primary purpose of the Awards for Student Achievement
Program is to encourage and sustain excellent instruction at campuses with
greater than average percentages of economically disadvantaged students.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Retention will be calculated as the number of
individuals employed in one year as classroom teachers who are employed on the
same campus as classroom teachers the next year, using a unique identifier for
each teacher. A baseline retention rate for each campus will be calculated by
TEA at the time of award. The baseline rate will be an average retention rate over
the previous 3 years to account for any irregularities in the year prior to award.
For each year of award, retention will be calculated by TEA and compared to the
baseline rate as well as an average retention rate of a group of similar campuses
statewide. The campus group will be selected using criteria and methods used to
develop campus comparison groups for the Academic Excellence Indicator
System. These criteria group campuses based on type and student demographics
DATA LIMITATIONS: New grant program. No benchmark data.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.3.10 Percentage of Eligible Campuses Awarded Grants Under the Educator
Excellence Awards Program
DEFINITION: Measures the percentage of campuses eligible to apply for an
Educator Excellence Awards Program that complete and submit an application to
receive a grant.
Texas Education Agency
194
PURPOSE: The primary purpose of the Educator Excellence Awards Program is
to encourage campuses to participate in compensation strategies that reward
excellent instruction.
DATA SOURCE: Discretionary Grants application records.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Divide the total number of campuses eligible to
apply for an Educator Excellence Awards Program that complete and submit an
application to receive a grant by the total number of eligible campuses.
DATA LIMITATIONS: New grant program. No benchmark data.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.3.11 Teacher Retention Rate at Campuses Participating in the Educator
Excellence Awards Program
DEFINITION: Measures the percentage of teachers retained at
campuses participating in the Educator Excellence Awards Program.
PURPOSE: The primary purpose of the Educator Excellence Awards Program
is to encourage and sustain excellent instruction at campuses with greater than
average percentages of economically disadvantaged students.
DATA SOURCE: Discretionary Grants application records.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Retention will be calculated as the number of
individuals employed in one year as classroom teachers who are employed on the
same campus as classroom teachers the next year, using a unique identifier for
each teacher. A baseline retention rate for each campus will be calculated by
TEA at the time of award. The baseline rate will be an average retention rate over
the previous 3 years to account for any irregularities in the year prior to award.
For each year of award, retention will be calculated by TEA and compared to the
baseline rate as well as an average retention rate of a group of similar campuses
statewide. The campus group will be selected using criteria and methods used to
develop campus comparison groups for the Academic Excellence Indicator
System. These criteria group campuses based on student demographics.
DATA LIMITATIONS: New grant program. No benchmark data.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.3.12 Percent of Public School Teachers Who Are African American
DEFINITION: The percent of teachers, regardless of certification status, that are
reported as African-American during the current academic year.
PURPOSE: It is desirable for the teaching force of the public schools to reflect the
demographic characteristics of public school students. This measure will indicate
the extent to which educator preparation programs produce and school districts
employ African-American teachers.
DATA SOURCE: “African American” is an ethnicity reported by school districts,
regional education service centers and cooperatives in the demographic data for
staff personnel in PEIMS. All professional staff having teacher roles (025, 029,
Texas Education Agency
195
and 047) for the current academic year are identified. The programmer extracts
from PEIMS the total number of teachers reported as “African American” and the
total number of individuals identified as teachers for the current year and submits
the results to the director of data analysis for review and analysis. The director of
credentialing services verifies the data and a copy of the report is maintained in
the office of the director of credentialing services.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is the number of teachers identified
in PEIMS as African-American for the current academic year. The denominator is
the total number of teachers identified in PEIMS for the current academic year.
The result is multiplied by 100 to obtain a percentage. This calculation is based on
an individual, not FTE, count.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The agency has very little control over whom educator
preparation programs admit or school districts hire. The agency is not able to
judge the accuracy of information submitted by school districts in PEIMS.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.13 Percent of Public School Teachers Who Are Hispanic
DEFINITION: The percent of teachers, regardless of certification status, that are
reported as Hispanic during the current academic year.
PURPOSE: It is desirable for the teaching force of the public schools to reflect the
demographic characteristics of public school students. This measure will indicate
the extent to which educator preparation programs produce and school districts
employ Hispanic teachers.
DATA SOURCE: “Hispanic” is an ethnicity reported by school districts, regional
education service centers and cooperatives in the demographic data for staff
personnel in PEIMS. All professional staff having teacher roles (025, 029, and
047) for the current academic year are identified. The programmer extracts from
PEIMS the total number of teachers reported as “Hispanic” and the total number
of individuals identified as teachers for the current year and submits the results to
the director of data analysis for review and analysis. The director of credentialing
services verifies the data and a copy of the report is maintained in the office of the
director of credentialing services.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is the number of teachers identified
in PEIMS as Hispanic for the current academic year. The denominator is the total
number of teachers identified in PEIMS for the current academic year. The result
is multiplied by 100 to obtain a percentage. This calculation is based on an
individual, not FTE, count.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The agency has very little control over whom educator
preparation programs admit or school districts hire. The agency is not able to
judge the accuracy of information submitted by school districts in PEIMS. The
agency is not able to judge the accuracy of information submitted by school
districts in PEIMS.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
Texas Education Agency
196
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.14 Percent of Public School Administrators Who Are Minorities
DEFINITION: The percent of administrators, regardless of certification status, that
are reported as African-American, American Indian, Asian, Hispanic, or “other”
during the current academic year.
PURPOSE: It is desirable for the teaching force of the public schools to reflect the
demographic characteristics of public school students. This measure will indicate
the extent to which educator preparation programs produce and school districts
hire minority administrators.
DATA SOURCE: Various ethnicities are reported by school districts regional
education service centers and cooperatives in the demographic data for staff
personnel in PEIMS. All professional staff having administrator roles (003, 004,
012, 020, 027, 032, 060, 062, 063, 200, 201) for the current academic year are
identified. The programmer extracts from PEIMS the total number of
administrators reported as one of the identified minorities and the total number of
individuals identified as administrators for the current year and submits the results
to the director of data analysis for review and analysis. The data is verified by the
director of credentialing services and a copy of the report is maintained in the
office of the director of credentialing services.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is the number of administrators
identified in PEIMS as African-American, American Indian, Asian, Hispanic, or
“other” for the current academic year. The denominator is the total number of
administrators identified in PEIMS for the current academic year. The result is
multiplied by 100 to obtain a percentage. This calculation is based on an
individual, not FTE, count.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The agency has very little control over whom educator
preparation programs admit or school districts hire. The agency is not able to
judge the accuracy of information submitted by school districts in PEIMS. The
agency is not able to judge the accuracy of information submitted by school
districts in PEIMS.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.15 Percent of Teachers Who Are Certified
DEFINITION: The percent of individuals identified as teachers during the current
academic year who were previously issued a standard, provisional, probationary,
one-year, or professional certificate.
PURPOSE: This measure attempts to distinguish between individuals serving as
teachers who are certified and those who are not.
DATA SOURCE: The SSN is obtained from PEIMS demographic data matched to
staff responsibilities to identify teachers (roles 025, 029, and 047). The SSN is
compared to ITS Certification data to determine what certificate, if any, is held.
The sum of partial full-time equivalents (FTE) for staff responsibilities is
calculated for all teachers whose SSNs are found on both data sources and who
Texas Education Agency
197
hold a standard, provisional, probationary, one-year, or professional certificate.
The programmer extracts the data from PEIMS and from the ITS Certification
data base and submits the results to the manager responsible for performance
measure reporting for review and analysis. The data are verified by the director of
credentialing services and a copy of the report is maintained in the office of
credentialing services.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is the number of FTEs for teachers
identified in PEIMS for the current academic year who hold a standard,
provisional, probationary, one-year, or professional certificate. The denominator
is the total FTE for teachers reported in PEIMS for the current academic year. The
result is multiplied by 100 to obtain a percentage.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.16 Percent of Teachers Who are Employed/Assigned to Teaching Positions for
Which They are Certified
DEFINITION: The percent of active teachers who were previously issued a
standard, provisional, probationary, one-year, or professional certificate and who
are assigned in compliance with agency rules.
PURPOSE: This measure attempts to distinguish between teachers who hold a
certificate that complies with Board rules for their assignment and those who do
not.
DATA SOURCE: All professional staff reported by school districts as having
teacher roles (roles 025, 029, and 047) are identified on PEIMS for the current
academic year. The sum of partial full-time equivalents (FTE) for staff
responsibilities is calculated for all individuals identified as teacher. The list of
teachers is matched to the ITS Certification data base, eliminating all identified
teachers who do not hold a standard, provisional, probationary, one-year, or
professional certificate. The teaching assignments of the remaining teachers are
extracted from PEIMS and matched to the ITS Certification data base to
determine if all assignments have a compliant certificate. The data are verified by
the director of credentialing services and a copy of the report is maintained in the
office of the director of credentialing services.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is the sum of partial FTEs identified
in PEIMS as teachers for the current academic year who hold the standard,
provisional, probationary, one-year, or professional certificate. The denominator
is the sum of partial FTEs for all individuals reported in PEIMS as teachers for
the current academic year. The result is multiplied by 100 to obtain a percentage.
This calculation is based on FTE count.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Individuals issued the standard, provisional, and
professional certificates have successfully completed all preparation and
certification exam requirements, and are issued a grade-level and subject specific
certificate, and are counted in this measure as “certified.” However, individuals
serving on probationary and one-year certificates are also counted as “certified”
Texas Education Agency
198
even though they are in still in the process of completing preparation and/or
certification examination requirements. Individuals serving on an emergency or
non-renewable permit/certificate are not counted in this measure. Individuals
serving as substitute teachers are not counted in this measure.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.17 Percent of Teachers Who Are Fully Certified
DEFINITION: The percent of active teachers who hold a Texas standard certificate
or its equivalent or higher (such as a master teacher’s certificate).
PURPOSE: Current state law requires all candidates for certification to complete
an approved preparation program and/or pass required certification examinations,
depending on their certification route (i.e., eligible out-of-state and AEP/JJAEP
teachers do not have to complete a program). Current state law also allows the
agency to issue emergency credentials to individuals who have not completed
preparation or examination requirements and allows school districts to issue local
teaching permits under certain circumstances. The Board believes that
successfully completing these preparation and examination requirements is one
measure of teacher quality. This measure will distinguish between individuals
serving as teachers who have completed all requirements for full certification or
higher and those who have not.
DATA SOURCE: The SSN is obtained from PEIMS demographic data matched to
staff responsibilities to identify individuals reported as teachers (025, 029 and
047). The SSN is compared to the ITS Certifications Table to determine what
certificate, if any, is held by the individual. The number of individuals who appear
on both data sources is calculated based on identification in PEIMS as a teacher
and identification in the ITS Certifications Table as holding a standard,
provisional, professional, or master certificate. The programmer extracts the data
from PEIMS and from the ITS Certifications Table and submits the results to the
director of data analysis for review and analysis. The data are verified by the
director of credentialing services and a copy of the report is maintained in the
office of the director of credentialing services.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is the number of individuals
identified in PEIMS as teachers for the current academic year who hold the
standard, provisional, professional, or master certificate. The denominator is the
total number of individuals reported in PEIMS as teachers for the current
academic year. The result is multiplied by 100 to obtain a percentage. This
calculation is based on an individual, not FTE, count.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The agency has little control over school district hiring
practices and cannot verify the accuracy of information submitted by school
districts in PEIMS.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
Texas Education Agency
199
2.3.18 Percent of Teachers Who are Employed/Assigned to Teaching Positions for
Which They are Fully Certified
DEFINITION: The percent of active teachers who hold for all teaching assignments
the appropriate Texas standard certificate or its equivalent or higher.
PURPOSE: Current state law requires all candidates for certification to complete
an approved preparation program and/or pass required certification examinations,
depending on their certification route (i.e., eligible out-of-state and AEP/JJAEP
teachers do not have to complete a program). Current state law also allows the
agency to issue emergency credentials to individuals who have not completed
preparation or examination requirements and allows school districts to issue local
teaching permits under certain circumstances. The Board believes that
successfully completing these preparation and examination requirements is one
measure of teacher quality. The Board also believes that it is desirable for teachers
to hold the certificate specific to the grade level and subject area of each teaching
assignment. This measure will distinguish between individuals serving as teachers
who hold the appropriate certificate for each assignment and those who do not.
DATA SOURCE: All professional staff reported by school districts, regional
education service centers and cooperatives as having teacher roles (025, 029, and
047) are identified on PEIMS for the current academic year. The list of teachers is
matched to the ITS certification data base, eliminating all identified teachers who
do not hold a master, standard, provisional, or professional certificate. The
teaching assignments of the remaining teachers are extracted from PEIMS and
matched to the ITS Certification data base to determine if all assignments have
the appropriate certificate, eliminating a teacher if one assignment and certificate
do not match. The data are verified by the director of credentialing services and a
copy of the report is maintained in the office of the director of credentialing
services.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is the number of individuals
identified in PEIMS as teachers for the current academic year who hold the target
master, standard, provisional, or professional certificate for all teaching
assignments. The denominator is the total number of individuals reported in
PEIMS as teachers for the current academic year. The result is multiplied by 100
to obtain a percentage. This calculation is based on an individual, not FTE, count.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The agency has little control over school district hiring and
assignment practices and cannot verify the accuracy of information submitted by
school districts in PEIMS.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.19 Percent of Complaints Resulting in Disciplinary Action
DEFINITION: The percent of jurisdictional complaints resolved during the fiscal
year that resulted in disciplinary action.
PURPOSE: This measure shows the extent to which the agency exercises its
disciplinary authority in relation to the number of complaints received. Both the
public and individuals credentialed by the board must expect that the agency will
Texas Education Agency
200
work to ensure fair and effective enforcement of professional conduct as
established by statute and rule. This measure indicates agency responsiveness to
this expectation.
DATA SOURCE: The information is derived from the number of complaints filed
against educators and carried on the Unit’s Database in its Certification
Enforcement Unit. A legal assistant performs the initial calculation; that result is
reviewed by the Unit Director.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is calculated by subtracting the total
number of jurisdictional complaints that resulted in disciplinary action from the
total number of jurisdictional complaints resolved during the fiscal year. The
denominator is the total number of jurisdictional complaints resolved during the
fiscal year. The result is multiplied by100 to obtain a percentage. Disciplinary
action includes the following: denial of credential application, agreed order,
reprimand, warning, probation, suspension, and revocation.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.20 Percent of Documented Complaints Resolved within Six Months
DEFINITION: The percent of jurisdictional complaints resolved during the fiscal
year that were resolved within six months or less from the date of receipt.
PURPOSE: This measure indicates the agency’s ability to resolve complaints and
enforce standards of professional conduct within a reasonable period of time.
DATA SOURCE: The information is derived from the number of complaints filed
against educators and carried on the Unit’s Database in its Certification
Enforcement Unit that were resolved within six months from the date of receipt.
A legal assistant performs the calculation in the first instance; the result is
reviewed by the Unit Director.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is the number of jurisdictional
complaints resolved during the fiscal year that were received within a period of
six months or less from the date of resolution. The denominator is the total
number of jurisdictional complaints resolved during the fiscal year. The result is
multiplied by 100 to obtain a percentage.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCe: Higher than target
2.3.21 Percent of Educator Preparation Programs Rated "Accredited"
DEFINITION: The percent of approved educator preparation programs that meet
accreditation standards based on student performance on the examinations
required for certification.
PURPOSE: One indicator of the quality of educator preparation programs is the
rate at which their students pass the examinations required for certification.
Pursuant to state statute, the Board has developed an accountability system to
Texas Education Agency
201
annually rate the performance of programs based on this indicator of quality and
provide assistance to those programs not meeting Board standards. This measure
shows the extent to which agency efforts to improve the quality of teacher
preparation are realized. This measure also impacts the costs associated with the
annual review function due to the intervention and assistance that must be
provided to programs that do not meet Board standards.
DATA SOURCE: The data source is the Accountability System for Educator
Preparation (ASEP) Online system containing educator assessment and
demographic data. The programmer calculates initial and final pass rates of
students in each program, applying the Board’s methodologies and accreditation
standards for ASEP. The data and resulting accreditation ratings are verified by
the manager responsible for performance measure reporting and submitted to the
director of accountability. A copy of the ratings and data is maintained in the
office of the director of accountability.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is the number of programs meeting
the Board’s ASEP standards. The denominator is the total number of approved
programs that are rated based on ASEP performance data. The result is multiplied
by 100 to obtain a percentage.
DATA LIMITATIONS: SBEC has little control over who is admitted to preparation
programs and the readiness of students to take the certification exams. However,
programs that do not meet accreditation standards are subject to SBEC oversight
through an oversight team appointed by the executive director, as required by
statute. For programs that are not fulfilling the recommendations of the oversight
team, the executive director must appoint an administrator to manage the
operations of the program. By statute, the Board is required to revoke the
accreditation of any program that does not meet standards for three consecutive
years.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.22 Percent of Customers Expressing Overall Satisfaction with Services Received
DEFINITION: The percent of customers returning a survey during the reporting
period and indicating their overall satisfaction with services received from the
agency.
PURPOSE: Providing effective and efficient service is an important goal and
function of the agency. This measure will indicate the extent to which the agency
is meeting that goal.
DATA SOURCE: Based on survey responses received during the reporting period,
the manager responsible for customer service reporting will oversee the tabulation
of results for the question related to overall satisfaction with agency services. The
data are verified and maintained by the manager responsible for customer service
reporting.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is the number of survey respondents
expressing overall satisfaction with agency services during the reporting period.
The denominator is the total number of survey respondents providing a response
Texas Education Agency
202
for the question related to overall satisfaction. The result is multiplied by 100 to
obtain a percentage.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.23 Percent of Credentialed Educators with No Recent Violations
DEFINITION: The percent of educators credentialed by the Board and employed in
a public school during the current academic year who have not incurred a
violation within the current and preceding two academic years.
PURPOSE: This measure indicates how effectively agency activities deter
violations of professional conduct as established by statute and rule.
DATA SOURCE: Information for employed, credentialed educators is derived by
matching PEIMS data to the Certification data base. Information regarding recent
violations is extracted from the professional discipline database. A legal assistant
performs the initial calculation; that result is reviewed by the Unit Director.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is calculated by subtracting the total
number of credentialed educators who are employed by the public school system
during the current academic year and who have incurred violations during the
current and preceding two academic years from the total number of credentialed,
employed educators during the current academic year. The denominator is the
total number of employed, credentialed educators during the current academic
year. The result is multiplied by 100 to obtain a percentage.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.24 Percent of Certification Examinations Based on State Standards
DEFINITION: The percent of examinations that are administered by the State
Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) for the purpose of certifying Texas
public school educators and that are based upon Texas educator standards.
PURPOSE: To determine how many state certification examinations are based
upon educator standards that were developed by Texas educators and that
delineate the specific minimum level of knowledge and skills necessary for an
initially-certified educator in each certificate field.
DATA SOURCE: List of current certification examinations and corresponding
educator standards.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is calculated by summing the
number of examinations that: (1) are administered for the purpose of certifying
Texas public school educators; and (b) are based upon Texas educator standards.
The denominator is calculated by summing the number of examinations SBEC
administers for the purpose of certifying public school educators. The result is
multiplied by 100 to obtain a percentage.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
Texas Education Agency
203
CALCULATION TYPE: Non-Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.25 Percent of Certification Examinations That Are Computer Administered
DEFINITION: The percent of all standards based examinations that are computer
administered.
PURPOSE: To provide certification candidates with greater access and more
opportunities to take required examinations for certification.
DATA SOURCE: Actual numbers of standards based certification examinations
administered by testing contractor(s).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is the number of computer
administered certification examinations. The denominator is the total number of
standards based certification examinations administered. The result is multiplied
by 100 to obtain a percentage.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Percentage of computer administered certification
examinations is contingent upon funds available for development.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
Strategy 2.3.1
Improving Teacher quality: Support educators through
access to quality training tied to the Texas Essential
Knowledge and Skills; develop and implement
professional development initiatives that encourage P-16
partnerships. Support regional education service centers
to 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 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.
Texas Education Agency
204
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.3.1.2
(ESCs)
Number of Individuals Trained at the Education Service Centers
DEFINITION: The total number of individuals trained at the ESCs.
PURPOSE: To track the number of individuals trained by the ESCs for
the purpose of increasing the effectiveness of school district personnel.
DATA SOURCE: ESC training/registration logs. (ESC registration
system).
METHOD OF CALCULATION: A count of the number trained. Includes
only sign-in training.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually. May be a duplicate
count.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
Strategy 2.3.2
Agency Operations: Continuously improve a customerdriven, results-based, high-performing public education
system through a strategic commitment to efficient and
effective business processes and operations.
OUTPUT MEASURES
2.3.2.1
Number of LEAs Participating in Interventions Related to Student
Assessment Participation 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). This measure will report the number
of LEAs participating in interventions related to student assessment
participation rates of students with limited English proficiency and
students served in special education. Participation rates are evaluated by
the agency through participation indicators in the Performance-Based
Monitoring Analysis System (PBMAS). LEAs identified as having
participation rates that are of concern are required to engage in a series
of graduated interventions.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this measure is to identify an increase or
decrease in the number of LEAs participating in interventions related to
student assessment participation rates. Depending on the particular
assessment, it is important for the state to monitor whether students with
limited English proficiency or students served in special education are
participating in state assessments at rates that are too low or rates that
are too high. The agency will engage with LEAs identified through
participation indicators in the PBMAS by implementing graduated
Texas Education Agency
205
interventions based on the LEA’s participation rates and the degree to
which those rates vary from established standards.
DATA SOURCE: PEIMS, AEIS, AYP, and Student Assessment Data
used in each year’s PBMAS.
Method of Calculation: Districts are identified through participation
indicators in the PBMAS, which currently includes four indicators that
evaluate the extent to which students served by special education and
students with limited English proficiency participate in various state
assessments. All districts are evaluated on these indicators on an annual
basis, and performance levels are assigned based on the extent to which
each district’s performance varies from established standards. As
current assessments are phased out and new ones developed, the
PBMAS will develop new indicators as appropriate to measure
participation rates.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Baseline targets may be difficult to predict and
may not be stable because of (a) the phase-in of higher TAKS standards
and its potential effect on participation decisions that LPAC and ARD
committees make, which may in turn have an effect on the number of
districts not meeting the standard in the PBMAS participation indicators;
(b) lack of longitudinal data in a new system [PBMAS]; and (c) the
implementation of new assessments which may have an impact on
whether any new PBMAS indicators will require a phase-in period
before school districts are assigned a performance level result.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
2.3.2.2
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.
A count of the number of offenders that passed the GED during the
fiscal year is attained from the Windham School District GED Database
and reported annually during the fourth quarter.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Self-reported.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.3.2.3
Number of Local Education Agencies Participating in Special
Education Performance-Based Monitoring System
Texas Education Agency
206
DEFINITION: SB 1, Chapter 29, Special Education Program, calls for
monitoring of special education programs using a system that is
responsive to program data in determining the appropriate schedule for
and extent of review. Monitoring interventions include, but are not
limited to, focused data analysis, program effectiveness reviews,
program performance reviews, including local public meetings,
compliance reviews, and onsite visits to local education agencies (LEAs)
and programs that provide special education services. This count is the
number of LEA programs that provide special education services that
are participating in the special education system for monitoring.
PURPOSE: The focus of the review is to accurately identify those
programs in need of improvement to ensure improved student
performance and program effectiveness.
DATA SOURCE: Division of Program Monitoring and Interventions
tracking system.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of LEAs participating in
defined monitoring interventions that provide special education
programs to qualifying students with disabilities.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Selection numbers will vary from year to year in
a performance-based system.
CALCULATION TYPe: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
2.3.2.4
Number of Local Education Agencies Participating in the
Performance-Based Monitoring System for Bilingual
Education/English as a Second Language
DEFINITION: SB 1, Chapter 29, Bilingual Education and Special
Language Programs, in conjunction with the requirements of Texas
Education Code (TEC), §7.028, call for the agency to evaluate the
effectiveness of programs under the subchapter based on the academic
excellence indicators, including the results of assessment instruments.
Performance is assessed through the Performance-Based Monitoring
Analysis System (PBMAS), and monitoring interventions based on the
PBMAS results include, but are not limited to, focused data analysis,
program performance reviews, including local public meetings, and
optional program effectiveness reviews. This count is the number of
local education agencies (LEAs) that provide services to limited English
proficient students that are participating in the bilingual
education/English as a Second Language (ESL) system for monitoring.
PURPOSE: The focus of the review is to accurately identify those
programs in need of improvement to ensure improved student
performance and program effectiveness.
DATA SOURCE: Division of Program Monitoring and Interventions
tracking system.
Texas Education Agency
207
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of LEAs participating in
defined bilingual education/ESL monitoring interventions that provide
educational services to students of limited English proficiency.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Selection numbers will vary from year to year in a
performance-based system.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: Yes.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
2.3.2.5
Number of Governance Special Investigations Conducted
DEFINITION: Investigations are conducted in districts where alleged
violations related to school governance provisions in statutes are
reported.
PURPOSE: To measure agency efforts to respond to complaints.
DATA SOURCE: Records are kept in the Division of Governance and
General Inquiries.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number reported reflects the number
of districts in which investigations are conducted. The number does not
indicate the extent, complexity, or result of the investigation.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.
EFFICIENCY MEASURE
2.3.2.1
Internal Active PSF Managers: Performance in Excess of Assigned
Benchmark
DEFINITION: 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 (SBOE) as set
forth in the PSF Investment Procedures Manual.
PURPOSE: To serve as a measure of value added by the internal
investment managers for the PSF.
DATA SOURCE: Performance reports provided by the performance
measurement consultant to the PSF, fair market valuations of the
portfolios provided by custodian, and the PSF Investment Procedures
Manual as adopted by the SBOE.
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.
For example: If the assigned benchmark is 10.0%, and the internal
managers return is 10.1%, the performance in excess of the assigned
benchmark equals 101% (10.1%/10.0%). It is 101% growth over the
benchmark.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
Texas Education Agency
208
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
EXPLANATORY MEASURES
2.3.2.1
(PSF)
Average Percent Equity Holdings in the Permanent School Fund
DEFINITION: This measure 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 investment software. Prices for the securities
are received from the custodian bank.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: This measure is calculated by pricing all
of the holdings of 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: Match target.
2.3.2.2
Percent of Permanent School Fund (PSF) Portfolio Managed by
External Managers
DEFINITION: This measure is the market value of all PSF holdings
managed by external investment 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 State Board of Education.
DATA SOURCE: CAMRA investment software. Prices are obtained from
the custodian bank.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: This measure 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: N/A.
2.3.2.3
Market Value of the Financial Assets of the Permanent School Fund
(PSF) in Billions
DEFINITION: This measure reports the current market value of the
financial assets managed by the PSF in billions of dollars.
PURPOSE: To monitor the value of the financial assets managed by the
PSF.
Texas Education Agency
209
DATA SOURCE: Holdings are provided by the CAMRA investment
system maintained by the Investments Division of the Texas Education
Agency. Pricing is provided by the custodial bank for the PSF.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Holdings are multiplied by current market
prices.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None currently.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.
2.3.2.4
Distribution from the Permanent School Fund (PSF) to the
Available School Fund (ASF)
DEFINITION: Total return distribution from the PSF to the ASF.
PURPOSE: To track the total return distribution to the ASF
DATA SOURCE: CAMRA investment software.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The total return distribution is a
percentage of the market value average of the PSF in the 16 State fiscal
quarters prior to the 80th Legislative session. The distribution rate will
be set by a two-thirds vote of the State Board of Education (SBOE). If
the SBOE does not set the rate prior to the start of the 80th Legislative
session, then the Legislature will set the distribution rate. The
distribution rate cannot exceed 6.0%. Also, the total distribution over
the past ten years cannot exceed the total return for the same period.
Therefore, at this time the total return distribution cannot be determined.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None. Calculation is predetermined.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.
NEW MEASURE: No.
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Match target.
Strategy 2.3.3 State Board for Educator Certification Operations:
Administer services related to educator credential, retention,
recruitment, and professional standards and conduct.
OUTPUT MEASURES
2.3.3.1
Number of Certified Educators Renewed
DEFINITION: The unduplicated number of certified educators renewing
one or more standard certificates during the reporting period. Educators
renewing multiple certificates are counted only once.
PURPOSE: Certificate renewal is intended to ensure that individuals who
want to continue to practice as educators satisfy requirements
established in statute and rule for professional education and practice.
This measure will show the number of certified educators satisfying all
renewal requirements.
DATA SOURCE: Extract from ITS the unduplicated number of certified
educators who have had one or more standard certificate renewals
issued. Renewal of temporary/emergency credentials is not included.
Texas Education Agency
210
Educators will be submitting their renewal applications on-line, and the
ITS data base will capture the number of educators renewing one or
more certificates during the reporting period. Even though an educator
may be issued multiple certificates at different times, all the certificates
will be given a single renewal deadline. The data is verified by the
director of credentialing services and a copy of the report is maintained
in the office of the director of credentialing services.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Sum the number of educators who had
one or more standard certificate renewals issued during the reporting
period. Renewal of temporary/emergency credentials is not included in
the calculation.
DATA LIMITATIONS: This measure will not be effective until FY 200405.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.3.2
Number of Certificates Renewed
DEFINITION: The total number of standard certificates renewed during
the reporting period. Multiple certificates renewed by certified educators
will be counted multiple times.
PURPOSE: Certificate renewal is intended to ensure that individuals who
want to continue to practice as educators satisfy requirements
established in statute and rule for professional education and practice.
This measure will show the total number of certificates renewed by
educators who satisfy all renewal requirements.
DATA SOURCE: Extract from ITS the number of standard certificate
renewals issued. Multiple certificates renewed by certified educators are
counted multiple times. Educators will be submitting their renewal
applications on-line, and the ITS data base will capture the number of
certificates renewed. The data is verified by the director of credentialing
services and a copy of the report is maintained in the office of the
director of credentialing services.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Sum the number of renewals issued
during the reporting period.
DATA LIMITATIONS: This measure will not be effective until FY 200405.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.3.3
Number of Educator Preparation Programs Reviewed
DEFINITION: The number of educator preparation programs subject to
review by the Board under the Accountability System for Educator
Preparation (ASEP) and issued an annual rating.
Texas Education Agency
211
PURPOSE: Current state law requires the Board to annually review the
performance of all approved educator preparation programs based on
student performance on the examinations required for certification.
Beginning in spring 2003, the review is conducted in March of each
fiscal year and annual ratings are issued at that time to all approved
programs. Prior to spring 2003, the review has been conducted in
September of each year. This measure indicates the volume of the
annual review process and directly impacts the costs associated with
approving programs.
DATA SOURCE: The list of approved programs is maintained by the
director of accountability based on minutes of Board meetings. All
approved programs are reviewed; accreditation ratings are issued for
programs that have at least one student who completed his or her
program during the fiscal year. The data by which all programs are
reviewed is the Accountability System for Educator Preparation (ASEP)
Online system containing educator assessment and demographic data.
The ASEP review and accreditation ratings are verified by the manager
responsible for performance measure reporting and submitted to the
director of accountability. A copy of the ratings and data is maintained
in the office of the director of accountability.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Sum the number of programs reviewed
under ASEP for the reporting period.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.3.4
Number of Individuals Issued Initial Teacher Certificate
DEFINITION: The number of previously uncertified individuals issued
the standard classroom teacher certificate for the first time during the
reporting period.
PURPOSE: A successful licensing structure ensures that preparation and
examination requirements have been satisfied prior to certification. This
measure indicates the extent to which individuals have satisfied all
certification requirements established by statute and rule as verified by
the agency during the reporting period.
DATA SOURCE: Extract from the ITS the number of individuals who
were issued a standard certificate during the reporting period who did
not previously hold a standard, provisional, or professional certificate.
The programmer extracts the data from ITS and submits the results to
the manager responsible for performance measure reporting for review
and analysis. The data is verified by the director of credentialing
services and a copy of the report is maintained in the office of the
director of credentialing services.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Sum the number of individuals who were
issued the standard certificate for the first time during the reporting
Texas Education Agency
212
period.
Certificates issued to individuals previously issued a
provisional, professional, or standard teacher certificate are not included
in the calculation. Individuals issued multiple certificates are counted
only once.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.3.5
Number of Credentials Issued
DEFINITION: The total number of credentials (certificates and
temporary/emergency credentials) issued during the reporting period.
PURPOSE: This measure is a primary agency workload indicator
intended to show the number of credentials of all types issued by the
agency.
DATA SOURCE: Extract from ITS the number of credentials (certificates
and temporary/emergency credentials) issued during the reporting
period. The programmer extracts the data from ITS and submits the
results to the manager responsible for performance measure reporting for
review and analysis. The data is verified by the director of credentialing
services and a copy of the report is maintained in the office of the
director of credentialing services.
METHOD OF CALCULATION:
Sum the number of credentials
(certificates and temporary/emergency credentials) issued during the
reporting period. Credentials issued to both previously credentialed and
previously uncredentialed individuals are included in the calculation.
Multiple credentials issued to the same individual are counted multiple
times.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.3.6
Number of Temporary Credentials Issued
DEFINITION: The total number of temporary credentials issued during
the reporting period.
PURPOSE: SBEC allows temporary credentials to be issued for
individuals who are not certified or who are not appropriately certified
for their assignments. This measure is an agency workload indicator
intended to show the total number of temporary credentials issued.
DATA SOURCE: Extract from ITS the number of emergency permits and
other temporary, or nonstandard, credentials issued to all individuals
during the reporting period. The programmer extracts the data from ITS
and submits the results to the manager responsible for performance
measure reporting for review and analysis. The data is verified by the
Texas Education Agency
213
director of credentialing services and a copy of the report is maintained
in the office of the director of credentialing services.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Sum the number of temporary credentials
issued during the reporting period. Temporary credentials issued to both
previously credentialed and previously uncredentialed individuals are
included in the calculation. Multiple temporary credentials issued to the
same individual are counted multiple times.
DATA LIMITATIONS: A temporary classroom assignment permit
(TCAP) may be activated for a teacher certified at the secondary level
assigned to a subject area not covered by the certificate. The district is
not required to file the TCAP with SBEC. The TCAP is maintained in
the district personnel records.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target
2.3.3.7
Number of Customers Served
DEFINITION: The total number of customers in each inventoried
customer group served during the reporting period.
PURPOSE: Providing effective and efficient service is an important goal
and function of the agency. This measure will indicate the total number
of customers receiving direct services from the agency during the
reporting period and establish the pool from which samples will be
drawn to conduct customer satisfaction surveys.
DATA SOURCE: The manager responsible for customer service reporting
will collect from each manager the number of customers in each
inventoried customer group receiving a direct agency service –
prospective educators (uncertified and out of state), certification
examinees, certificate and temporary credential applicants, credentialed
educators, school district personnel officers, deans/directors of educator
preparation programs, Information and Support Center customers, web
site visitors, and complainants alleging educator misconduct. The data
is verified and maintained by the manager responsible for customer
service reporting.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Sum the number of customers in each
inventoried group receiving a direct agency service during the reporting
period. Customers receiving multiple services are counted multiple
times.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None
CALCULATION TYPE: Non-Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.3.8
Number of Previously Degreed Individuals Issued Initial Teacher
Certificate
Texas Education Agency
214
DEFINITION: The total number of previously degreed individuals issued
a standard classroom teacher certificate for the first time. Individuals
issued multiple certificates are counted only once.
PURPOSE: A significant number of teachers each year are prepared by
programs, such as alternative certification and post-baccalaureate
programs, designed for individuals who already hold a baccalaureate
degree and who are seeking to change careers. This measure will
indicate the agency’s success in recruiting individuals who change
careers to become teachers.
DATA SOURCE: Identify all records in the certification data base
indicating that the individual issued an initial standard classroom teacher
certificate held a baccalaureate degree prior to entering the preparation
program and/or had appropriate work experience required for certain
career and technology certificates. Records having an issuance date
within the reporting period are counted. The data are verified by the
manager responsible for performance measure reporting and submitted
to the manager responsible for educator recruitment. A copy of the data
is maintained in the office of the director of accountability.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Sum the number of individuals issued the
standard classroom teacher certificate during the reporting period who
entered a teacher preparation program after receiving the baccalaureate
degree or, for certain career and technology certificates, after obtaining
appropriate work experience. Individuals issued multiple certificates are
counted only once.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The agency has limited impact on increasing the
total number of individuals in this category.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.3.9
Number of Individuals Issued Initial Teacher Certificate
Concurrent with Receiving Baccalaureate Degree
DEFINITION: The total number of individuals issued a standard
classroom teacher certificate for the first time concurrently with
receiving a baccalaureate degree from a university teacher preparation
program. Individuals issued multiple certificates are counted only once.
PURPOSE: The number of undergraduate students certified by the state’s
colleges and universities has remained relatively unchanged for a
number of years. This measure will indicate the agency’s success in
encouraging the recruitment of undergraduate students into the teaching
profession.
DATA SOURCE: Identify all educators in the certification data base
having a certification that was issued at or near the time of their
receiving a baccalaureate degree. Records showing a certificate
issuance date within the reporting period are counted. The data are
submitted to the director of accountability.
Texas Education Agency
215
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Sum the number of individuals issued the
standard classroom teacher certificate during the reporting period who
entered a teacher preparation program prior to receiving the
baccalaureate degree. Individuals seeking certification in certain career
and technology fields that do not require a baccalaureate degree are not
counted. Individuals issued multiple certificates are counted only once.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The agency has limited impact on increasing the
number of individuals receiving an initial certificate in conjunction with
receiving a baccalaureate degree. The agency can influence these
numbers only through encouraging existing university undergraduate
programs to expand their capacity to prepare new teachers.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.3.10 Number of Complaints Resolved
DEFINITION: The total number of complaints resolved during the
reporting period.
PURPOSE: This measure indicates the workload associated with
resolving complaints.
DATA SOURCE: The information is derived from the total numbers of
complaints filed against educators and carried on the Unit’s database in
its Certification Enforcement Unit. The calculation is performed
initially by a legal assistant and reviewed by the Unit Director.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Sum the total number of complaints
during the reporting period upon which final action was taken by the
board or for which a determination was made that a violation did not
occur. An ethics complaint that is determined to be without merit is
counted as a resolved complaint. A complaint that, after preliminary
investigation, is determined to be non-jurisdictional is not a resolved
complaint.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
2.3.3.11 Number of Complaints Resulting in Disciplinary Action
DEFINITION: The total number of complaints resolved during the
reporting period that resulted in disciplinary action, including code of
ethics complaints.
PURPOSE: This measure shows the extent to which the agency exercises
its disciplinary authority in relation to the number of complaints
received. Both the public and individuals credentialed by the board
must expect that the agency will work to ensure fair and effective
enforcement of professional conduct as established by statute and rule.
This measure indicates agency responsiveness to this expectation.
Texas Education Agency
216
DATA SOURCE: The information is derived from the total numbers of
complaints filed against educators and carried on the Unit’s Database in
its Certification Enforcement Unit. The calculation is performed
initially by a legal assistant and reviewed by the Unit Director.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Sum the total number of complaints,
including those arising under the educator’s code of ethics, during the
reporting period upon which disciplinary action was taken by the board.
Disciplinary action includes the following: denial of credential
application, agreed order, reprimand, warning, probation, suspension,
and revocation.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target
2.3.3.12 Number of Complaints Pending
DEFINITION: The total number of jurisdictional complaints during the
reporting period awaiting investigation, hearing, or final Board action.
PURPOSE: Taken with the measure for number of complaints resolved,
these measures indicate the agency’s total workload for handling
complaints. Taken alone, this measure indicates the agency’s efficiency
in handling the complaint workload.
DATA SOURCE: The information is derived from the total numbers of
complaints filed against educators and carried on the Unit’s Database in
its Certification Enforcement Unit. The calculation is performed
initially by a legal assistant and reviewed by the Unit Director.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Sum of the number of jurisdictional
complaints remaining unresolved during the reporting period,
irrespective of when the complaint was received.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target
EFFICIENCY MEASURES
2.3.3.1
Average Cost Per Credential Issued
DEFINITION: The average cost associated with processing each
credential issued and renewed during the reporting period. Multiple
credentials and renewals issued to an individual are counted multiple
times.
PURPOSE: This measure shows the agency’s cost efficiency in
processing applications for certificates and temporary credentials and
renewing certificates.
DATA SOURCE: Extract from USPS for directly related SBEC payroll
and USAS expended and unpaid obligations for contractor costs during
the reporting period for activities during the reporting period directly
Texas Education Agency
217
related to the issuance of all standard and temporary credentials (e.g.,
one-year, non-renewable, probationary, emergency, and temporary
certificates), and certificate renewals. Excluded are costs such as
postage, supplies and travel. Extract from the ITS Certification data
base the number of standard certificates and temporary credentials
issued and renewed during the reporting period. Financial operations
staff extracts and analyzes the data from the USPS and USAS databases
and
the ITS Certification data base and submits the results to the director of
credentialing services for review and verification. A copy of the report
is maintained in the office of the director of credentialing services.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is calculated by summing
the direct payroll and contractor costs expended and obligated during the
reporting period for activities related to processing and mailing each
certificate and temporary credential issued and renewal of a certificate
during the reporting period. The denominator is the sum of the total
number of certificates and credential issued and certificates renewed
during the reporting period. Indirect costs are not included in the
calculation. Multiple certificates or credentials issued or certificates
renewed by the same individual are counted multiple times.
DATA LIMITATIONS: Information for renewals will not be available
until FY 2004-05.
CALCULATION TYPE: Non-Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target
2.3.3.2
Average Days for Credential Issuance
DEFINITION: The average number of calendar days that elapsed from
receipt of completed credential applications until credentials are issued
during the reporting period.
PURPOSE: This measure shows the agency’s efficiency in processing
certificate applications in a timely manner as well as its responsiveness
to a primary customer group.
DATA SOURCE: The average difference between the receipt date of a
completed credential application and the credential issuance date is
calculated using the ITS certification data base. The programmer
extracts the data from the ITS database and submits the results to the
manager responsible for performance measure reporting for review and
analysis. The data is verified by the director of credentialing services
and a copy of the report is maintained in the office of the director of
credentialing services.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is the sum of the number
of calendar days that elapsed between receipt of a completed application
and credential issuance, for all credentials issued during the reporting
period. The denominator is the number of credentials issued during the
reporting period.
Texas Education Agency
218
DATA LIMITATIONS: If an applicant has a reported criminal history, the
agency has little control over the time it takes to receive requested
information from the applicant and relevant law enforcement agencies or
court officials.
CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target
2.3.3.3
Average Cost Per Educator Prep Program
DEFINITION: The average cost per education preparation program
associated with approving new preparation programs, annually
reviewing existing programs, and intervening in the operation of a
preparation program determined to be “Accredited-Under Review.”
PURPOSE: This measure shows the agency’s cost efficiency in reviewing
and approving new educator preparation programs, conducting the
required annual review of all approved programs, and intervening in
programs that do not meet the Board’s standards for full accreditation
status.
DATA SOURCE: Extract from USPS and USAS all expended and unpaid
obligations during the reporting period for activities related to the
consideration of new programs and review of programs under the
Accountability System for Educator Preparation (ASEP). Costs will
include only salaries and contractor costs related to the following
activities approval of new programs, preparation of ratings, and
oversight team/manager training.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is calculated by summing
the direct payroll and contractor costs expended and obligated during the
reporting period for activities related to the initial approval and annual
review of educator preparation programs as well as to intervention
activities taken for accredited programs “under review.”
The
denominator is the sum of the number of new programs considered for
initial approval, the number of programs reviewed, and the number of
programs receiving intervention services during the reporting period.
Indirect costs are not included in the calculation.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Non-Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target
2.3.3.4
Average Time for Certificate Renewal (Days)
DEFINITION: The average number of calendar days that elapsed from
receipt of a completed standard certificate renewal application until the
renewal is issued.
PURPOSE: This measure will show the agency’s efficiency in
processing standard certificate renewal applications in a timely manner.
Texas Education Agency
219
DATA SOURCE: The average difference between the date a completed
certificate renewal application is received and the date the renewal is
issued is calculated using the ITS certification data base. Information
about temporary credentials is not collected. The programmer extracts
the data from ITS and submits the results to the manager responsible for
performance measure reporting for review and analysis. The data is
verified by the director of credentialing services and a copy of the report
is maintained in the office of the director of credentialing services.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is the sum of the number
of calendar days that elapsed between receipt of a completed renewal
application and issuance of the renewal, for certificates issued during the
reporting period. The denominator is the number of certificates issued
during the reporting period. Temporary credentials are not included in
the calculation.
DATA LIMITATIONS: This measure will not be effective until FY 200405. If an applicant has a reported criminal history, the agency has little
control over the time it takes to receive requested information from the
applicant and relevant law enforcement agencies. Another limitation
could include verifying the source of continuing professional
development.
CALCULATION TYPE: Non-Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target
2.3.3.5
Average Time for Investigating Complaints (Days)
DEFINITION: The average number of days required to resolve an
investigation that was resolved during the reporting period. A complaint
involving an educator or an applicant for credential becomes an
investigation on the date that the complaint is entered into the data base
and assigned to an investigator. The investigation ends at the time that
it is either closed without a sanction, an agreed order is signed by the
deputy associate commissioner or associate commissioner, or is
recommended for sanction and assigned to legal in the data base. The
amount of time that an investigation is in suspense is not calculated in
this average. An investigation is considered to be in suspense when the
underlying matter for the investigation is pending the result of a criminal
matter, which includes but is not limited to a criminal investigation or
criminal charges. When the pending matter is resolved the case is
removed from suspense and returned to investigation.
PURPOSE: This measure shows the agency’s efficiency in resolving
investigations.
DATA SOURCE: The total number of complaints filed against educators
is entered in an Access database referred to as the Docket. An Excel
spreadsheet is used to track the number of days an investigation is in
suspense.
Texas Education Agency
220
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is the number of calendar
days from date of entry into the docket to date of closure or date of
assignment to Legal minus any time the case was in suspense (the
number of calendar days from date of entry into the suspense database to
date of removal from the suspense database). The denominator is the
total number of complaints investigated during the reporting period.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None
CALCULATION TYPE: Non-Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: Yes
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target
2.3.3.6
Average Time for Litigating Complaints (Days)
DEFINITION: The average number of days required to litigate a
complaint that was resolved during the reporting period. A complaint
involving an educator or an applicant for credentials becomes a litigation
file on the date that the complaint is entered into the data base and
assigned to an attorney. A litigation proceeding ends at the time that it
is either closed without a sanction, an agreed order is signed by the
deputy associate commissioner or associate commissioner, or a Proposal
for Decision is issued by an Administrative Law Judge and a Final Order
is signed by the Board. A complaint includes a Code of Ethics
Complaint. The start time for a Code of Ethics Complaint is entered on
the docket the date that the Code of Ethics complaint is no longer
suspended pursuant to 19 TAC §247.49(d). The Code of Ethics
complaint is resolved when the complaint is disposed of pursuant to 19
TAC §247.51(c). A TAKS test violation complaint is entered on the
docket on the date that the complaint is received from the Student
Assessment division.
PURPOSE: This measure shows the agency’s efficiency in resolving
litigation complaints.
DATA SOURCE: The total number of complaints filed against educators
is entered in an Access Database referred to as the Docket.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is the number of calendar
days from date of assignment to Legal to the date that a complaint is
resolved. The denominator is the total number of complaints assigned
to Legal that were resolved during the reporting period.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None
CALCULATION TYPE: Non-Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: Yes
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target
2.3.3.7
Average Cost per Complaint Resolved in Investigations
DEFINITION: The average cost associated with resolving a jurisdictional
complaint handled by investigations that was resolved during the
reporting period.
Texas Education Agency
221
PURPOSE: The measure shows the agency’s cost efficiency in resolving
a complaint handled by investigations.
DATA SOURCE: Extract from USPS for directly related Investigation
payroll and USAS expended and unpaid obligations for contractor costs
during the reporting period for activities. An investigation complaint
resolution information is derived from the total numbers of complaints
handled by the Investigations that were filed against educators and
carried on the investigation case docket. The denominator calculation is
performed initially by a legal assistant and reviewed by the Unit
Director.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is calculated by summing
the total funds expended and obligated during the reporting period for
complaint processing and resolution. The denominator is the total
number of jurisdictional complaints resolved during the reporting period.
Only the following costs, which are directly related to investigation
proceedings, are included in the calculation: salaries and contractor
costs. Indirect costs are not included in this calculation. When reporting
year-to-date performance, the numerator represents only direct costs
associated with complaint processing and resolution during all reporting
periods and the denominator is the number of complaints resolved
during all reporting periods.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None
CALCULATION TYPE: Non-Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: Yes
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target
2.3.3.8
Average Cost per Complaint Resolved in Legal
DEFINITION: The average cost associated with resolving a jurisdictional
complaint handled by legal that was resolved during the reporting
period.
PURPOSE: The measure shows the agency’s cost efficiency in resolving
a complaint handled by legal.
DATA SOURCE: Extract from USPS for directly related SBEC payroll
and USAS expended and unpaid obligations for contractor costs during
the reporting period for activities. A litigation complaint resolution
information is derived from the total numbers of complaints handled by
the Certification Enforcement Unit (“Legal”) that were filed against
educators and carried on Unit’s case database. The denominator
calculation is performed initially by a legal assistant and reviewed by the
Unit Director.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is calculated by summing
the total funds expended and obligated during the reporting period for
complaint processing and resolution. The denominator is the total
number of jurisdictional complaints resolved during the reporting period.
Only the following costs, which are directly related to legal proceedings,
are included in the calculation: salaries, contractor costs and SOAH
Texas Education Agency
222
charges. Indirect costs are not included in this calculation. When
reporting year-to-date performance, the numerator represents only direct
costs associated with complaint processing and resolution during all
reporting periods and the denominator is the number of complaints
resolved during all reporting periods.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None
CALCULATION TYPE: Non-Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: Yes
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target
EXPLANATORY MEASURES
2.3.3.1
Number of Teachers Credentialed
DEFINITION: The number of individuals identified as teachers during the
current academic year who were previously issued certificates or
temporary credentials.
PURPOSE: This measure identifies the number of individuals serving as
teachers who hold certificates or temporary credentials.
DATA SOURCE: The SSN is obtained from PEIMS demographic data
matched to staff responsibilities to identify individuals reported as
serving teachers (roles 025, 029, 047). The SSN is compared to the ITS
Certification Table to determine what credential, if any, is held. The
sum is calculated for all teachers whose SSNs are found on both data
sources and who hold an active standard, provisional, or professional
certificate or a temporary credential (one-year, non-renewable,
probationary, emergency, temporary) The programmer extracts the data
from PEIMS and the ITS database and submits the results to the
manager responsible for performance measure reporting for review and
analysis. The data is verified by the director of credentialing services
and a copy of the report is maintained in the office of the director of
credentialing services.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Sum the number of individuals serving as
teachers who hold an active certificate or temporary credential. This
calculation is based on an individual, not FTE, count.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The agency has little control over school district
hiring practices and cannot verify the accuracy of information submitted
by school districts in PEIMS.
CALCULATION TYPE: Non-Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.3.2
Number of Fully Certified Teachers
DEFINITION: The number of active teachers who were previously issued
a Texas standard certificate or its equivalent or higher.
PURPOSE: This measure identifies the number of individuals serving as
teachers during the reporting period who hold a Texas standard
certificate or its equivalent or higher.
Texas Education Agency
223
DATA SOURCE: The SSN is obtained from PEIMS demographic data
matched to staff responsibilities to identify individuals reported as
serving as teachers (roles 025, 029, 047). The SSN is compared to the
ITS Certification Table to determine what credential, if any, is held. The
sum is calculated for all teachers whose SSNs are found on both data
sources and who hold an active master, standard, provisional, or
professional certificate. The programmer extracts the data from PEIMS
and the ITS database and submits the results to the director of data
analysis for review and analysis. The data is verified by the director of
credentialing services and a copy of the report is maintained in the office
of the director of credentialing services.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Sum the number of individuals serving as
teachers who hold an active standard, provisional, or professional
certificate as of the effective date of annual, verified PEIMS teacher role
data. This calculation is based on an individual, not FTE, count.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The agency has little control over school district
hiring practices and cannot verify the accuracy of information submitted
by school districts in PEIMS.
CALCULATION TYPE: Non-Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.3.3
Number of Educator Preparation Programs with Intervention
Status
DEFINITION: The number of educator preparation programs determined
to be “Accredited-Under Review” during the reporting period, a status
that requires the agency to intervene in the operation of the program.
PURPOSE: This measure shows the agency’s ability to provide assistance
to programs that are in danger of losing their accreditation if poor
performance continues.
DATA SOURCE: The list of programs with intervention status is
maintained by the director of accountability.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Sum the total number of programs with
intervention status during the reporting period.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target
2.3.3.4
Number of Approved Educator Preparation Programs
DEFINITION: The number of entities approved by the Board to offer
preparation and recommend individuals for certification during the
reporting period.
PURPOSE: Many geographic areas of the state do not have programs that
are easily accessible and many existing educator preparation programs
are filled to capacity, thus denying interested individuals access to the
Texas Education Agency
224
preparation and training necessary for certification as a classroom
teacher. This measure indicates the agency’s effectiveness in increasing
the number of preparation programs available to prospective educators.
DATA SOURCE: The list of approved programs is maintained by the
director of accountability based on minutes of Board meetings.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Sum the total number of programs
approved by the Board during or prior to the reporting period.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None.
CALCULATION TYPE: Non-Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.3.5
Number of Certified Teachers Adding a Certificate by Examination
DEFINITION: The number of previously certified teachers adding a new
certificate(s) by passing the appropriate examination(s).
PURPOSE: This measure will demonstrate the extent to which currently
certified teachers add certificates by examination. Once an individual
has been certified as a classroom teacher, additional teaching certificates
in other subjects and grade levels can be added merely by passing the
appropriate examination(s). The agency does not require the individual
to complete any coursework or additional training.
DATA SOURCE: Identify all records in the certification data base for
individuals previously issued a standard classroom teacher certificate or
its equivalent who have added an additional teaching field(s) by exam
during the reporting period. The data are submitted to the director of
accountability.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Sum the number of certified teachers
issued a standard certificate by the certification by exam route during the
reporting period. Teachers adding more than one certificate are counted
only once during each reporting period.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The agency has limited impact on increasing the
number of individuals who add certification through the certification by
examination process.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.3.6
Number of Jurisdictional Complaints Received
DEFINITION: The total number of complaints received during the
reporting period that are within the agency’s jurisdiction of statutory
responsibility.
PURPOSE: This measure indicates the agency’s workload.
DATA SOURCE: The information is derived from the total numbers of
complaints filed against educators and carried on the Unit’s Database in
its Certification Enforcement Unit. The calculation is performed
initially by a legal assistant and reviewed by the Unit Director.
Texas Education Agency
225
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Sum of the number of jurisdictional
complaints received during the reporting period. Non-jurisdictional
complaints are recorded and summed, but are not included in the
calculation.
DATA LIMITATIONS: This measure totally depends on individuals filing
complaints as required by law or when alleged misconduct occurs.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target
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: Continue to purchase,
develop, and implement information systems that support
students, educators, and stakeholders.
OUTPUT MEASURE
2.3.5.1
Number of Times TPEIR Web Reports/Resources are Accessed
DEFINITION: This measure counts the number of visits to TPEIR web
reports or data resources.
PURPOSE: To measure use of TPEIR web reports and resources.
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.
Strategy 2.3.6 Certification Exam Administration: Ensure that candidates
for educator certification or renewal of certification
demonstrate the knowledge and skills necessary to improve
academic performance of all students in the state. Estimated
and nontransferable.
OUTPUT MEASURES
2.3.6.1
Number of Certification Examinations Administered
DEFINITION: The total number of certification examinations
administered during the reporting period.
PURPOSE: Current state law requires all candidates for certification to
pass examinations prescribed by the Board. This requirement represents
a significant portion of the agency’s revenues as well as expenditures
related to development, administration, scoring, and notification
activities. This measure reflects the total volume of the agency’s
examination function.
Texas Education Agency
226
DATA SOURCE: The agency’s manager of test administration reports,
based on data provided by the test contractor, to the director of
accountability the number of certification examinations administered
during the reporting period.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Sum the total number of certification
examinations administered during the reporting period.
DATA LIMITATIONS: The agency has no control over when individuals
take their certification exams. Individuals tested include candidates from
preparation programs, Texas educators adding a certificate, and
educators from other states seeking Texas certification.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.6.2
Number of Certification Examinations Sessions Offered
DEFINITION: The total number of times during the reporting period
when whole or multi-part examinations were administered.
PURPOSE: Current state law requires all candidates for certification to
pass examinations prescribed by the Board. In most cases, teachers must
pass two examinations and other educators must pass one. This
requirement represents a significant portion of the agency’s revenues as
well as expenditures related to development, administration, scoring, and
notification activities. This measure reflects the extent to which
individuals are provided an opportunity to attempt the examinations
required for certification.
DATA SOURCE: The agency’s manager of test administration reports,
based on data provided by the test contractor, to the director of
accountability the number of certification-examination sessions offered
during the reporting period.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Sum the number of examination sessions
conducted at each test site during the reporting period.
DATA LIMITATIONS: These data are artificially inflated because the
numbers of examinees per session can vary dramatically. For example,
sessions for the Sign Language (TASC) exam can have one examinee.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.6.3
Number of Individuals Examined
DEFINITION: The number of individuals to whom certification
examinations were administered in whole or in part, counted by
examination session, during the reporting period.
PURPOSE: Current state law requires all candidates for certification to
pass examinations prescribed by the Board. In most cases, teachers must
pass two examinations and other educators must pass one. This
requirement represents a significant portion of the agency’s revenues as
Texas Education Agency
227
well as expenditures related to development, administration, scoring, and
notification activities. This measure reflects the number of individuals
attempting to become certified.
DATA SOURCE: The agency’s manager of test administration reports,
based on data provided by the test contractor, to the director of
accountability the number of certification examinations administered
during the reporting period.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Sum the number of individuals who
attended each certification exam session during each reporting period.
Individuals taking examinations during multiple sessions in the reporting
period are counted multiple times. For example, a person taking
different certification exams during both the morning and afternoon
sessions on a single day is counted as two individuals examined.
DATA LIMITATIONS: These data are misleading because one individual
will be counted as multiple individuals if he or she takes multiple exams
at different exam sessions.
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
2.3.6.4
Number of Standards-based Certification Exams Developed,
Updated, or Adopted
DEFINITION: The total number of standards-based certification
examinations developed, updated, or adopted during the reporting
period.
PURPOSE: New content-area standards ensure that educators’ knowledge
is grounded in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), the
state's required curriculum for public school students.
DATA SOURCE: An examination is considered “developed,” “updated,”
or “adopted” when it is administered for the first time. The director of
the office of accountability verifies and maintains data about the
implementation of new certification examinations.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Sum the number of standards-based
certification examinations developed, updated, or adopted during the
reporting period.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None
CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
EFFICIENCY MEASURE
2.3.6.1
Average Cost Per Certification Examination Administered
DEFINITION: The average cost associated with activities related to the
administration of certification examinations during the reporting period.
PURPOSE: This measure shows the agency’s cost efficiency in
administering the examinations required for certification.
Texas Education Agency
228
DATA SOURCE: Extract from USAS and USPS all expended payroll and
contractor costs and obligations during the reporting period for the
administration of certification exams. SBEC payroll costs include time
directly related to exam administration. Contractor costs may include
any costs directly related to exam administration.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: The numerator is calculated by summing
the only the direct payroll and contractor costs expended and obligated
during the reporting period for activities related to the administration of
certification examinations. The denominator is the total number of
examinations administered during the reporting period. Indirect and
examination development costs are not included in the calculation.
DATA LIMITATIONS: None
CALCULATION TYPE: Non-Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target
EXPLANATORY MEASURE
2.3.6.1
Percent of Individuals Passing Exams and Eligible for Certification
DEFINITION: The percent of individuals to whom examinations were
administered during the reporting period that passed the examination(s)
and, thereby, became eligible for certification. This result considers
only those requirements related to assessment; eligibility requirements
such as coursework, student teaching, and criminal history clearance are
not considered.
PURPOSE: This measure shows the performance of individuals tested in
terms of their success in meeting testing requirements for at least one
certificate.
DATA SOURCE: The data source is the SBEC files containing educator
assessment and demographic data. The programmer calculates the
percent of the examinees that represents those eligible for certification.
This measure should be calculated on an annual basis. The data are
submitted to the director of accountability. A copy of the data is
maintained in the office of the director of accountability.
METHOD OF CALCULATION: Individuals who are “eligible for
certification” comprise examinees who took any certification test during
the reporting period (preferably annually) and who have passed all tests,
at any time, required for obtaining at least one certificate. In general, the
tests required for initial teacher certification include a pedagogy test and
one content knowledge test; individuals seeking professional
certification are eligible if they pass the single specific examination
required for the certificate. The numerator is the unduplicated number
of examinees who are eligible for certification. The denominator is the
total unduplicated number of examinees who attempted all of the
combination of tests required to be eligible for a certificate. The result is
multiplied by 100 to obtain a percentage.
Texas Education Agency
229
DATA LIMITATIONS: Other certification requirements such as holding
certain degrees and criminal-history criteria are not considered, so the
data will reflect a higher number than the actual number of individuals
eligible for certification. This measure should be calculated on an annual
basis.
CALCULATION TYPE: Non-Cumulative
NEW MEASURE: No
DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target
Appendix E:
Workforce Plan FY 2007 -2011
I. Current Workforce Profile (Supply Analysis)
Critical Workforce Skills
TEA provides leadership, resources, and guidance for the public school districts and
charter schools in Texas. The following skills and areas of expertise are critical to
perform the agency’s core business functions:








Data Analysis;
Financial Management;
Grants Administration;
Policy Planning/Research;
Standards and Programs;
Strategy Development/ Implementation/Evaluation;
Teamwork/Communication; and
Change Management.
The strategic focus of the agency is to move its workforce toward high performance,
cost-effective, goal-oriented client services. In order to achieve this strategic focus, the
agency will concentrate more of its efforts on cross-training and efficient project
management.
Workforce Demographics
Gender
The following chart illustrates the agency’s full-time and part-time workforce as of
March 1, 2006. Of the 797 TEA employees, 66% are female and 34% are male. A large
Texas Education Agency
230
proportion of the workforce consists of former educators, who are predominantly female
(see Figure 4).
Texas Education Agency
231
Figure 4:
TEA Workforce by Gender
Male 34%
Female 66%
Ethnicity
As Figure 5 illustrates, just under two-thirds (62%) of TEA’s workforce is white, while
22% is Hispanic and 11% is African-American. The remaining 5% of the TEA workforce
represents other racial and ethnic origin.
Figure 5:
TEA Workforce by Ethnicity
AfricanAmerican
11%
Hispanic
22%
Texas Education Agency
Other
5%
White
62%
232
Age
Nearly three quarters (73%) of the agency’s workforce is over the age of 40, and 40 % is
over the age of 50 (see Figure 6). Many of the agency’s education-related professional
positions require several years of public school education experience, which is a
contributing factor to the relatively high average age of the workforce.
Figure 6:
TEA Workforce by Age
Under 40
27%
40 - 50
33%
Over 50
40%
Employee Turnover
The agency’s turnover rate was below the state’s overall turnover rate for fiscal years
2001 through 2002. At the end of FY 2003, as mandated by the Texas Legislature, the
agency reduced staff through a reduction in force (RIF). This action resulted in the
separation of 300 employees, hence the high turnover rate of 39.36% in FY 2003. In
addition, 31 employees left the agency in September of 2003 also due to the staff
reductions. Nevertheless, the turnover rate at the end of FY 2004 had decreased to 20%
and the turnover rate for FY 2005 was 16.8%, just slightly higher than the state average
of 16.6% (see Figure 7).
The employee exit survey for FY 2003 showed three main reasons employees separated
employment with TEA: little or no opportunity for advancement, better pay and benefits,
and the RIF.
In FY 2003, the agency’s FTE cap was 860.5. In FY 2004 and FY 2005, the FTE cap
was 754.5. The FTE cap for FY 2006 is 797.
Texas Education Agency
233
Figure 7:
Employee Turnover Rate: TEA vs. State
50%
39.36%
40%
30%
20%
10%
17.60%
16.35%
20.00%
15.88%
16.80%
18.70%
14.80%
9.29%
16.60%
0%
FY 01
FY 02
FY 03
TEA
FY 04
FY 05
State
The agency provides various incentive/retention programs to help promote longer tenure,
including the pay-for-performance merit system; one-time merits; recruitment/retention
bonus program; tuition reimbursement program; employee service awards;
telecommuting; compressed work hours; and an employee assistance program. The
agency’s Quality Workplace Committee, made up of administrative to mid-level
professional staff, responds to employee concerns regarding workplace issues or
problems and recommends solutions.
FY 2004 was a transition period in which agency managers and staff became accustomed
to performing in a new organization. Many agency employees learned new ways of
performing their functions as a result of the reorganization. If adequate training is not
provided, some employees may decide to leave the agency, thus contributing to the
turnover rate. The improvement of the economy may also be a contributing factor to
employees separating from the agency. On the other hand, employees may experience
longer tenure, as they become more comfortable with their functional roles and agency
culture.
Texas Education Agency
234
Tenure
About a third (31%) of the agency’s workforce have been with the agency for less than 5
years, while 23% have been employed for 5 to 9 years, and 31% have been employed
from 10 to 20 years. Of the remainder, 13% of TEA’s employees have worked for the
agency between 20 and 30 years and 2% have worked for the agency for over thirty years
(see Figure 8).
Figure 8:
TEA Workforce by Agency Tenure
20-30 years
13%
30+ years
2%
< 5 years
31%
10-20 years
31%
5-9 years
23%
Retirement
The retirement incentive offered by the Texas Legislature in 2003 was an attractive
option for many agency employees. The incentive paid out 25% of one’s annual salary to
employees eligible to retire during their first month of eligibility. The agency
experienced a significant loss of institutional knowledge during the RIF in August of
2003, which included both retirees and RIF’d employees. The agency lost 20% of its
employees who elected to retire during this period.
Within the next five years, approximately 15% of the agency’s authorized workforce is
eligible to retire, which will significantly lessen the agency’s knowledge base. Figure 9
shows the percent of TEA workforce who will be eligible to retire in the coming years.
With the anticipated loss of knowledge and expertise, the agency must cross-train and
develop succession plans to bridge the gap and ensure continuity.
Texas Education Agency
235
Figure 9:
TEA Current Workforce Eligible for Retirement in FY07-FY11
6%
Percent Eligible
5.27%
4%
2.38%
2.26%
2.38%
2.51%
FY09
FY10
2%
0%
FY07
FY08
FY 11
Fiscal Year
II. Future Workforce Profile (Demand Analysis)
Due to the number of employees eligible to retire and an improving economy, the agency
anticipates an increase in the attrition rate. Recruiting highly skilled individuals will be
very important. Some of the skill sets needed will be in the systems analysis and
planning and research fields. The agency will focus on recruiting for statisticians,
researchers, and data management personnel.
Expected Workforce Changes
The agency re-employed the Driver’s Training unit in April 2004, accounting for
approximately 17 positions.
The SBEC merged with TEA in September of 2005. This brought an increase of 50
FTEs to TEA’s workforce. The P-16 Initiatives Division took on the management of
SBEC and created six cost centers.
TEA will continue to maximize technology for increased efficiencies.
Texas Education Agency
236
Anticipated Increase/Decrease in Number of Employees Needed to Perform Core
Functions
The agency does not expect an increase in FTEs, however, further reduction in FTEs
would affect the agency’s ability to perform core functions. If TEA is required to reduce
the number of FTEs, then contract help will be needed to accomplish the agency’s
mission. A development of this kind would require continuous training of contractors
and would limit the prospect of succession planning, which provides access to helpful
historical knowledge. If over the next five years TEA is granted an increase in FTEs, the
agency expects that a 5% increase would allow us to continue to meet our core mission.
Future Workforce Skills Needed
To effectively accomplish the agency’s mission and goals, competencies in the following
areas will be required: data analysis; financial; grants administration; policy
planning/research; standards and programs development/implementation and evaluation;
teamwork/communication; and change management. Again, without these competencies
within out workforce, TEA would be required to seek contract help.
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 cost-effective. State policy should examine alternatives that facilitate
outsourcing while keeping agencies accountable for FTE caps.
Strategy Development
The mission of TEA’s Human Resources Division is to provide quality customer service
to our internal and external customers; to recruit qualified candidates; and to retain a
capable and committed workforce that is strategically focused on managing and
improving 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:
 Recruiting/Retention Programs;
 Recruitment Plans;
Texas Education Agency
237




Career Development Programs;
Succession Planning;
Leadership Development; and
Organizational training and employee development.
Texas Education Agency
238
Appendix F:
Texas Education Agency 2006 Customer Satisfaction Survey
The TEA 2006 Report on Customer Service is a tool that is used to assess how well the
agency is meeting the needs of its external customers and educational partners. In
addition, feedback received from the survey respondents is a catalyst for driving change
and improving agency processes.
A total of 1,243 surveys were completed for the 2006 survey. Superintendents, Business
Managers, Principals, and Teachers and Staff from throughout the state were represented
in the sample.
Superintendents were most likely to have contact with TEA during the past year (97%
contact rate), followed by Business Managers (90.4%), Principals (65.5%) and Teachers
and Staff (35.7%).
Regardless of their level of contact, all four groups of customers/partners consistently
rate TEA highly on the quality of its customer service and the information it provides. On
18 of 19 customer service attributes, a clear majority (often approaching 90% or better)
either agreed or strongly agreed that TEA’s performance was exemplary.
School Finance remains a key policy issue for Superintendents, Business Managers, and
Principals. The most important policy issue for Teachers and Staff is High School
Completion and College Readiness, though followed closely by School Finance as well.
The Web continues to be a critical component in providing timely information to system
participants. TEA customers rate its website highly and use it to obtain information and
material on a wide variety of topics.
Overall, the vast majority of respondents (81%) either agreed or strongly agreed that they
were satisfied with TEA, a higher rating than any individual department garnered.
Texas Education Agency
239
Appendix G:
Survey of Organizational Excellence
Summary
TEA participates in the Survey of Organizational Excellence (SOE) conducted by the
University
of
Texas
School
of
Social
Work
(http://www.utexas.edu/research/cswr/survey/site/). The 2006 results demonstrate that,
overall, employees believe that TEA has improved in all of the dimensions measured in
the survey. The SOE construct score results for 1996 to 2006 are listed in Table 23.
Table 23:
TEA Results: 1996-2006 Survey of Organizational Excellence
2004
Score
(Rank)
385 (1)
2002
Score
(Rank)
406 (1)
2000
Score
(Rank)
369 (2)
1998 Score
(Rank)
Quality
2006
Score
(Rank)
401 (1)
359 (3)
1996
Score
(Rank)
320 (3)
Strategic Orientation
389 (2)
362 (2)
391 (2)
395 (1)
396 (1)
355 (2)
Physical Environment
382 (3)
367 (2)
380 (6)
350 (5)
324 (7)
279 (8)
External Communication
379 (4)
350 (6)
384 (3)
369 (3)
353 (4)
311 (4)
Burnout
378 (5)
351 (5)
377 (7)
323 (10)
307 (12)
256 (15)
Diversity
373 (6)
345 (11)
367 (12)
320 (12)
311 (10)
282 (7)
Fairness
372 (7)
346 (10)
366 (13)
289 (18)
274 (20)
244 (18)
Availability of Information
371 (8)
354 (4)
375 (9)
313 (14)
298 (14)
259 (13)
Job Satisfaction
370 (9)
349 (8)
376 (8)
335 (8)
312 (9)
265 (11)
Time & Stress Management
368 (10)
348 (9)
374 (10)
333 (9)
323 (8)
292 (6)
Employment Development
365 (11)
327 (15)
384 (4)
346 (6)
331 (5)
302 (5)
Empowerment
365 (11)
340 (13)
364 (14)
293 (17)
278 (18)
234 (19)
Goal Oriented
365 (11)
350 (7)
371 (11)
336 (7)
325 (6)
278 (9)
Benefits
364 (12)
344 (12)
380 (5)
359 (4)
371 (2)
363 (1)
Holographic
360 (13)
326 (16)
359 (15)
312 (15)
295 (15)
253 (16)
Team Effectiveness
353 (14)
334 (14)
352 (17)
314 (13)
304 (13)
257 (14)
Change Oriented
350 (15)
325 (17)
354 (16)
321 (11)
310 (11)
265 (12)
Supervisor Effectiveness
350 (15)
325 (18)
348 (18)
288 (19)
277 (19)
234 (20)
Internal Communication
333 (16)
299 (19)
334 (19)
312 (16)
290 (17)
247 (17)
Fair Pay
286 (17)
244 (20)
262 (20)
274 (20)
291 (16)
276 (10)
Construct
The 2005-2006 survey was conducted in November of 2005. The survey was distributed
by email to all employees and yielded 431 completed surveys, reflecting a response rate
Texas Education Agency
240
of 70%, which is the highest response rate in the history of the agency. A score of 300
marks a threshold for employee perception scores; above 300 indicates that employee
perception of an issue is positive. Quality, Strategic Orientation, Physical Environment,
External Communication, and Burnout were the highest rated items. Only one item (Fair
Pay) fell below the 300 point threshold.
The Office of Organizational Effectiveness, in collaboration with agency leadership, will
work to address low scoring issues and continue to encourage improvement in those
items showing positive changes in employee perceptions. Open dialogue with managers
and employees (including the agency’s Quality Workplace Committee), the use of
follow-up surveys and focus groups are strategies that have proven effective in
identifying and resolving construct issues.
Organizational Change: Performance Over Time
One of the benefits of continuing to participate in the survey is that over time data shows
how employees' views have changed as a result of implementing efforts suggested by
previous survey results. Positive changes indicate that employees perceive the issue as
adequately improved since the previous survey. Negative changes indicate that the
employees perceive that the issue has worsened since the previous survey.
Texas Education Agency
241
Figure 10:
Survey of Organizational Excellence:
Constructs Points Deviated from Previous Iteration
Texas Education Agency
242
Comparison of 2003/2004 and 2005/2006 Survey of Organizational Excellence
Results
Background
The 2003-2004 survey was conducted between November 13th and November 27th, 2003.
It was distributed to 543 employees and yielded 330 completed surveys (61% response
rate). The 2005-2006 survey was conducted between November 7th and November 18th,
2005. It was distributed to 617 employees and yielded 431 completed surveys (70%
response rate).
The information compared in this analysis is comprised of survey constructs and
dimensions. Survey constructs (e.g., Supervisor Effectiveness, Fair Pay, Change
Oriented Organizational Features, Internal Information, Job Satisfaction) are developed
from a group of related survey questions.
Dimensions (e.g., Work Group,
Accommodations, Organizational Features, Information, and Personal) capture the total
work environment. Each dimension contains a series of survey constructs, which are
based on specific survey questions answered by TEA employees.
Summary of Key Findings from 2003/2004 – 2005/2006 Comparative Analysis
Analysis of the various survey constructs and broader dimensions for the 2003-2004 and
2005-2006 surveys reveals a consistent increase in all 20 constructs and 5 dimensions
measured by the survey. Key findings from a comparative analysis of these employeereported metrics are presented below, organized by the five dimensions (i.e., Work
Group, Accommodations, Organizational Features, Information, and Personal). The
analysis shows that each overall dimension was rated by employees as being at or above
both the “benchmark score” (for similar size organizations) and “mission score” (for
organizations with a similar mission).
Work Group
The Work Group dimension consists of the following four constructs: Supervisor
Effectiveness, Fairness, Team Effectiveness, and Diversity.
 There was an increase in all four of the constructs included in the Work Group
dimension. Diversity experienced the greatest increase (13 points) followed closely
by Fairness (12 point increase), Team Effectiveness (11 point increase) with
Supervisor Effectiveness showing the lowest increase (9 point increase).
 Supervisor Effectiveness and Team Effectiveness were two of the five lowest rated
Work Group Dimension constructs in the 2005-2006 survey and were areas of
concern. The Office of Organizational Effectiveness is preparing a series of
Management courses to address the consistently low Supervisor Effectiveness
score. By increasing the effectiveness of TEA supervisors and managers, there
should be a corresponding increase in reports of team effectiveness. Support
services such as team building and enhancing team effectiveness activities will be
offered in late 2006.
Texas Education Agency
243
Texas Education Agency
244
Accommodations
The Accommodations dimension consists of the following four constructs: Fair pay,
Physical Environment, Benefits, and Employment Development.
 There was an increase in all four constructs included in the Accommodations
dimension. Fair Pay experienced the largest point increase (42 points) followed by
Employment Development (13 point increase), followed closely by Benefits (12
point increase), with Physical Environment increasing the least (7 point increase).
 The Fair Pay construct had the greatest increase of any construct reported in the
2005-2006 survey results. Yet, even with the largest point increase, Fair Pay is still
an area of concern for the agency since it was one of the five lowest rated constructs
in the survey. Physical Environment, on the other hand, was one of the five areas of
strength reported in the survey. Since both compensation and benefits are
determined by the legislature, the agency does not plan to take any action regarding
these two constructs. To address Employment Development more effectively,
training and development opportunities will be offered in a more strategic format in
cooperation with agency management to address specific issues or areas of concern.
Organizational Features
The Organizational Features dimension consists of the following five constructs: Change
Oriented, Goal Oriented, Holographic, Strategic, and Quality.
 There was an increase in all five constructs including the Organizational Features
dimension. Holographic experienced the greatest increase (14 points), followed by
Strategic (increase of 12 points), Quality (9 point increase), Goal Oriented (8 point
increase), and Change Oriented (5 point increase).
 The Holographic construct refers to the degree to which all actions of the agency
“hang together” and are understood by all. This includes employees’ perception of
the consistency of decision-making and activity within the agency, and the extent to
which all employees share some common organizational understandings and goals.
The quality of this construct was aptly demonstrated by the agency’s response to
hurricanes Katrina and Rita during the time period measured by this survey.
 The Change Oriented construct captures employees’ perceptions of TEA’s
capability and readiness to change based on new information and ideas; TEA’s
aptitude to process information in timely fashion and act upon it effectively; and
TEA’s capacity to access, develop, and utilize the strengths of all in the
organization for improvement. This construct was the number one area of concern
in this administration of the survey and also had the smallest increase of any
construct in the survey. Cross functional teams will be created to explore ways in
which TEA can increase internal communication and cooperation. Training in
change management is also planned for TEA managers and supervisors.
 The Quality construct reflects the degree to which quality principles are part of the
organizational culture, and the extent to which employees feel they have the
necessary resources to deliver quality services. This construct had the highest
rating in the entire survey and was perceived by TEA employees as the greatest area
of strength in the agency.
Texas Education Agency
245


The Strategic construct reflects employees’ thinking about how TEA responds to
external influences that should play a role in defining the organization’s mission,
vision, services, and products. This construct received the second highest rating in
the survey and was also rated as an area of strength in TEA.
The Goal Oriented survey construct experienced a relatively modest increase in
employee satisfaction (8 points) compared to other organizational constructs.
Information
The Information dimension consists of the following three constructs: Internal,
Availability, and External.
There was an increase in all three constructs with External having the greatest (14 point
increase), followed by Internal (9 point increase) and Availability (7 point increase).
 The External Information construct examines how information flows in and out of
the organization as well as the organization’s ability to synthesize and apply
external information to the work performed by the agency. Given TEA’s response
to hurricanes Katrina and Rita, it is not surprising that information flow is rated
highly, is viewed by employees as one of the areas of strength, and increased by 14
points from the previous survey administration.
 The Internal Information construct captures the flow of communication within the
organization (e.g., top-down, bottom-up, and across divisions). This construct
experienced an increase of 9 points. This construct was also one of the areas of
concern as perceived by employees. Several initiatives are being considered to
improve internal communication between and among TEA divisions and
departments at various levels. Internal communication and information sharing was
also mentioned as a key issue in management and staff focus groups conducted in
December of 2005.
 The Availability of Information construct (which refers to the extent to which
employees feel they know how to get needed information, and that they know how
to use it), experienced a slight increase of 7 points over the 2001-2003 period.
Personal
The Personal dimension consists of the following four constructs: Job Satisfaction, Time
and Stress, Burnout, and Empowerment.
There was an increase in all four constructs with Burnout increasing 13 points, followed
by Job Satisfaction (11 points), and Time and Stress (9 points), and Empowerment (9
points).
 The Burnout construct, which measures the feelings of extreme mental exhaustion
that negatively impacts an employee’s physical health and job performance not only
increased 13 points but was also one of the areas of strength as identified in the
survey. The higher the score the lower the level of burnout.
Texas Education Agency
246


The Time and Stress construct measures how realistically job demands match given
time and resource constraints as well as employee’s feelings about their ability to
balance home and work demands. The positive direction of this score given its
administration after the hurricanes is very encouraging.
The Empowerment construct measures the degree to which employees feel they
have control over their jobs and the outcomes of their efforts. Again, the positive
direction of this score given its administration after the hurricanes is very
encouraging.
Texas Education Agency
247
Appendix H:
Workforce Development System Strategic Planning
DESTINATION 2010: FISCAL YEARS 2004–09 STRATEGIC PLAN
FOR THE TEXAS WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM LONG-TERM
OBJECTIVES
PAGE
NUMBER
p. 85-87
p.63-65,
p. 85-87
p.63-65
p.63-65
p.63-65
p.63-65
PROGRAMMATIC LONG TERM OBJECTIVES
ID #
Increase the percentage of adult education students completing the
level enrolled from 64% to 70% by Q4/2007.
Increase the percentage of adult education students receiving a high
school diploma or Certificate of Equivalency (GED) from 56.7% to
59% by Q4/2009.
Increase job placements as a result of SCSEP mature worker
programs and services from 29% by Q4/PY2005 and by 1
percentage point per year (from actual rate of previous PY) through
Q4/PY2009.
Increase academic and future workplace success of youth by
increasing the HS graduation and/or certification (GED) rates from
95.5% to 96.2% by Q4/2009.
Reduce the percentage of student dropouts from public schools
between Grades 7 and 12 from 8.6% to 6.6% by Q4/2007.
CU3.0
Increase the percentage of exiting secondary students pursuing
academic and/or workforce education from 75.3% to 76% by
Q4/2007.
Increase Texas higher education participation rate to 5.5% by
Q4/2009.
Increase the number of certificates, associates and bachelors degrees
awarded to 168,000 by Q4/2009.
Sustain job placements for students exiting post secondary programs
at a total annual rate of 85% or greater.
Decrease number of TANF recipients cycling on and off TANF by a
rate to be specified.
Establish a standard for job placement for adult and youthful
offenders prior to release by Q4/2004. Increase the percentage of
adult offenders placed in jobs prior to release by 5% per year (from
actual rate of previous year) to Q4/2009. Increase constructive
activity rate (placements and other positive outcomes) for youthful
offenders by 5% per year (from actual rate of previous year) to
Q4/2009.
Increase by 2% per year (from actual rate of previous year), the
percentage of persons receiving vocational rehabilitation services
from HHSC who remain employed after exiting the program.
Texas Education Agency
248
CU3.1
CU3.2
CU3.3
CU3.4
CU3.5
CU3.6
CU3.7
CU3.8
CU3.9
CU4.0
CU5.0
DESTINATION 2010: FISCAL YEARS 2004–09 STRATEGIC PLAN
FOR THE TEXAS WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM LONG-TERM
OBJECTIVES
PAGE
NUMBER
p. 87
See note a
below
See note b
below
SYSTEM LONG-TERM OBJECTIVES
All system partners and associated workforce service providers will
participate in the scope and development of a system-wide universal
information gateway designed to provide a consistent and universal
framework for all system customers and provider information on
system projects, services and solutions. System providers and
TWDS customers will achieve uniform utilization by Q2/2008.
Increase system-wide, the number of employers using TWDS
products and services, by a percentage growth rate to be determined
by Q4/2009.
Employer Customer Satisfaction level will achieve a 0.1 increase
biennially in the combined satisfactory and above satisfactory
categories in the Council’s System Employer Survey.
Achieve job growth increases of 18% from 2000 to 2010.
p. 45-47
p. 85-87
Develop, approve, fund and implement a strategic alliance business
model that targets a minimum of three strategic industry clusters by
Q1/2006. These alliances are targeted to industries that hold longterm strategic relevance to the State.
Expand existing program or create a new program that enables
employers to directly, readily and accountably access funds for new
hire or incumbent worker training by Q2/2005.
Design and implement a methodology and system for identifying
and assessing employer needs with the first complete assessment
and recommendations delivered by Q1/2005.
Develop system to review workforce education programs and make
recommendations to revise or retire them as appropriate to the
current and future workforce needs identified in coordination with
employers. This system capacity will be operational by 2008.
Increase the awareness, access rates, participation, and relevance of
services to small and midsize businesses throughout the State. The
results of these efforts will achieve an increase in usage (to be
determined) of TWDS products, services, and solutions by a date to
be specified.
ID #
SI2.0
CU1.0
CU2.0
SC1.0
SC2.0
SC3.0
SC4.0
SC5.0
SC6.0
a The Texas Education Agency does not interact directly with employers, but supports this objective as it corresponds to public
school education, b The Texas Education Agency is not directly involved in outcomes related to this objective but the agency
provides assistance in accomplishing this objective as it relates to public education.
Texas Education Agency
249
PART 2. Provide a brief narrative description of the activities and programs that your
agency is implementing or plans to implement in response to your agency strategy
statement for the workforce systems included in the Destination 2010: Fiscal Years
2005-2006 Strategic Plan for the Texas Workforce Development System.
Texas Education Agency Strategy Statement
The major goal of the TEA is that all current and future Texas students will graduate with
a world-class education. All Texas graduates will contribute to the progress of their
families, their communities, the workforce, and our world.
TEA will execute strategies to achieve this goal by assisting school districts, other
education service providers and students in delivering and/or obtaining a workforce and
career relevant education through leveraged efforts in the following areas:





Curriculum development and program implementation;
Funding approval;
Administration of programs;
Coordination of data, information and analysis, evaluation and knowledge sharing
with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), Texas
Workforce Commission, and other relevant workforce system partners; and
Adult Education funding, coordination and reporting.
Throughout the course of this strategic plan, the agency has repeated its commitment to
prepare and graduate students for participation in the workforce and to target areas
needed to prepare for the global economy, and ensure that all Texas adults have the skills
necessary for the workplace. These strategies will be accomplished by continuing efforts
in curriculum development and program implementation to promote student success,
improving systems for grants applications and management to facilitate the funding
process, continued coordination and sharing of data, and participation in efforts as a
system partner with the Texas Workforce Investment Council (TWIC).
The TEA will continue data sharing activities with the TWIC, as well as its work with the
THECB on the Texas PK-16 Public Information Resource website for which TEA
provides data from the TAKS and PEIMS.
Adult Education and Family Literacy will continue its provision of information and
updates to the Texas Work Explorers system. The data entered and maintained in the
system will provide information, technical assistance, and guidance to students and local
Adult Education /Family Literacy providers in the education of adults 16 years or older.
The TEA is also participating in the Texas Industry Cluster Initiative to identify policies
and procedures for use of competitive cluster data.
Texas Education Agency
250
Appendix I:
Glossary of Acronyms
21st CCLC
21st Century Community Learning Centers
ACT
American College Testing
AEA
Alternative Education Accountability
AMI
Accelerated Math Instruction
AP
Advanced Placement
ARI
Accelerated Reading Instruction
AYP
Adequate Yearly Progress
CEAS
Consolidated Entitlement Application System
CEMS
Consolidated Entitlement Management System
CI2 Team
Certification Integration and Improvement Team
CIS
Communities In Schools
CRT
Criterion-Referenced Test
DCC
Data Center Consolidation
DIR
Department of Information Resources
ESC
Education Service Center
ELA
English Language Arts
ELL
English Language Learners
ESL
English as a Second Language
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FERPA
Family Education Rights and Privacy Act
FIRST
Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas
FY
Fiscal Year
FSP
Foundation School Program
FTE
Full-time equivalent employees
Texas Education Agency
251
GASB
Governmental Accounting Standards Board
GED
General Educational Development
GPA
Gold Performance Acknowledgement
GPC
Grade Placement Committee
HB
House Bill
HERC
Higher Education Readiness Component
HHSC
Health and Human Service Commission
HSEP
High School Equivalency Program
HUB
Historically Underutilized Business
IB
ICF
IDEA
International Baccalaureate
Investment Capital Fund
Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act of 2004
ISO
International Organization for Standards
ISD
Independent School Districts
ISLA
Institute for Second Language Achievement
LAT
Linguistically Accommodated Tests
LBB
Legislative Budget Board
LEA
Local Educational Agency
LEP
Limited English Proficient
LEP-SSI
Limited English Proficient – Student Success Initiative
NAEP
National Assessment of Educational Progress
NAGB
National Assessment Governing Board
NCES
National Center for Education Statistics
NCLB
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
OCR
Office of Civil Rights
OEYP
Optional Extended Year Program
OPGE
Office for Planning, Grants and Evaluation
Texas Education Agency
252
OSEP
PBM
Office of Special Education Programs
Performance-Based Monitoring
PEIMS
Public Education Information Management System
PMRS
Performance Measure Reporting System
PRS
Pregnancy Related Services
RFA
Request for Applications
RHSP
RIF
RPTE
SAT
SB
Recommended High School Program
Reduction in Force
Reading Proficiency Test in English
Scholastic Aptitude Test
Senate Bill
SBEC
State Board for Educator Certification
SBOE
State Board of Education
SCECD
SDAA
State Center for Early Childhood Development
State Developed Alternative Assessments
SEA
State Education Agency
SEM
Standard Error of Measurement
SOE
Survey of Organizational Excellence
SPP
State Performance Plan
SSI
Student Success Initiative
STaR
TAAS
TAC
TAKS
School Technology and Readiness
Texas Assessment of Academic Skills
Texas Administrative Code
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills
TAKS-Alt
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills- Alternate
TAKS-I
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills- Inclusive
TAKS-M
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills- Modified
Texas Education Agency
253
TANF
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
TASP
Texas Academic Skills Program
TBPC
Texas Building and Procurement Commission
TCALL
Texas Center for Adult Literacy and Learning
TEA
Texas Education Agency
TEC
Texas Education Code
TEEM
Texas Early Education Model
TEKS
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills
TELPAS
THECB
THSP
TIP
TMA
Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Texas High School Project
Technology Immersion Pilot
Teacher Math Academy
TOP
Texas Observation Protocols
TOT
Training of Trainers
TRA
Teacher Reading Academy
TRFI
Texas Reading First Initiative
T-STEM
TSUS
MELL
TWC
Texas Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Initiative
Texas State University System Mathematics for English Language Learners
Texas Workforce Commission
TWDS
Texas Workforce Development System
TWIC
Texas Workforce Investment Council
TxSSC
Texas School Safety Center
USDE
United States Department of Education
WADA
Weighted Average Daily Attendance
Texas Education Agency
254