TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY STRATEGIC PLAN · education system--TEA, the State Board of Education, re gional education service cent ers, independent school districts, campuses, charter

TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY STRATEGIC PLAN

For Fiscal Years 2003-2007

March 2003 Update includes HUB Plan

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS PLANNING FOR PROGRESS: The Texas State Government Vision, Mission, and Philosophy .............................................................................................................3 STATEWIDE GOALS AND BENCHMARKS FOR EDUCATION - PUBLIC SCHOOLS ................................................................................................... 5 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STATE BENCHMARKS AND TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY STRATEGIES...................................................................... 6 TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY MISSION ......................................................................................7

TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY PHILOSOPHY............................................................................7

EXTERNAL/INTERNAL ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................13 Overview of Agency Functions................................................................................................14 Statutory Basis ......................................................................................................................................14 Historical Perspective ...........................................................................................................................14 Main Functions......................................................................................................................................15 Public Perception of the Texas Education Agency...............................................................................16 Texas Education Agency 2002 Customer Satisfaction Survey ............................................................17 Organizational Aspects ............................................................................................................18 Fiscal Aspects ...........................................................................................................................19 Budget Issues .......................................................................................................................................19 Historically Underutilized Business Plan...............................................................................................20 Service Populations ..................................................................................................................23 Geographic Regions .............................................................................................................................24 School District Characteristics ..............................................................................................................25 Performance Benchmarking Data............................................................................................ 26 Current Year Activities - Challenges and Opportunities ....................................................... 30 High School Completion .......................................................................................................................30 Early Start .............................................................................................................................................32 Science .................................................................................................................................................32 Teaching Excellence.............................................................................................................................32 Technology............................................................................................................................................32 Statewide Student Assessment System...............................................................................................33 Accountability Rating System ...............................................................................................................35 Impact of Federal Statutes .......................................................................................................37 FY 2003-2007 STRATEGIC PLAN STRUCTURE AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES ..................................................................................................39 APPENDICES.........................................................................................................................................43 A. Agency Strategic Planning Process......................................................................................................45 B. Organization Chart................................................................................................................................46 C. Strategic Plan Outcome Measure Projections ......................................................................................47 D. Performance Measure Definitions.........................................................................................................51 E. Workforce Plan......................................................................................................................................96 F. Survey of Organizational Excellence ..................................................................................................102 G. Information Resources Strategic Plan ................................................................................................103

2

PLANNING FOR PROGRESS The Texas State Government Vision, Mission, and Philosophy

Vision Texas Working together, I know we can accomplish our mission and achieve these priority goals for our fellow Texans:

To assure open access to an educational system that not only guarantees the basic core knowledge necessary for citizenship, but also emphasizes excellence in all academic and intellectual undertakings; To provide for all of Texas’ transportation needs of the new century; To meet the basic health care needs of all Texans; To provide economic opportunities for individual Texans and provide an attractive economic climate with which to attract and grow businesses; and To provide for the safety and security of all within our border. RICK PERRY February 2002

The Mission of Texas State Government

Texas state government will be limited, efficient, and completely accountable. It will foster opportunity, economic prosperity, and family. The stewards of the public trust will be men and women who administer the state government in a fair, just, and responsible manner. To honor the public trust, state officials will seek new and innovative ways to meet state government priorities within its financial means.

3

The Philosophy of Texas State Government The task before all state public servants is to govern in a manner worthy of this great state. We are a great enterprise, and as an enterprise we will promote the following core principles.

• First and foremost, Texas matters most. This is the overarching, guiding principle by which we will make decisions. Our state, and its future, is more important than party, politics, or individual recognition.

• Government should be limited in size and mission, but it must be highly effective in performing the

tasks it undertakes. • Decisions affecting individual Texans are best made by those individuals, their families, and the local

governments closest to their communities. • Competition is the greatest incentive for achievement and excellence. It inspires ingenuity and requires

individuals to set their sights high. And just as competition inspires excellence, a sense of personal responsibility drives individual citizens to do more for their future, and the future of those they love.

• Public administration must be open and honest, pursuing the high road rather than the expedient

course. We must be accountable to taxpayers for our actions. • Finally, state government should be humble, recognizing that all its power and authority is granted to it

by the people of Texas, and those who make decisions wielding the power of the state should exercise their authority cautiously and fairly.

Aim high…we are not here to achieve inconsequential things!

4

STATEWIDE GOALS AND BENCHMARKS FOR EDUCATION - PUBLIC EDUCATION

Priority Goal To ensure that all students in the public education system are at grade level in reading and math by the end of the third grade and continue reading and developing math skills at appropriate grade level through graduation, demonstrate exemplary performance in foundation subjects, and acquire the knowledge and skills to be responsible and independent Texans. Benchmarks • Percent of students from third grade forward who are able to read at or above grade level • Percent of students who achieve mastery of the foundation subjects of reading, English language

arts, math, social studies, and science • High school graduation rate • Percent of students who demonstrate satisfactory performance on the Texas Assessment of

Academic Skills (TAAS) • Percent of students who attend schools or districts rated as recognized or exemplary • Percent of higher education freshmen from Texas high schools needing remediation • Percent of eligible juniors and seniors taking Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate exams • Number of students served under local governance or choice options (e.g., charter schools, open-

enrollment charts, home-rule districts, intra-district transfers, etc.) • Percent of students from third grade forward who perform at or above grade level in math

5

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STATE BENCHMARKS AND TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY STRATEGIES

The efforts of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) address each of the state education benchmarks. The following table shows the TEA strategies impacting the state performance benchmarks in public education.

State Benchmark TEA Strategy Percent of students from third grade forward who are able to read at or above grade level

A.2.2 Student Success A.2.3 Achievement of Students at Risk B.1.1 Assessment and Accountability System B.3.1 Teaching Excellence and Support B.3.3 Agency Operations

Percent of students who achieve mastery of the foundation subjects of reading, English language arts, math, social studies, and science


High school graduation rate A.1.1 Foundation School Program - Equalized Operations A.1.2 Foundation School Program - Equalized Facilities A.2.1 Academic Excellence A.2.2 Student Success A.2.3 Achievement of Students at Risk A.2.4 Students with Disabilities A.2.5 School Improvement and Support Programs A.2.6 Adult Education and Family Literacy B.1.1 Assessment and Accountability System B.2.1 Instructional Materials B.2.2 Educational Technology B.2.3 Safe Schools B.2.4 Child Nutrition Programs B.3.1 Teaching Excellence and Support B.3.2 Scientific Research - Best Practices B.3.3 Agency Operations

Percent of students who demonstrate satisfactory performance on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS)

B.1.1 Assessment and Accountability System B.3.1 Teaching Excellence and Support B.3.3 Agency Operations

Percent of students who attend schools or districts rated as recognized or exemplary

B.1.1 Assessment and Accountability System B.3.1 Teaching Excellence and Support B.3.3 Agency Operations

Percent of higher education freshmen from Texas high schools needing remediation

B.1.1 Assessment and Accountability System B.3.3 Agency Operations

Percent of eligible juniors and seniors taking Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate exams

A.2.1 Academic Excellence B.3.3 Agency Operations

Number of students served under local governance or choice options (e.g., charter schools, open enrollment charters, home-rule districts, intra-district transfers, etc.)

A.1.1 Foundation School Program - Equalized Operations A.2.5 School Improvement and Support Programs B.3.3 Agency Operations

Percent of students from third grade forward who perform at or above grade level in math


6

TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY MISSION

Fulfilling the promise for all Texas children

All Texas students will graduate with a world-class education. All Texas graduates will contribute to the progress of their families, their communities, and our world. Preparation for graduation from a world-class system of public education begins at home and on the first day of the first year of school. The promise of the Texas public school system is that every student will be challenged, and every student will have the instruction, opportunity, and support needed to succeed. TEA has two roles in accomplishing its mission. The first is to provide program leadership to Texas school districts and open enrollment charter schools by implementing curriculum standards, an assessment system, and education programs to ensure success for all Texas students. The second is to attain excellence in its operations by ensuring school districts, policymakers, and the public that funding is efficient, accountability is meaningful, and monitoring and accreditation visits are efficient and aligned with state and federal regulations. To achieve its mission, TEA must operate strategically, implementing the policy decisions of the Texas Legislature, developing partnerships with educators and administrators to ensure that all students are challenged and have the resources and support needed to achieve well-defined standards of success, and working with the federal government to provide the public education system the flexibility needed to support student achievement. The agency must also operate tactically ensuring school districts, policymakers, and the public that it achieves excellence and efficiency in its operations by maximizing funding to school districts, ensuring the accountability system is a meaningful indicator of district, charter, and campus success, ensuring its business operations are efficient, and ensuring its human resources are deployed effectively.

TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY PHILOSOPHY A general diffusion of knowledge is essential for the welfare of the state and preservation of the liberties and rights of citizens. Fulfilling the promise for all Texas children requires the coordinated efforts of the entire public education system--TEA, the State Board of Education, regional education service centers, independent school districts, campuses, charter schools, communities, educators, students, and families. The philosophy of TEA is based on the idea that these parties can work together, and every agency employee can work together, to fulfill the promise of a world-class education for all Texas children. The agency's role in this effort is to provide program leadership to Texas schools and to attain operational excellence in its business processes. In carrying out its role and responsibilities, the agency supports Texas public education and is accountable to policymakers, educators, and the public. Key to the agency’s philosophy is the idea that every employee’s job and every business process is tied to achieving the mission of fulfilling the promise for all Texas children by ensuring that every child graduates from high school with a world-class education. In this strategic plan, TEA has organized and prioritized its functions to reflect this philosophy and achieve that priority goal.

7

Balanced Scorecard TEA has developed a Balanced Scorecard to carry out and communicate its philosophy of leadership and accountability. The Balanced Scorecard is a performance-based, results-oriented management tool that allows employees, managers, stakeholders, and the public to focus on the agency's priority performance outcomes and the relationship between the strategies that underlie and are deployed to achieve those outcomes. The basic idea behind the Balanced Scorecard, as developed in the private sector, is that indicators of financial performance, by themselves, are not enough to analyze and determine an organization's ability to achieve its measures of success. In state government, this translates into the idea that a narrow focus on program outcomes does not tell the full story of the agency's ability to achieve policy. In TEA, the Balanced Scorecard approach to performance management is grounded on two ideas. The first is that a priority goal must be established to ensure focus among agency employees and functions. The second is that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the achievement of that goal and the quality of employees hired, business processes put in place, support for educators and students, and accountability for performance. The underlying principles of the agency's Balanced Scorecard are shown in the following chart.

These cause-and-effect relationships define the goals, objectives, and strategies through which the agency achieves policy goals. It helps managers and policymakers identify strengths and troubleshoot potential problems. As an example of cause and effect in the area of program leadership, success in achieving the priority policy outcome - increasing the high school completion rate - is tied to improved student performance in programs that meet special needs, which is tied to availability and use of educator professional development activities, which is tied to the agency's ability to fund the programs effectively. If the outcome was not met, then managers and policymakers could track back to see if the component causes and effects were meeting their performance targets. On the other hand, if one of the components

To achieve the mission, what are TEA’s standards of accountability to Texas

policymakers?

To achieve the mission, how must TEA configure its staff?

To achieve the mission, how must TEA support

Texas educators?

Mission: Attain education goal

To achieve the mission, at what internal processes must

TEA excel?

TEA Balanced Scorecard

8

was not met, managers and policymakers could develop predictions of the impact of the missed performance target on the high school completion rate. As another example, in the area of operational excellence, increasing the high school completion rate is tied to the number of high risk districts that improve their performance from the prior year, which is tied to the ability of the agency to implement an effective monitoring system, which depends on the ability of the agency to recruit and retain employees in the monitoring and information systems divisions. Previous agency strategic plans did not support this level of detailed analysis. In those plans, it was difficult to identify policy priorities or to determine how they would be achieved. In the Balanced Scorecard, once the priority of increasing the high school completion rate has been identified, it becomes easier to achieve alignment of strategies and measures to support the achievement of that priority. As a result, the agency has streamlined its budget structure. This streamlining has added clarity, by describing priorities, reducing the number of strategies, and eliminating measures that did not impact the priority outcome. It also facilitated the tie between funding and function and function to employee focus on the overarching goal. The agency's role in education performance and policy is clearly described in the Balanced Scorecard that follows. TEA submitted this scorecard as its structure for the 2003-2007 strategic plan.

9

Publ

ic E

duca

tion

Exce

llenc

e Stra

tegy

: St

uden

t Suc

cess

Mea

sure

: %

Com

plet

ing

Hig

h Sc

hool

(Rac

e / E

thni

c / E

cono

mic

/ Sp

ecia

l Nee

ds G

roup

s)

Stud

ent S

ucce

ss a

nd A

chie

vem

ent

Acco

unta

bilit

ySt

rate

gies

:H

igh

Stan

dard

sSt

rate

gies

:Fo

unda

tion

Scho

ol P

rogr

am -

Fund

ing

Achi

evem

ent o

f Stu

dent

s at

Ris

kAc

coun

tabi

lity

Syst

em a

nd M

onito

ring

Safe

Sch

ools

Mea

sure

s:M

easu

res:

% P

assi

ng A

ll Te

sts

(Rac

e/Et

hnic

/Eco

nom

ic/S

peci

al N

eeds

Gro

ups)

% S

tude

nts

Gra

duat

ing

unde

r Rec

omm

ende

d or

Dis

tingu

ishe

d Ac

hiev

emen

t Pro

gram

Annu

al S

tate

wid

e D

ropo

ut R

ate

for A

ll St

uden

ts%

AP/

IB E

xam

s Q

ualif

ying

for C

olle

ge C

redi

t or A

dvan

ced

Plac

emen

t%

Stu

dent

s Pa

ssin

g TA

KS M

athe

mat

ics

% S

tude

nts

Ret

aine

d in

Gra

de 3

% S

tude

nts

Pass

ing

TAKS

Rea

ding

% T

itle

I Cam

puse

s R

ated

Exe

mpl

ary

or R

ecog

nize

d%

of C

ampu

ses

Rat

ed E

xem

plar

y / R

ecog

nize

dAn

nual

Dru

g U

se &

Vio

lenc

e R

ate

/ per

100

Stu

dent

s%

of D

istri

cts

Rat

ed E

xem

plar

y / R

ecog

nize

d%

of A

dult

Lear

ners

Who

Com

plet

e th

e Le

vel i

n W

hich

The

y ar

e En

rolle

d#

Cam

puse

s R

ated

Low

-Per

form

ing

2 of

3 Y

ears

% C

harte

rs R

ated

Low

-Per

form

ing

% D

istri

cts

Rat

ed a

s H

igh

Ris

k Th

at Im

prov

e Th

eir R

atin

gs fr

om P

rior Y

ear

% H

igh

Scho

ol G

radu

tes

Nee

ding

Rem

edia

tion

% o

f Stu

dent

s W

ho D

rop

Out

of t

he P

ublic

Sch

ool S

yste

m B

etw

een

7th

& 12

th G

rade

s

Effe

ctiv

e B

usin

ess

Ope

ratio

nsSt

rate

gies

:In

stru

ctio

nal M

ater

ials

and

Tec

hnol

ogy

Agen

cy O

pera

tions

Mea

sure

s:%

of S

choo

l Dis

trict

Ann

ual T

extb

ook

Ord

ers

Proc

esse

d by

May

31s

t%

of D

istri

cts

Rat

ed a

s M

id-T

echn

olog

y or

Abo

ve th

e Te

xas

Star

Cha

rt fo

r Tea

chin

g an

d Le

arni

ng w

ith T

echn

olog

yIn

tern

al P

SF M

anag

ers:

Per

form

ance

in E

xces

s of

Ass

igne

d Be

nchm

ark

Exte

rnal

PSF

Man

ager

s: P

erfo

rman

ce in

Exc

ess

of A

ssig

ned

Benc

hmar

k N

et o

f Man

agem

ent F

ees

% o

f Gra

nt A

pplic

atio

ns P

roce

ssed

With

in 6

0 D

ays

Hum

an R

esou

rces

- R

ecru

itmen

t, R

eten

tion,

and

Sup

port

Stra

tegi

es:

Teac

hing

Exc

elle

nce

and

Supp

ort

Scie

ntifi

c R

esea

rch

- Bes

t Pra

ctic

esC

entra

l Adm

inis

tratio

nIn

form

atio

n Sy

stem

s - T

echn

olog

yM

easu

res:

% H

igh

Nee

d C

ampu

ses

That

Rec

eive

a M

aste

r Tea

cher

Gra

ntTu

rnov

er R

ate

for T

each

ers

% T

each

ers

with

Pro

per C

ertif

icat

ion

# T

rain

ing

Hou

rs P

urch

ased

with

Sta

te P

rogr

am D

olla

rsTE

A Tu

rnov

er R

ate

P R O G R A M L E A D E R S H I P

O P E R A T I O N A L E X C E L L E N C E

Texa

s Ed

ucat

ion

Agen

cyBa

lanc

ed S

core

card

10

Texas Education Agency Principles of Public Service In carrying out its philosophy and achieving its mission, agency employees will conduct themselves according to the highest standards of professionalism, ethics, accountability, efficiency, openness, and the agency’s stated principles of public service. The TEA Principles of Public Service are: TRUSTWORTHINESS. Agency employees perform their duties with honesty and integrity in conduct and communication. Employees conduct business with competence, fairness, impartiality, efficiency, and effectiveness to enhance the education of public schoolchildren and the public trust. RESPONSIBILITY. Agency employees take responsibility for actions, decisions, and statements that impact the education community and the public. Employees effectively use the public resources entrusted to the agency for the benefit of the public school students, the state, and the public good. RESPECT. Agency employees treat others with professionalism, consideration, and courtesy. Employees respect others’ opinions and beliefs, value individual differences, and seek to reach new solutions based on consensus. CARING. Agency employees build professional relationships with colleagues, peers, and the public based on the highest standards of fairness and consideration. These standards are the foundation of a caring professional environment that supports mutual respect, collaboration toward common goals, and excellence in job performance. CITIZENSHIP. Agency employees strive to be good stewards of the public trust and public resources. They honor and abide by agency policies and the laws of the State of Texas and the United States. FAIRNESS. Agency employees conduct business with the public and co-workers in an equitable, impartial, and honest manner, without prejudice and favoritism. Decisions are based on objective and balanced judgment and are in accordance with the agency’s mission, established rules, and procedures.

11

12

EXTERNAL/INTERNAL ASSESSMENT Overview of Agency Functions Statutory Basis The commissioner of education and the agency staff comprise the Texas Education Agency (Texas Education Code §7.002(a)). TEA is the administrative unit for primary and secondary public education. It is responsible for guiding and monitoring activities related to public education in Texas. The agency is authorized to carry out education functions specifically delegated under Sections 7.021, 7.055, or other provisions of the code. Responsibilities not specifically assigned to the agency or the State Board of Education fall under the authority of school districts and charter schools. Historical Perspective TEA was created as one component of the Central Education Agency in 1949 by the Gilmer-Aikin law. Significant historical events relating to TEA reflect educational reform at the state and national levels. 1980s House Bill 246, as passed by the Texas Legislature in 1981, mandated that all school districts provide a uniform state-developed curriculum consisting of essential elements for every subject area. This statewide curriculum was adopted by the State Board of Education in 1984. House Bill 72, a comprehensive reform bill enacted by the Texas Legislature in 1984, mandated sweeping changes in the Texas’ public education system. This legislation changed the state’s system of school finance and called for an appointed State Board of Education, student mastery of the state-mandated 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 education service centers, and the State Board of Education, underwent a sunset review in 1989. Senate Bill 417, the sunset bill for the agency, was passed by the Texas Legislature in 1990. Specific provisions of the bill included an agency performance audit in 1991; a process for approving innovative educational programs; performance indicators for determining the quality of learning on each campus; annual review of school districts to determine if they satisfy agency accreditation criteria; and provisions for agency compliance monitoring functions. Senate Bill 417 also provided districts with the ability to seek waivers from specific state laws and regulations deemed to hinder student performance. Action in each subsequent legislative session has broadened the scope and flexibility of the state’s waiver provisions and has streamlined the waiver application process. In 1991, the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 351, as amended by House Bill 2885, enacting school finance and educational reform. The bill addressed the school finance litigation embodied in the Edgewood lawsuits over state public education funding. The Texas Supreme Court declared Senate Bill 351, as amended by House Bill 2885, unconstitutional. In 1993, the Texas Legislature enacted new school finance provisions in response to the court’s decision. The Legislature passed Senate Bill 7, establishing equalized wealth level of $280,000 per student in weighted averaged daily attendance (WADA) and gave districts above $280,000 per WADA five options to reduce their wealth level down to $280,000.

13

Senate Bill 351 also made significant changes to the state’s system of school district accreditation, mandating an accreditation system that provided reliable measurement of student performance, and related that performance to state standards. In 1994, Texas school districts and campuses were given accreditation ratings based on an integrated set of student performance, attendance, and school dropout data. The ratings system included performance requirements for all students taking the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) and for each student group. The performance requirements that school districts and campuses must meet to achieve an acceptable or recognized rating have increased each year since 1994. 1995 and the New Education Code In 1995, the Texas Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the school finance provisions of Senate Bill 7. The court ruled that the guaranteed yield provision in Senate Bill 7 reduced the disparities in spending between property-rich and property-poor districts. The court also established that the guaranteed yield provisions in the bill enabled every school district in the state to meet or exceed requirements for accrediting education programs. Also in 1995, the 74th session of the Texas Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1, an important overhaul of the Texas Education Code. The new code emphasized excellence in core academic subjects, innovation in local programs, increased local decision making, and accountability for student achievement. The code streamlined the state’s waiver process, requiring the commissioner of education to reject, rather than approve, waivers from school districts. It created the State Board for Educator Certification, increased the minimum annual salaries for beginning teachers and for teachers with more than 20 years experience, and tied minimum salary levels in future years to an appropriation within the Foundation School Program. The new code also modified the “no pass, no play” rule, established a required and an enriched curriculum for Kindergarten through Grade 12, and altered the state’s system of approving and purchasing textbooks. Senate Bill 1 established new roles and relationships between state, regional, and local educators and strictly limited the powers of the agency, the State Board of Education, and regional education service centers. In addition to limiting these entities to specifically delegated functions, the education code sunsetted the public education rules in the Texas Administrative Code. 1996-1999 In 1996, the agency reduced the number of its full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) by 22 percent, from a 1994 budgeted level of 1,144 to 889 in 1996. As part of this reduction, technical assistance functions were decentralized to the regional education service centers. In 1997, with the transfer of educator preparation and certification functions to the State Board for Educator Certification, the number of FTEs at the agency was reduced to 834. In 1997, the Texas Legislature addressed the state’s system of school funding in House Bill 4. The bill provided significant property tax relief through increased exemptions, created a new program for funding facilities, provided transition for a higher minimum salary schedule for teachers, and dedicated state lottery proceeds to public education. The State Board of Education completed adoption of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) in 1997. As the first major rewrite of state curriculum requirements since 1981, the TEKS set high standards for the content and skills that students must know and be able to do. While the TEKS do not contain teaching or time requirements, they are more rigorous and more detailed than the essential elements adopted in 1981. School districts are to implement the TEKS beginning with the 1998-99 school year. The 75th Texas Legislature funded the Texas Reading Initiative to improve fundamental reading skills in the early grades. School districts were required to inventory and diagnose the reading ability of students in Kindergarten through Grade 2 and to base subsequent instructional programs on their findings.

14

In 1999, the 76th session of the Texas Legislature enacted the Student Success Initiative. The initiative phased in new standards for student promotion at Grades 3, 5, and 8. The legislation requires school districts to enroll students who do not pass certain state assessments in programs of accelerated instruction. The intent of the law is to eliminate the practice of social promotion. Grade-level retention is regarded under the plan as the avenue of last resort. In addition, the 76th Legislature mandated a new statewide student assessment program that must be implemented no later than the 2002-03 school year. As specified in Senate Bill 103, the exit level assessment required for graduation will be moved from Grade 10 to Grade 11. The assessment system will encompass English language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science. The bill requires assessment of skills both prerequisite to high school graduation and indicative of a readiness to enroll in higher education institutions. This legislation also adds a number of tests in other grades and eliminates some tests, such as the end-of-course examinations. A further accomplishment of the 76th Legislature was that it fully funded the estimated amount to support the statutory public school finance system. Effective September 1, 1999, Senate Bill 4 revised the funding elements of the Foundation School Program to increase state aid to school districts by almost $1.4 billion for the 2000-01 biennium via a $141 increase in the basic allotment. Significantly, Senate Bill 4 provided a $3,000 annual salary increase for every teacher, counselor, librarian, and nurse in Texas public schools. 2000s In 2001, the Legislature created a uniform group health insurance plan for public school employees. The plan was mandatory for school districts with less than 500 employees and voluntary for school districts with 500 to 1,000 employees. Districts with over 1,000 employees were not eligible. The 77th Legislature changed the structure and operation of open enrollment charter schools with the enactment of House Bill 6. New provisions included the strengthening of governance and financial regulations and increased accountability. Another achievement of the 77th Legislature was the creation of the Texas Mathematics Initiative. Similar to the Reading Initiative, the Math Initiative trains teachers to instruct students with research-based strategies proven successful for increased student performance. Current strategies that have proven to be effective include homework services, diagnostic student assessment instruments, teacher resource support, and comprehensive after-school and summer intervention programs. Main Functions Under the management of the commissioner of education, TEA performs the following main functions:

(1) Administers and monitors education programs for compliance with state and federal regulations.

(2) Directs research and information programs to improve teaching and training.

(3) Conducts hearings regarding state school laws.

(4) Establishes and implements pilot programs titled by the Education Code.

(5) Carries out duties related to the administration of the investment capital fund, the purpose of which is to assist eligible public schools implement procedures consistent with deregulation, in order to improve student achievement.

(6) Develops and implements a teacher recruitment program.

(7) Administers the Texas Advanced Placement Incentive Program, the purpose of which is to recognize and reward students, teachers, and schools that have demonstrated success in achieving the state’s educational goal.

15

(8) Develops and administers the adult community education programs.

(9) Develops a program of organized instruction in driver education and driving safety for public schools.

(10) Develops and administers a statewide plan for the education of children with visual impairments so that their opportunity for achievement is equal to opportunities afforded their peers with normal vision.

(11) Conducts duties related to regional day school programs for the deaf.

(12) Engages in statewide development of technology and communication to prepare students for the 21st century.

(13) Serves as fiscal agent for the distribution of state and federal funds, to include an audit of the fiscal information provided by the districts through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS).

(14) Cooperates with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board in connection with the Texas Partnership Scholarship Program, the purpose of which is to advance the study of foreign languages and culture.

Public Perception of the Texas Education Agency “Hard statistics have proven that public education is alive and well…in Texas (where) strict accountability measures have pushed the Lone Star State to the fore in the public education arena.”

(Reprinted with permission from the Oct. 2001 issue of Texas Lonestar Magazine, copyright TASB 2001)

“Across Texas, student progress on the TAAS tests has been remarkable. Between 1994 and 1999, average TAAS scores, the fraction of students passing each test, and the number of schools and districts receiving improved accountability ratings all increased… What is clear is that schools in Texas have responded, and dramatically, to the incentives of the state accountability rating system.”

(Reprinted with permission from Putting Schools to the Test: School Accountability, Incentives, and Behavior, written by Donald Deere and Wayne Strayer of Texas A&M University)

“Texas reforms have made a positive difference for students overall, and particularly for low-income and minority children… Texas has seen dramatic increases in passing rates across all grade levels and subjects on the state’s Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) exams, coupled with equally dynamic decreases in racial and socioeconomic gaps on those tests.”

(Reprinted with permission from Real Results, Remaining Challenges: The Story of Texas Education Reform, written by Craig D. Jerald of The Education Trust)

• Texas was one of only five states to win a spot on the conservative Thomas B. Fordham

Foundation’s honor roll for strong academic standards and a strong accountability system.

• An editorial in the Dallas Morning News heralded the collective creation of Texas’s student testing program and school accountability system as one of the 10 defining moments that helped shape the state in the 20th century.

• Texas was one of 12 states honored by the bipartisan National Education Goals Panel for its

progress toward meeting the National Education Goals established in 1989. Texas was particularly singled out for the gains it has made in student achievement.

16

• Five exemplary Texas public schools earned the National Title I Distinguished Schools Recognition Award from the U.S. Department of Education in 2001. These five schools were lauded for the high levels of student performance they achieved. Nationally, 95 schools were selected to receive this award.

• Texas was one of only two states, along with North Carolina, that was found to have a strong,

comprehensive school accountability system, according to Education Week’s Quality Counts ’99 report.

• According to the RAND report, Texas’ score increases on the National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP) were among the highest in the nation.

∗ Texas was the only state to earn a grade of A in a study of teacher quality issues conducted by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, which is a private, conservative foundation for education reform. The average grade for all states was D+.

Texas Education Agency 2002 Customer Satisfaction Survey The findings from the Texas Education Agency 2002 Customer Satisfaction Survey can be used as an indication of customer perceptions of the services provided by the agency. TEA generally received favorable ratings from its customers. High percentages of customers either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that overall, they were satisfied with the services they receive. This sentiment was strongest among superintendents (90.8 percent) and business managers (91.4 percent). Ninety-percent of the principals and 71.5 percent of the teachers and staff agreed or strongly agreed that overall, they were satisfied with the services they receive from TEA. Agreement ratings were generally higher as respondents had more contact with TEA. In the case of teachers and staff, 22.8 percent of the respondents were neutral in their assessment of TEA, only 5.8 percent had negative ratings. Over 95 percent of the superintendents (96.2 percent), business managers (96.4 percent), and principals (96.3 percent) either agreed or strongly agreed that staff members act in a professional manner. Eighty-seven percent of teachers and staff agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. The statement, “Overall, I am satisfied with my TEA contacts,” received agree or strongly agree ratings from 88.8 percent of the superintendents, 90.1 percent of the business managers, 87.3 percent of the principals, and 70.6 percent of the teachers and staff. When asked to rate their agreement with the statement, “Overall, I am satisfied with information I receive from TEA,” 83.3 percent of the superintendents, 81.8 of the business managers, 83.7 percent of the principals, and 65.1 percent of the teachers and staff either agreed or strongly agreed. Even stronger ratings were observed for the statement, “Overall, I am satisfied with the TEA Web site.” Over 90 percent of the superintendents (92.2 percent), business managers (90.1 percent), and principals (92.1 percent) either agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. Eighty-five percent of teachers and staff agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. When asked for additional comments or feedback about any aspect of TEA or its services, only 13.7 percent had any comments or suggestions and over one-third of those comments were positive.

17

Organizational Aspects TEA oversees elementary and secondary education in Texas. The commissioner of education and 858.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) staffed positions administer TEA programs as mandated by the Texas Legislature. The governor appoints the commissioner with the approval of the Texas Senate. The commissioner and agency staff work together to assist in the operation of Texas public schools. Within the agency, three deputy commissioners support the commissioner in directing operations in the areas of Programs and Higher Education, Dropout Prevention and Initiatives, and Finance and Accountability. There are five associate commissioners in the areas of Curriculum, Assessment, and Technology; Special Programs; Quality, Compliance, and Accountability Reviews; Finance and Support Systems; and Accountability Reporting and Research. These offices and their component divisions carry out the primary functions of the agency. An organization chart is in Appendix B of this plan. The agency’s main organization centers on six key functions: (1) Develop and administer student educational programs, (2) Provide funding to local districts while ensuring proper use of state and federal funds, (3) Manage the state accountability system using school performance data; conduct educational

research and provide useful information bases, (4) Promote teaching excellence, and (5) Support K-12 Higher Education partnership. The FTE cap assessed by the Legislature for TEA is 858.5 positions for fiscal year 2002 and 860.5 for fiscal year 2003. The agency has reduced its workforce by 25 percent from a high of 1,139 FTEs in 1994. As part of the reduction, technical assistance functions have been decentralized to regional education service centers. The vast majority of job opportunities at TEA are classified as professional. The expertise required of agency staff is appropriate and necessary to the work required by the Texas Legislature in pursuit of the state’s priority education goals.

Texas Education Agency Workforce Composition

Professional682

Administrator57

Clerical60Technical

54

18

Fiscal Aspects One of TEA's primary functions is to finance public education with funds authorized by the Texas Legislature. The majority of the funds administered by TEA are passed from the agency directly through to school districts. The agency is administering $14.4 billion in public education funds in fiscal year 2002, or the 2001-02 school year, and $15 billion in fiscal year 2003, or school year 2002-03. Major sources of financing for the $14.4 billion administered by the agency in fiscal year 2002 include $9.3 billion from the Foundation School Fund, $866.6 million from Available School Fund, $687 million from State Textbook Fund, $257 million from the General Revenue Funds, $2.7 billion from Federal Funds, and $668 million from Other State Funds. Budget Issues The agency’s anticipated budget in 2003 will be close to $15 billion. Well over 99 percent of these funds flow through to school districts and charter schools. In the 1990s, TEA was ranked by the federal General Accounting Office 48th and 49th, respectively, for the amount of federal and state funds retained in the state education agency. In this case, ranking at the bottom of the list is a good thing. Texas public education funding combines state funds, federal funds, and local property taxes. The vast majority of funding is allocated to school districts and charter schools based on per-student formulas. Students requiring specialized services are funded by different weights in the system. The current budget meets the formulas and funds the programs established by the Legislature. Potential reductions in state funds and local tax revenues, as well as a growing number of districts reaching the maximum of tax rate, will challenge policymakers to maintain these formulas while balancing the state’s budget. In 2002, the agency is staffed with a maximum of 858.5 FTEs, less than one employee for the nearly 1,200 school districts and charter schools in Texas. A key component of operational excellence in this environment is the agency's extensive examination of its business processes and the full use of technologies for funding, rating, and communicating with schools.

Revenue Sources Fiscal Year 2002

Foundation School Program 64%

Federal Funds 18%

Available School Fund 6%

General Revenue Fund 2%

State Textbook Fund 5%

Other State Funds 5%

19

In the 76th Legislative session, TEA requested and received an increase of 5 FTEs to its FTE cap, in order to improve reading skills in elementary students. In the 77th session, TEA requested an increase in cap to improve monitoring and accountability of charter schools and school districts. In the 77th session, the Legislature increased the cap, but not to the full amount requested. The agency is at the upper limit of its cap and is aggressively exploring options for the outsourcing and privatization of certain functions. The agency will rise to the challenge posed by new programs and legislation, such as the No Child Left Behind Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 2002. Historically Underutilized Business Plan (revised March 2003) Mission Statement: In accordance with Section 111.11 of the Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 2161 of the Texas Government Code, and the State of Texas Disparity Study, TEA is dedicated and committed to assisting Historically Underutilized Businesses (HUBs) in the full and equal opportunities to compete for all procurement opportunities within the agency. TEA demonstrates a good faith effort to actively educate vendors of HUB requirements by assisting them in obtaining the Texas Building and Procurement Commission (TBPC) HUB certification. Additionally, when soliciting bids from the TBPC’s Central Master Bidders List (CMBL), internally developed procedures are followed to ensure increased HUB participation. Further, TEA requires non-HUB prime contractors to demonstrate they have solicited bids from HUB subcontractors. Goals: TEA will demonstrate its good faith effort to utilize HUBs by meeting or exceeding the targeted goals in the applicable procurement categories identified below.

Procurement Category Agency Goal State Goal

Heavy Construction 0.0% 11.9%

Building Construction 0.0% 26.1%

Special Trade Construction 0.0% 57.2%

Professional Services 15.05% 20.0%

Other Services 20.0% 33.0%

Commodity Purchasing 20.0% 12.6% Agency Use of HUBs by Procurement Category Of the six procurement categories identified by TBPC for reporting purposes (Heavy Construction, Building Construction, Special Trade, Professional Services, Other Services, Commodity Purchasing), TEA has had the most success in the “Commodity Purchasing” category. In this area, the agency has contracted with a high percentage of HUB vendors, and this has been a major contributor toward the agency exceeding the State of Texas average for the percentage of total expenditures with HUBs. The majority of agency spending occurs in “Professional Services” and “Other Services,” and these categories offer the greatest opportunity for expanding TEA’s business partnerships with HUB prime contractors and subcontractors. Although many of these agreements are with nationally- and internationally-based business and investment firms, universities, school districts, ESCs, and other state agencies that generally do not qualify as HUB vendors, in the future these contracts will be evaluated closely for competitive HUB prime contractor and subcontractor opportunities. Also, through existing outreach activities, the agency will focus on encouraging minority businesses that are not HUB certified to certify with the TBPC. TEA is committed to increase HUB participation over the prior year and to continue its recruiting efforts of HUB vendors.

20

TEA rarely expends funds in “Heavy Construction,” “Building Construction,” or “Special Trade”. The mission of the agency does not lend itself to expenditures for goods or services in these categories.

Programs to Increase HUB Participation In all the procurement categories applicable to agency operations, TEA is active in community outreach efforts to inform minority owned businesses of contracting opportunities with TEA and to link them, if necessary, with the TBPC staff to complete the HUB certification process. These outreach venues include, but are not limited to, Economic Opportunity Forums, Spot Bid Fairs, vendor presentations to agency staff, and recruiting participants for the Mentor-Protégé program. In addition, the agency will take special interest in conducting business with underutilized HUB groups. In contracting activities, TEA encourages prime contractors to use HUBs as partners and subcontractors whenever possible. For example, in contracting for money managers for the Permanent School Fund, TEA has entered into an emerging manager program in which two investment firms are engaged to find, hire, manage and assist small, minority and women-owned investment managers. This has resulted in approximately $250,000 of expenditures annually with HUB vendors. Further, in the “good faith spirit” of the program, TEA, through the State Board of Education, has encouraged all external contractors providing investment services to the Fund to utilize HUB vendors to provide security brokerage services to the Fund. Although these brokerage fees are not included as agency expenditures in the TBPC semi-annual and annual report, they represented approximately $2 million in commissions to certified HUB vendors. In other contracting areas, such as legal services and educational program consulting, TEA will strive for increasing contracting opportunities for HUB prime vendors and subcontractors. Objectives:

Implement good faith efforts related to identification, solicitation, and use of HUBs in contract opportunities generated by TEA

Comply with all HUB planning requirements Comply with all HUB outreach requirements Comply with subcontracting good faith efforts in contracts generated by TEA Comply with all HUB reporting requirements Participate in the Mentor-Protégé program

Strategies:

Appoint and maintain a designated HUB Coordinator; provide the individual with adequate resources to perform the necessary functions to effectively implement, monitor, and report on TEA's HUB activities

Prepare/distribute information and train staff on procurement procedures to encourage all businesses to bid for state contracts

Identify subcontracting opportunities in goods and services that meet established criteria for subcontracting plans

Specify reasonable, realistic contract specifications, and terms and conditions consistent with agency requirements to encourage maximum participation by all businesses

Provide potential contractors with referenced list(s) and/or sources of lists of certified HUBs available for subcontracting opportunities identified in TEA procurement opportunities

Utilize available HUB directories to solicit bids Host and participate in Economic Opportunity Forums and other business community

outreach educational efforts to inform the public of contracting opportunities with TEA Maintain a monthly HUB procurement reporting system for all contracts and purchases that

include subcontracting activity

21

Output 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 that have documented compliance with provisions relative to the identification of subcontracting opportunities

Percent of contracts exceeding $100,000 awarded which contain subcontracting plans and are reflected in the provisions of the awarded contract

Number of agency staff trained Number of TEA originated contracts with subcontracting plan provisions Number of EOFs and HUB forums attended/sponsored

Agency Use of Historically Underutilized Businesses (HUB)

TEA promotes a good faith effort for full and equal opportunities for all qualified businesses—including small, minority, and women owned historically underutilized businesses—to compete for all procurement opportunities within the agency. TEA has established a number of initiatives designed to provide these procurement opportunities for all Texas businesses. Examples of these initiatives are categorized into the four major areas below: • PLANNING: Implemented a business plan and agency operating procedure formally adopting the

Texas Administrative Code and TBPC HUB rules. • OUTREACH:

a. Agency HUB Coordinator, appointed in November 1999, regularly participates in quarterly HUB Coordinator meetings to share “best practices” among state agencies and to remain apprised of legislative changes relating to the HUB Program;

b. Expanded the “HUB Opportunities” section of the TEA website to include a listing of agency procurement practices/business needs, detailed Mentor-Protégé instructions, and links to the TBPC website for HUB certification;

c. HUB Coordinator and procurement staff are active in Economic Opportunity Forums throughout the state;

d. HUB Coordinator works closely with minority and women owned businesses in a variety of outreach venues (phone, e-mail, mail, agency website, face-to-face meetings) to match them with the appropriate agency staff for individual procurement opportunities and with the TBPC staff to register as a certified HUB vendor;

e. Established a Balanced Scorecard key performance measure to record the “number of HUB contacts made by the HUB Coordinator each month”;

f. Facilitated a Mentor-Protégé agreement in the agency investments department and entered into an emerging manager program in which two investment firms are engaged to find, hire, manage, and assist small, minority and women owned investment managers.

• REPORTING: Implemented a “HUB Bid/Award Tracking” database management system as part of the Integrated State Accounting System procurement module to record bids, proposals, and contracts awarded to all vendors for monthly reports.

• SUBCONTRACTING: Contracts Management Unit integrated the requirement for a full

subcontracting plan for all proposals over $100,000; all agency contract monitors are trained in this area.

22

These consolidated efforts have contributed to the agency’s success in doing business with qualified HUB vendors. For the past several years, TEA has exceeded the State of Texas average for the percentage of total expenditures with HUB vendors. The chart below depicts this performance.

TEA FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 Estimated FY 03

Total Expenditures $88.6M $91.1M $118.4M $130M $140M

Expenditures with HUBs $9.4M $14.7M $16.1M $15.3M $21M

% of Expenditures with HUBs 10.6% 16.1% 13.5% 11.4% 15%

State of Texas Average FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02

Total Expenditures $6.9B $7.8B $8.3B $8.7B

Expenditures with HUBs $0.9B $1.0B $1.0B $1.0B

% Expenditures with HUBs 12.9% 13.3% 13.1% 11.3%

Through sound execution of the various plans and programs cited above, TEA will continue to achieve solid results in its good faith effort to provide full and equal opportunities for all qualified businesses to compete for the procurement of agency goods and services.

Service Populations There are approximately four million students in Texas public schools today. Since 1987, total enrollment has increased by 24 percent. This rate of growth exceeds the rate of public school enrollment growth in the nation as a whole, which was 17 percent over the same period. Of all students enrolled for the 2000-01 school year, approximately 85 percent were served the previous year in Texas public schools and the remaining 15 percent were newly enrolled students. This 15 percent includes students entering school for the first time (e.g., pre-kindergarten and kindergarten enrollees) as well as other students entering the Texas public education system, such as those from private schools or residents new to the state. The majority of districts continue to show enrollment increases. In the 2000-01 school year, 52.6 percent of districts reported enrollment growth compared to 52.9 percent with increases in 1999-00. Districts classified as “non-metropolitan fast growing” and suburban districts of the state’s major urban centers continue to demonstrate higher than average enrollment growth: 4.7 and 3.3 percent increases, respectively, compared to the state average of 1.7 percent. In contrast, rural districts as a group decreased 1.4 percent in size from the prior year. The state’s trend toward increasing racial and ethnic diversity has figured prominently in the Texas public school system’s growth and service patterns. A decade ago, minority student groups became the majority student population in the state. This shift has impacted, and will continue to have, impact on the educational system. The growth in the minority student population continues to exceed non-minority growth. Minority students in all categories now comprise 58 percent of the public school population, compared with 56.9 percent in 1999-00. In the fast-growing suburban districts, the number of African-American students increased by 72 percent and the number of Hispanic students increased by 81 percent.

23

In the 2000-01 school year, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanics, and Native American students made up 58 percent of the total students in the state's public education system. Hispanic students made up 40.6 percent of Texas public education enrollment. The number of Hispanic students enrolled in Texas public schools increased 4.3 percent in one year. Although this rate of growth is not as fast as the growth rate of Asian-American students, it is the most significant. The percent of African-Americans among the total student population is 14.4 percent, the same percentage as in the prior three years. In contrast, the White population declined by 0.9 percent or by 14,980 students. The percentage of White students statewide has shown a consistent decrease, falling from 49 percent nine years ago to 42 percent this year. Statewide, the percent of students participating in special education programs is 11.9 in 2000-01, a slight decline from the 12.1 percent participating in these programs in the 1999-00 school year. Districts identified slightly more students receiving some type of special education service, 483,442 compared with 482,427 that year.

2001 Student Population Ethnic Composition

Hispanic 41%

White 42%

African-American 14%

Other 3%

Geographic Regions To carry out its mission, the agency serves all parts of the state, including the Texas-Louisiana and the Texas-Mexico border regions. The Texas Education Code includes weighted funding to meet the special needs of identified student populations and school districts. In addition, education service centers, located in 20 regions across Texas, identify special needs for service within their areas. While 52.6 percent of school districts have measurable growth, that growth is concentrated along the corridors that connect Dallas-Houston-San Antonio-Brownsville. In contrast, other regions of the state, as defined by regional education service centers, have seen enrollment decline. The chart that follows illustrates areas with increased enrollment by education service center region.

24

Percent Increase in Students1994-1995 to 1999-2000

0.9% 1.1%

4.5% 4.9%

7.1%

7.6%

11.6% 12.1%

16.2% 16.5%

18.8%

0%

4%

8%

12%

16%

20%

Kilgore MountPleasant

El Paso Waco SanAntonio

Edinburg Houston Huntsville Dallas Fort Worth Austin

Increase

Decrease

VII VIII XIV XII XX I IV VI X XI XIII

School District Characteristics Texas’ 4 million students attend public schools in a variety of settings. Size, growth rates, student economic status, and proximity to urban areas are factors that determine a district’s classification. A defining feature of state district composition is the inverse relationship between the number of districts and the number of enrolled students. In 2000-01, the thirteen largest districts served 25.6 percent of the students. The smallest districts (fewer than 500 students each) enrolled 2.6 percent of the students but represented 29.95 percent of all districts. The ethnic distribution of students varies greatly across the state and depends in part on geography, size of the district, and type of community served. Statewide, nearly 60 percent (58 percent) of all students are from minority ethnic groups. A minority student is defined as a member of the African-American, Hispanic, Native American, or Asian/Pacific Islander ethnic groups. Districts in major urban areas serve an 80.5 percent minority student population while districts in rural areas serve a population that is 34.1 percent minority. The largest minority student group within the state is the Hispanic student population, which represents 40.6 percent of all students. The highest percentages of Hispanic students are found in Region 1 Education Service Center in Edinburg with 95.6 percent, and in Region 19 Education Service Center in El Paso at 85.8 percent. The largest percentage of African-American students, 31.1 percent, is in Region 5 Education Service Center in Beaumont. The northeastern and north central parts of the state have the highest percentages of White students with the greatest percentage, 74.1 percent, in Region 9 Education Service Center in Wichita Falls.

25

Performance Benchmarking Data TEA performance can be benchmarked to national data. Following is a comparison of Texas performance to the national data in these areas: student proficient level in reading, math, and science; high school completion; and AP/IB participation. Performance: Percent of students reading at grade level Benchmark Data Source: NAEP 1998 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States Authorized by Congress and administered by the National Center for Education Statistics, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is the only ongoing national survey of student performance in various academic areas. While Texas students are not tested at Grade 3, results from testing at other grades demonstrate that Texas students are improving their performance in reading. Differences in state performance can be attributed to different populations, different levels of economic support, different curriculum, and different methods of teaching. The National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) designated three achievement levels: basic, proficient, and advanced. NAGB identified the proficient level, which represents solid academic performance, as the achievement level that all students should attain. Shown below are results for Texas and select other states with similar demographics. Additionally, North Carolina was included due to its recent achievements in public education.

Percentage of Grade 4 Students at or above Proficient Level


1992 1994 1998 1998 California 19 18 20 California 22 Florida 21 23 23 Florida 23 New York 27 27 29 New York 34 North Carolina 25 30 28 North Carolina 28 Texas 24 26 29 Texas 28 National Average 27 28 29 National Average 31

Percentage of Grade 4 Students at or

above Proficient Level by Race/Ethnicity Percentage of Grade 8 Students at or above

Proficient Level by Race/Ethnicity White Hispanic African-

American White Hispanic African-

American California 29 8 7 California 36 9 12 Florida 32 17 9 Florida 32 14 8 New York 39 11 9 New York 46 13 12 North Carolina 37 13 11 North Carolina 40 12 13 Texas 43 15 11 Texas 40 15 12 National Average 38 12 9 National Average 38 14 11

1998: Percentage of Economically Disadvantaged Students at or above Proficient Level

Grade 4 Grade 8 California 7 7 Florida 12 12 New York 12 16 North Carolina 14 15 Texas 14 13 National Average 13 15

26

Performance: Percent of students at or above the proficient level in math Benchmark Data Source: NAEP 2000 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States



1992 1996 2000 1992 1996 2000

California 12 11 15 California 16 17 18 Florida - - - Florida - - - New York 17 20 22 New York 20 22 26 North Carolina 13 21 28 North Carolina 12 20 30 Texas 15 25 27 Texas 18 21 24 National Average 17 20 25 National Average 20 23 26

Percentage of Grade 4 Students at or above Proficient Level by Race/Ethnicity


White Hispanic African-American

Asian-American


Asian-American

California 25 5 2 25 California 27 7 4 33

Florida - - - - Florida - - - -

New York 34 7 5 47 New York 36 12 10 42

North Carolina

38 13 9 - North Carolina

41 18 7 -

Texas 41 14 12 48 Texas 37 14 6 42

National Average

33 10 5 - National Average

34 9 5 40

2000: Percentage of Economically Disadvantaged Students at or above Proficient Level

Grade 4 Grade 8 California 5 4

Florida - -

New York 8 12

North Carolina 12 13

Texas 13 11

National Average 9 10

27

Performance: Percent of students at or above the proficient level in science Benchmark Data Source: NAEP 2000 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States



2000 2000

California 14 California 15 Florida - Florida - New York 26 New York 29 North Carolina 24 North Carolina 26 Texas 24 Texas 24 National Average 33 National Average 30




Asian-American


Asian-American

Texas 39 12 10 38 Texas 36 12 7 40

National Average

37 10 6 - National Average

40 11 6 36

Performance: Percent of students completing high school Benchmark Data Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 121st Edition According to the 2000 Statistical Abstract of the United States, U.S. Census Bureau, Texas improved its high school graduation rate. However, room for improvement remains as performance lags behind the national average and with states with comparable demographics. The chart below indicates graduation rates for state populations as a whole at selected years.

Educational Attainment IN PERCENTAGE, HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE OR MORE (AS OF MARCH 2000,

MARCH 1998, AND APRIL 1990) 1990 1998 2000 California 76.2 80.1 81.2 Florida 74.4 81.9 84.0 New York 74.8 81.5 82.5 North Carolina 70.0 81.4 79.2 Texas 72.1 78.3 79.2 National Average 77.6 82.8 84.1

28

Performance: Percent of eligible juniors and seniors taking Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate exams Benchmark Data Source: 2000 Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Examination Results in Texas In 2000, a total of 60,405 students in 1,015 Texas schools (public and non-public) took 107,640 Advanced Placement (AP) examinations. This put Texas third in the nation, behind California and New York, in the number of AP examinees and examinations. Texas, at 63.1 percent, also was above the national average (57.3 percent) in the percentage of schools with AP examinees. In addition to increases in program participation, Texas students demonstrated an increase in performance in 2000. The percentage of high scoring AP examinations earned by Texas students, however, remained below the national percentage (54.8 percent in Texas compared to 63.8 percent nationally). Similarly on a much smaller scale, 843 Grade 11-12 students in 12 Texas public schools took 2,085 IB examinations in 1999-00. Texas students earned scores of 4, 5, 6, or 7 on 79.1 percent (1,649) of 2,085 examinations taken in 1999-00 - up from 74.7 percent (or 680 examinations) in 1994-95.

1999-00 AP Examination Results State # of AP

Schools % of Total Schools in

AP

Grade 11-12

Enrollment

Total AP examinees

% of Enrollees Taking >=1 AP

Exam

1999-00 % Change:

Examinees

Total AP Exams Taken

% Exams Scored

3-5 California 1,156 74.7 795,718 131,361 16.5 10.1 229,310 63.2

Florida 435 64.8 290,609 45,234 15.6 11.1 78,222 58.0

New York 969 76.7 387,333 74,578 19.3 6.2 123,103 64.9

North Carolina 364 67.7 150,581 21,871 14.5 8.4 37,337 57.6

Texas 1,015 63.1 480,957 60,405 12.6 17.9 107,640 54.8 Nation 12,558 57.3 6,425,520 747,922 11.6 9.0 1,242,324 63.6

29

Current Year Activities - Challenges and Opportunities TEA's progress in providing program leadership and operational excellence to the state’s public education system can be charted in five primary areas: High School Completion, Early Start, Science, Teaching Excellence, and Technology. High School Completion High school completion rates in Texas schools have increased steadily since 1994. For the first time in three years, the annual dropout rate decreased in the 1999-00 school year. However, there is still much work to be done. A gap exists in completion and dropout rates among student racial, ethnic, and economic groups. This gap must be overcome if the Texas public education system is to fulfill the promise for all Texas children. The largest number of students, 7,630, dropped out in Grade 9 in the 1999-00 school year. This dropout rate for 9th graders held steady (2.0 percent) between the 1998-99 and 1999-00 school year. Two key programs that seek to increase the high school graduation rate by lowering the dropout rate in Grade 9 were created by the 76th session of the Legislature and funding was reappropriated by the 77th Legislature. The Basic Skills Program for High School Students helps school districts implement special programs for students in Grade 9 who have not earned sufficient credit to advance to Grade 10. In the 1999-00 school year, 94,493 students earned sufficient credit in the program to advance to Grade 10. The Texas After School Initiative helps school districts serving middle school students in certain high juvenile crime zip codes implement quality after-school programs that include an academics-based curriculum, character education, and mentoring. From the 1999-00 to the 2001-02 school years, 96,932 middle grade students were served in these after-school programs. An important step in fulfilling the promise for all Texas children is the creation of a new deputy commissioner for Dropout Prevention and Initiatives. The deputy will report directly to the commissioner of education and will manage the integration of Texas curriculum and assessment, major federal programs serving disadvantaged students, Texas initiatives in reading and mathematics, and traditionally students served in adult education and general education development programs. In addition, the agency has a new strategy, Scientifically-Based Research, in this strategic plan, which will help identify best practices for keeping students in school and support the state system of accountability. Completion Rates Students are considered to have completed high school if they have graduated, earned a General Education Development (GED) certificate, or are still enrolled in the year after their expected graduation date. The agency reports high school completion data in frequent Reports on High School Completion Rates. In the class of 2000, 212,925 students had graduated, were continuing high school, or had received a GED. The 2000 statewide completion rate, tracking a Grade 9 cohort since the 1995-96 school year, was 92.8 percent. The rate includes 80.7 percent of students graduating from high school, 4.8 percent receiving a GED certificate, and 7.3 percent continuing school. It represents a steady increase from 85.3 percent for the class of 1994. White students had a graduation rate of 86.7 percent, African-American students had a graduation rate of 76.9 percent, and Hispanic students had a graduation rate of 72.8 percent. Hispanic and African-American students have narrowed the gap since 1994. The percentage point improvement for Hispanic and African-American students was more than twice as large as the improvement for White students for

30

the same period. Likewise, the completion rates for economically disadvantaged students improved faster than rates for non-economically disadvantaged students. The 76th session of the Texas Legislature created and the 77th session reappropriated funds for two key programs that help close the gap and increase achievement for all students. The Basic Skills Program for High School Students targets and remediates ninth grade students - the grade with the highest dropout rate - who do not have sufficient credit to advance to the tenth grade. Dropout Rates There are two methods of tracking the number of student dropouts in Texas. An annual rate is used to calculate the dropout rate for a single year. A longitudinal dropout rate is used to calculate the dropout rate over a period of years by following a class, or cohort, through their secondary school career. The Texas After School Program provides middle grade students at risk of school failure who live in high-crime zip codes with after school instruction, and character and citizen education mentoring.

The annual dropout rate for the 1999-00 school year was 1.3 percent. Out of 1,794,521 students who attended Grades 7-12 in Texas public schools, 23,457 students were reported to have dropped out, down from 27,592 in the 1998-99 school year. The 1999-00 rate represented a decrease of 15 percent in the number of student dropouts over the prior school year, the first decline in the dropout rate in three years.

Dropout rates for African-American and Hispanic students remained more than twice the rate for White students statewide. The gap between the student groups is decreasing, however. The dropout rate for African-American students decreased from 2.3 percent to 1.8 percent between the 1998-99 and 1999-00 school years. The dropout rate for Hispanic students decreased from 2.3 percent to 1.9 percent over the same period. The dropout rate for White students held relatively steady at 0.7 percent.

The longitudinal secondary school series tracks a class of students over five to seven years, from the time they enter Grade 9 or Grade 7 until the fall following their anticipated graduation. Out of 244,777 students in the class of 2000 Grade 9 cohort, 80.7 percent graduated, 4.8 percent received a GED certificate, and 7.3 percent continued school the following school year. The four-year longitudinal dropout rate was 7.2 percent.

Student Success The 76th session of the Texas Legislature passed the Student Success Initiative. The initiative ends social promotion in the state public education system. Beginning in the 2002-03 school year, it requires students in Grade 3 to pass the reading section of the statewide student assessment before being promoted to Grade 4. Beginning in the 2004-05 school year, students in Grades 5 will have to pass both the reading and mathematics sections of the assessment before being promoted to Grade 6. Students in Grade 8, beginning in 2007-08, will have to pass both tests before being promoted to Grade 9. The initiative includes extensive transition planning. Before they are retained, students who fail the tests will have two additional opportunities to retest and pass before the start of the next school year. All Texas Kindergarten, Grades 1, 2, and 3 teachers are provided professional development in reading. Teachers diagnose the reading skills of primary students, and all students who are at-risk of not reading on grade level are provided accelerated instruction. The initiative clearly states Texas lawmakers' high expectations of students, educators, and administrators. It also presents several challenges. The first year of the initiative will coincide with the first administration of the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills, or TAKS. TAKS is tied to a curriculum based on the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills. It is a more rigorous test than the prior assessment, TAAS. The increased difficulty of the TAKS may have a strong impact on students in Grade 3. To mitigate any potential impact, the state has devoted extensive resources to training and programs. The State Board of Education will set the passing standards for the TAKS in November 2002.

31

Early Start TEA continues to carry out legislative initiatives in support of the idea that preparation for graduation from high school with a world-class education begins at home and on the first day of school. The State Board of Education has adopted Pre-Kindergarten curriculum guidelines for Texas schools aligned with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills requirements. The 77th session of the Texas Legislature appropriated $200 million in the 2002-03 biennium for Kindergarten and Pre-Kindergarten programs. The funding supports full-day Kindergarten and the creation of Pre-Kindergarten programs. Legislators also appropriated funds for state Head Start and Ready-to-Read programs. Funds are used to provide an educational component and pre-reading instruction in government-funded early childhood programs. Science In the 2002-03 school year, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills will include science as one of the subjects tested in Grade 5, Grade 10, and Grade 11. Limited English-Proficient students may take a Spanish version of the Grade 5 science assessment. Over the period covered by this strategic plan, policymakers, program leaders, and educators will examine ways to strengthen science education with initiatives focusing on teachers, materials, and content. The state will be challenged by the shortage of certified science teachers in the public education system. Teaching Excellence In the 75th, 76th, and 77th legislative sessions, the Texas Legislature addressed the issue of teacher pay and benefits. In the 76th session, the Legislature raised the state minimum salary schedule by $3,000 at every step. The 77th session established a teacher health insurance program for certain teachers and school employees and provided every teacher in the state a $1,000 medical account. The Legislature also mandated Master Teacher programs in reading and mathematics in which stipends are paid to designated master teachers who serve as mentors on high-need campuses. Another mentoring program is TxBESS, which was set up under a federal grant by the State Board for Educator Certification. The evidence shows that this program is successful in retaining more teachers new to the profession. To better support teachers in the classroom, TEA is developing better and more accessible professional development for teachers. The agency supports multiple high quality professional development efforts, pertaining to the state curriculum, at Centers for Educator Development throughout Texas. In conjunction with universities and professional associations, TEA is exploring the feasibility of creating a centralized clearinghouse of information about the teaching profession and collaboratively compiling a long-range plan for current and projected teacher supply and demand issues. The agency is working with the Texas Workforce Commission to develop an online application and a job matching system for school districts and educators. During the period covered by this strategic plan, policymakers, program leaders, and educators will be challenged by teacher shortages in critical areas, high turnover among new teachers, and ways to more completely fund initiatives already in place. In addition, federal No Child Left Behind legislation raises the bar for teacher certification and standards by requiring a highly qualified teacher in every classroom by the 2005-06 school year. Technology The 77th session of the Texas Legislature established a Virtual School Pilot program The pilot project supported the use of electronic and online courses in rural and urban school districts with a higher than

32

average dropout rate, higher than average number of at-risk students, and higher than average number of underserved gifted and talented students. The findings of the pilot program will be reported in December 2002. In an effort to ensure that online courses comply with the rigorous content standards established by Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, TEA initiated the Investigating Quality of Online Courses (IQ) Pilot Project. The pilot, which will conclude in 2002, will present findings and make recommendations concerning the quality of online education. The TEA website includes a Teacher's Tool bag, which is a compendium of information for teachers for all grade levels from around the state. In addition, TEA provides an online library and reference catalog, as well as an online union catalog of Texas school library holdings to districts and campuses within the state. Students and teachers may download citations and full text articles from numerous national and state sources with this initiative. In conjunction with The University of Texas Health Science Center, TEA developed software for Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) in 2002 that teachers can use to diagnose the reading skills of early elementary grade students. Technology is far-reaching and quick-moving. Policymakers, program leaders, and educators face challenges relating to the accessibility of these applications for everyone across the state, training teachers in the use of technology, and ensuring the quality of online and electronic courses. As the use of technology in education has expanded, the technology allotment provided by the Legislature to schools has remained flat. Educational technology is an area that will see tremendous growth and potential, and this same growth presents additional challenges in the years covered by this strategic plan. Statewide Student Assessment System The 76th session of the Texas Legislature directed TEA to develop a new statewide student assessment program. The new series of tests are called the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) and will replace the TAAS. More rigorous than TAAS, TAKS brings more subjects to be tested, tests will be given in Grade 9, the exit exam will move from Grade 10 to Grade 11, and the new tests will be aligned with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, a statewide curriculum which was passed into law by the Texas Legislature, adopted by the State Board of Education in 1997, and became effective during the 1998-99 school year. In addition to the reading, mathematics, and writing skills that TAAS evaluated, TAKS will test students’ knowledge of science at Grade 5; social studies at Grade 8; and biology, integrated chemistry, physics, and early-American and United States history in high school. The State Board of Education will set the TAKS passing standards in November 2002. In order to be promoted, third graders must pass the reading portion of the TAKS beginning in 2003. In 2005, fifth graders must pass the reading and mathematics portions to be promoted, and in 2008, eighth graders must pass the reading and mathematics portions to be promoted. TEA will work with school districts and policymakers to ensure that all students are prepared to pass the TAKS in these critical grades. Beginning with the class of 2005, students in the eleventh grade must pass the TAKS in order to graduate from high school.

33

Student Assessment 2003-2005

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12

English-Version Assessment

Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading

Writing Writing English Language

Arts

English Language

Arts

Math Math Math Math Math Math Math Math Math

Science Science Science

Social Studies

Social Studies

Social Studies

Spanish-Version Assessment

Reading Reading Reading Reading

Writing

Math Math Math Math

Science

Reading Proficiency Tests in English for LEP Students

RPTE RPTE RPTE RPTE

Alternative Assessment for Special Education Students

Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading

Writing Writing English Language

Arts

Math Math Math Math Math Math Math Math

Despite improvements, disparities remain in student performance. TEA must prioritize its efforts to help schools and districts close the achievement gap. The development, communication, and implementation of the new statewide student assessment system in 2003 present several challenges during the period covered by this strategic plan. To meet these challenges, educators and policymakers must provide leadership to ensure that schools have the support, programs, and resources necessary to ensure high standards of achievement and equity for all students.

2001-2002 Preliminary Assessment for All Grades, Student Groups, All Reading, All Math

Reading Math All Tests Taken

All Students 91% 92% 85% African-American 86% 86% 76% Hispanic 87% 90% 79% White 96% 96% 92% Econom. Disadvantaged 86% 88% 78% Limited English Proficient 69% 79% 58%

34

Accountability Rating System For the first time ever, rising scores on the TAAS and declining dropout rates have caused Texas as a whole to reach the equivalent of the Recognized rating in the state’s accountability rating system in the 2000-01 school year. To reach a Recognized rating, Texas demonstrated that 80 percent of its public school population and each of its major student groups (Whites, African-Americans, Hispanics, and economically disadvantaged) passed each student group. TEA's accountability system is the basis for evaluating and reporting the extent to which the educational system is achieving state goals for student performance. Since the inception of the state’s accountability system in 1993, performance ratings have steadily improved while the standards have toughened. The accountability system is based on a set of mandated indicators for all levels of ratings:

• Scores on the TAKS, replacing the TAAS in the 2002-03 school year. Accountability ratings are based on overall student performance, as well as performance of student groups (African-American, Hispanic, White, and Economically Disadvantaged).

• Dropout Rate • Attendance Rate

Individual campuses can earn ratings of exemplary, recognized, acceptable, low-performing, or acceptable: data issues. Alternative education campuses and programs can apply for and be evaluated under the alternative accountability system. Districts can earn ratings of exemplary, recognized, acceptable, academically unacceptable, unacceptable: SAI (special accreditation investigation) or unacceptable: data quality. All charter schools are accountable for student performance on TAAS. Open enrollment charter schools are not rated for the first full year of operation. In subsequent years, charter schools are rated through the regular accountability or alternative procedures as appropriate. A record number of public school districts and campuses earned the state’s prestigious Exemplary rating in 2001. This top rating was earned by 1,571 schools, compared to 1,296 campuses in 2000. The state’s highest rating was also earned by 178 school districts, compared to 168 in 2000. To earn an Exemplary rating, a district or campus must demonstrate a TAAS passing rate of 90 percent or better for all students and for each student group. The annual dropout rate for that campus or district had to be one percent or less for all students and for each student group. In 2001, 54 percent of Texas students were enrolled in public schools that achieved one of the top two ratings - Exemplary or Recognized - in the state’s accountability system. Almost 56 percent of Texas’ 7,395 public schools and 61.6 percent of the state’s 1,041 school districts achieved a Recognized or Exemplary rating. Despite improvements, disparities in student performance remain. TEA must prioritize its efforts to help schools and districts close the achievement gap. TEA has developed a multi-year sanction and intervention framework for academically unacceptable districts and low-performing campuses. Some of those strategies include issuance of public notice of low-performance; onsite peer review; education service center support; and assignment of a monitor, a master, or a management team.

35

ACCOUNTABILITY RATINGS

CAMPUS RATINGS 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001Exemplary 255 394 683 1,048 1,120 1,296 1,571Recognized 1,004 1,309 1,617 1,666 1,843 2,009 2,327Acceptable 4,347 4,127 3,679 3,365 3,148 2,912 2,469Acceptable: Data Issues 36 N/A N/ALow-Performing 267 108 67 59 95 146 100ALTERNATIVE CAMPUS RATING 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001Acceptable 157 285 316 354 N/A N/ANeeds Peer Review 106 46 67 24 N/A N/ADISTRICT RATINGS 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001Exemplary 14 37 65 120 122 168 178Recognized 137 209 321 329 383 439 471Acceptable 860 788 650 585 524 428 390Academically Unacceptable 34 8 4 6 7 5 1Unacceptable: SA1 2 3 2 3 1 0Unacceptable: Data Quality 4 0 0CHARTER SCHOOL RATINGS 1998 1999 2000 2001Exemplary 0 2 5 5Recognized 1 3 7 9Acceptable 7 7 31 40Low-Performing 2 3 20 42AE: Acceptable 5 5 8 23AE: Needs Peer Review

2 1 24 37 For 2003 through 2007, the accountability system will evaluate the results from the new assessment system--TAKS, the results of the alternative assessment for special education students, and other criteria if mandated by the Legislature.

36

Impact of Federal Statutes In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), a sweeping reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The law provides states, districts, and charter schools more flexibility in spending discretionary funds. It also requires that states develop improvement plans that ensure all students reach the state’s education goals and increases requirements for teacher aids. New programs are added, and federal funding for education is increased, under NCLB, primarily in formula and competitive funding to school districts and charter schools. The funding is focused on improving student achievement, improving early reading skills, improving teacher quality, and implementing education technology. Much of NCLB is based on the Texas model of accountability for student performance. At the state level, TEA’s ability to use the funds is restricted by federal rules regarding supplement and supplant. Federal funds are intended to supplement what the state is currently spending on its education programs, not supplant it. As an example, under these rules, TEA cannot use NCLB funds earmarked for student assessment to supplant a portion of the state cost of that program. In addition, the agency must change the state’s accountability rating system to add new student groups specified in the law. At the time of this writing, TEA is working with the U.S. Department of Education to clarify implementation issues regarding the No Child Left Behind Act. In 2003, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act will be reauthorized. This legislation governs federal special education funding and programs. The new law may have implications for special education.

37

38

FY 2003-2007 STRATEGIC PLAN STRUCTURE AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Goal 1 Program Leadership: To fulfill the promise for all Texas children, the Texas Education

Agency will provide program leadership to the state public education system, ensuring all students achieve the state’s public education goals and objectives.

Objective 1.1 Public Education Excellence: All students in the Texas public education system will

graduate from high school with a world-class education.

Strategy 1.1.1 Foundation School Program - Equalized Operations: Ensure all Texas students graduate from high school with a world-class education funded by an efficient and equitable school finance system; ensure that formula allocations support the state’s public education goals and objectives and are accounted for in an accurate and appropriate manner.

Strategy 1.1.2 Foundation School Program - Equalized Facilities: Operate an

equalized school facilities program by ensuring the allocation of a guaranteed yield of existing debt and disbursing facilities funds.

Objective 1.2 Student Success and Achievement: The Texas Education Agency will provide the

state’s public education system with program leadership to ensure all students are challenged, perform at grade level or above, and demonstrate strong performance in reading and the foundation subjects of mathematics, English language arts, science, and social studies.

Strategy 1.2.1 Academic Excellence: Plan and implement challenging academic,

advanced academic, career and technology education, and bilingual/English as a second language educational programs to ensure that all Texas students graduate from high school with a world-class education.

Strategy 1.2.2 Student Success: Build the capacity of school districts to ensure that

all Texas students have the skills they need to succeed; that all that all third grade students read at least at grade level and continue to read at grade level; and that all secondary students have sufficient credit to advance and ultimately graduate on time with their class.

Strategy 1.2.3 Achievement of Students at Risk: Develop and implement

instructional support programs that take full advantage of flexibility to support student achievement and ensure that all at-risk students graduate from high school with a world-class education.

Strategy 1.2.4 Students with Disabilities: Develop and implement programs that

ensure all students with disabilities graduate from high school with a world-class education.

Strategy 1.2.5 School Improvement and Support Programs: Encourage educators,

parents, community members and university faculty to improve student learning and develop and implement programs that meet student needs. Develop and implement the support programs necessary for all students to graduate from high school with a world-class education.

39

Strategy 1.2.6 Adult Education and Family Literacy: Develop adult education and family literacy programs that encourage literacy and ensure that all adults have the basic education skills they need to contribute to their families, communities, and the world.

Goal 2 Operational Excellence: The Texas Education Agency will fulfill the promise for all

Texas children through challenging assessments, supportive school environments, and high standards of student, campus, district, and agency performance.

Objective 2.1 Accountability: The Texas Education Agency will sustain high levels of accountability

in the state public education system.

Strategy 2.1.1 Assessment and Accountability System: The state’s assessment and accountability systems will continue to provide a basis for evaluation and reporting the extent to which students, campuses, and districts achieve high standards.

Objective 2.2 Effective School Environments: Support school environments that ensure educators

and students have the materials they need to succeed.

Strategy 2.2.1 Instructional Materials: Provide students equitable access to instructional materials and technologies supporting the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills.

Strategy 2.2.2 Educational Technology: Implement educational technologies that

increase the effectiveness of student learning, instructional management, professional development, and administration.

Strategy 2.2.3 Safe Schools: Reduce the number of criminal incidents on school

campuses, enhance school safety, and ensure that students in the Texas Youth Commission and disciplinary and juvenile justice alternative education programs are provided the instructional and support services needed to graduate from high school with a world-class education.

Strategy 2.2.4 Child Nutrition Programs: Implement and support efficient state child

nutrition programs.

Strategy 2.2.5 Windham School System: Work with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to ensure that students have the basic education skills they need to contribute to their families, communities, and the world.

Objective 2.3 Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Support: Recruit, retain, and support

educators in school districts, charter schools, and the Texas Education Agency to ensure that all students in the Texas public education system graduate from high school with a world-class education.

Strategy 2.3.1 Teaching Excellence and Support: Ensure educators have access to

quality training tied to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills; develop and implement professional development initiatives that encourage K-16 partnerships. Ensure that the regional education service centers facilitate effective instruction and efficient school operations by providing core services, technical assistance, and program support based on the needs and objectives of the school districts they serve.

40

Strategy 2.3.2 Scientific Research - Best Practices: Ensure that Texas public education policy and programs are supported by world-class scientific research.

Strategy 2.3.3 Agency Operations: Develop and implement efficient and effective

business processes and operations that support the state’s goals for public education and ensure all Texas students graduate from high school with a world-class education.

Strategy 2.3.4 Central Administration: The Commissioner of Education shall serve

as the educational leader of the state.

Strategy 2.3.5 Information Systems - Technology: The Texas Education Agency will purchase, develop, and implement information systems that support students, educators, and stakeholders.

41

42

APPENDICES A. Agency Strategic Planning Process B. Organization Chart C. Strategic Plan Outcome Measure Projections D. Performance Measure Definitions E. Workforce Plan F. Survey of Organizational Excellence G. Information Resources Strategic Plan

43

44

Agency Strategic Planning Process The Texas Education Agency Strategic Plan for 2003-2007 is closely aligned with the Texas Education Code. The plan has two goals: Program Leadership and Operational Excellence. These two goals, and the strategies within them, communicate the agency’s roles and responsibilities to policymakers, educators, the public, and agency employees. The plan is focused increasing the high school completion rate as a way of strengthening the public education system and fulfilling the promise for all Texas children. In January 2000, the agency began work on developing a Balanced Scorecard approach to performance management to improve the communication of strategies and the tracking of performance measures. Implementing the Balanced Scorecard enabled the agency to identify and manage the major performance measures for public education and define relationships between them. In December 2001, agency senior managers were briefed on agency performance measures and the Balanced Scorecard. In February 2002, agency senior staff and a focus group of agency customers and stakeholders held a series of workshops to:

• Update the mission of the agency; • Identify and discuss the primary issues impacting education; and • Identify and discuss strategies, aligned with the mission, for addressing these issues.

A steering committee was appointed to clarify and consolidate the ideas originally presented during the initial round of workshops. In March 2002, agency division, unit, and team managers participated in a series of workshops in which they were asked to develop strategies and discuss implementation issues concerning the agency’s efforts to address the issues identified by senior staff. Also in March 2002, the campus advisory committee at Anderson High School in the Austin Independent School District made up of teachers, administrators, students, parents, and community members were asked to identify issues and strategies. In April 2002, the agency presented changes to its strategic plan structure and performance measures to the Legislative Budget Board and the Governor’s Office of Budget, Planning, and Policy. The agency worked with the LBB and GOBPP to develop the current strategic plan. Agency staff conducted an assessment of performance measure targets and definitions. A key issue impacting the plan is that a new statewide student assessment, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills will be administered to students for the first time in the 2002-03 school year. Performance targets relating to passing rates on the assessment and district and campus ratings in the accountability rating system are left “To Be Determined” in this plan. They will be established once the State Board of Education sets a passing standard for the assessment in November 2002.

45

46

STR

ATE

GIC

PLA

N O

UTC

OM

E M

EASU

RE

PRO

JEC

TIO

NS

FY 2

003-

2007

Pro

ject

ions

Cod

e G

oal/O

utco

me

Mea

sure

20

00

Actu

al

2001

Ac

tual

20

02

Proj

ecte

d 20

03

Proj

ecte

d 20

04

Proj

ecte

d 20

05

Proj

ecte

d 20

06

Proj

ecte

d 20

07

Proj

ecte

d

Goa

l 1:

Prog

ram

Lea

ders

hip:

To

fulfi

ll th

e pr

omis

e fo

r all

Texa

s C

hild

ren,

The

Tex

as E

duca

tion

Agen

cy

will

prov

ide

prog

ram

lead

ersh

ip to

the

stat

e pu

blic

ed

ucat

ion

syst

em, e

nsur

ing

all s

tude

nts

achi

eve

the

stat

e’s

publ

ic e

duca

tion

goal

s an

d ob

ject

ives

.

1.1.

1 Pe

rcen

t of S

tude

nts

Com

plet

ing

Hig

h Sc

hool

91

.5%

92

.8%

93

.8%

93

.8%

94

.2%

94

.5%

95

.0%

95

.0%

1.

1.2

Perc

ent o

f Afri

can-

Amer

ican

Stu

dent

s C

ompl

etin

g H

igh

Scho

ol

88.4

%

90.1

%

91.6

%

91.6

%

91.8

%

91.8

%

92.0

%

92.0

%

1.1.

3 Pe

rcen

t of H

ispa

nic

Stud

ents

Com

plet

ing

Hig

h Sc

hool

86

.9%

88

.8%

90

.4%

90

.4%

91

.0%

91

.8%

92

.0%

92

.0%

1.

1.4

Perc

ent o

f Whi

te S

tude

nts

Com

plet

ing

Hig

h Sc

hool

95

.0%

96

.0%

96

.5%

96

.5%

96

.9%

97

.0%

97

.1%

97

.1%

1.

1.5

Perc

ent o

f Asi

an-A

mer

ican

Stu

dent

s C

ompl

etin

g H

igh

Scho

ol

95.9

%

96.5

%

96.9

%

96.9

%

97.1

%

97.2

%

97.3

%

97.3

%

1.1.

6 Pe

rcen

t of N

ativ

e Am

eric

an S

tude

nts

Com

plet

ing

Hig

h Sc

hool

93

.4%

92

.1%

91

.6%

91

.6%

92

.0%

92

.3%

92

.6%

92

.6%

1.1.

7 Pe

rcen

t of E

cono

mic

ally

Dis

adva

ntag

ed S

tude

nts

Com

plet

ing

Hig

h Sc

hool

86

.9%

88

.5%

90

.1%

90

.1%

90

.3%

90

.5%

90

.7%

90

.7%

1.1.

8 Pe

rcen

t of E

qual

ized

Rev

enue

in th

e Fo

unda

tion

Scho

ol P

rogr

am

96.9

4%

94.4

3%

98.0

%

98.0

%

98.0

%

98.0

%

98.0

%

98.0

%

1.1.

9 Pe

rcen

t of S

tude

nts

in D

istri

cts

with

Sub

stan

tially

Eq

ual A

cces

s to

Rev

enue

90

.11%

89

.47%

90

.0%

90

.0%

90

.0%

90

.0%

90

.0%

90

.0%

1.1.

10

Aver

age

Loca

l Tax

Rat

e Av

oide

d Fr

om S

tate

As

sist

ance

for D

ebt S

ervi

ce

New

N

ew

13.2

5%

14.0

%

14.0

%

14.0

%

14.0

%

14.0

%

1.1.

11

Perc

ent o

f Elig

ible

Dis

trict

s R

ecei

ving

Fun

ds F

rom

the

Inst

ruct

iona

l Fac

ilitie

s Al

lotm

ent

88.0

%

74.0

%

72.0

%

72.0

%

72.0

%

72.0

%

72.0

%

72.0

%

1.2.

1 Pe

rcen

t of S

tude

nts

Gra

duat

ing

Und

er th

e R

ecom

men

ded

or D

istin

guis

hed

Achi

evem

ent H

igh

Scho

ol P

rogr

am

38.5

%

51.4

%

51.0

%

51.0

%

54.0

%

57.0

%

60.0

%

63.0

%

1.2.

2 Pe

rcen

t of S

tude

nts

with

Aud

itory

Impa

irmen

t in

Reg

iona

l Day

Sch

ools

for t

he D

eaf W

ho G

radu

ate

from

Hig

h Sc

hool

88.5

8%

90.7

%

87.0

%

87.0

%

88.0

%

89.0

%

90.0

%

90.0

%

1.2.

3 Pe

rcen

t of S

tude

nts

With

Dis

abilit

ies

Who

Com

plet

e H

igh

Scho

ol

88.0

%

87.9

%

83.0

%

85.0

%

86.0

%

88.0

%

89.0

%

90.0

%

47

Cod

e G

oal/O

utco

me

Mea

sure

20

00

Actu

al

2001

Ac

tual

20

02

Proj

ecte

d 20

03

Proj

ecte

d 20

04

Proj

ecte

d 20

05

Proj

ecte

d 20

06

Proj

ecte

d 20

07

Proj

ecte

d 1.

2.4

Perc

ent o

f Elig

ible

Stu

dent

s Ta

king

Adv

ance

d Pl

acem

ent /

Inte

rnat

iona

l Bac

cala

urea

te E

xam

s 13

.0%

14

.0%

15

.0%

15

.0%

16

.0%

17

.0%

18

.0%

18

.0%

1.2.

5 Pe

rcen

t of A

P/IB

Exa

ms

Qua

lifyi

ng fo

r Col

lege

Cre

dit

or A

dvan

ced

Plac

emen

t N

ew

New

50

.0%

50

.0%

49

.0%

49

.0%

50

.0%

50

.5%

1.2.

6 Pe

rcen

t of C

aree

r and

Tec

hnol

ogy

Stud

ents

Pla

ced

on th

e Jo

b or

in a

Pos

tsec

onda

ry P

rogr

am

83.0

%

82.7

%

74.0

%

74.5

%

74.7

5%

75%

75

.25%

75

.5%

1.2.

7 Pe

rcen

t of S

tude

nts

Exiti

ng B

ilingu

al/E

nglis

h as

a

Seco

nd L

angu

age

Prog

ram

s Su

cces

sful

ly

80.0

%

83.0

%

75.0

%

76.0

%

*TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

*T

BD

1.2.

8 Pe

rcen

t of S

tude

nts

Ret

aine

d in

Gra

de 3

N

ew

New

N

ew

*TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

1.

2.9

Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s R

etai

ned

in G

rade

4.

7%

4.7%

4.

2%

4.2%

*T

BD

*TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

1.

2.10

Pe

rcen

t of S

tude

nts

Parti

cipa

ting

in th

e N

inth

Gra

de

Basi

c Sk

ills P

rogr

am W

ho A

ttain

Suf

ficie

nt C

redi

t to

Adva

nce

to G

rade

Ten

New

N

ew

49.0

%

49.0

%

52.0

%

55.0

%

57.0

%

60.0

%

1.2.

11

Perc

ent o

f Dis

trict

s R

ecei

ving

Afte

r-Sch

ool I

nitia

tive

Fund

s Sh

owin

g a

Dec

reas

e in

DAE

P R

efer

rals

N

ew

New

60

.0%

60

.0%

62

.0%

64

.0%

66

.0%

68

.0%

1.2.

12

Perc

ent o

f Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n St

uden

ts A

dmin

iste

red

the

Stat

ewid

e Al

tern

ativ

e As

sess

men

t 69

.0%

72

.0%

75

.0%

*T

BD

*TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

*T

BD

1.2.

13

Perc

ent o

f Stu

dent

s in

Sta

te-F

unde

d O

ptio

nal

Exte

nded

-Yea

r Pro

gram

s Pr

omot

ed to

the

Nex

t G

rade

Lev

el a

s a

Res

ult o

f the

Pro

gram

s

89.2

%

89.5

%

79.0

%

81.0

%

82.0

%

83.0

%

84.0

%

85.0

%

1.2.

14

Perc

ent o

f Adu

lt Le

arne

rs W

ho C

ompl

ete

the

Leve

l in

Whi

ch T

hey

are

Enro

lled

42.0

%

61.3

8%

61.5

%

63.0

%

64.0

%

66.0

%

68.0

%

70.0

%

1.2.

15

Perc

ent o

f Cam

puse

s R

ecei

ving

Inve

stm

ent C

apita

l Fu

nd G

rant

s Sh

owin

g Te

xas

Lear

ning

Gro

wth

in

Rea

ding

New

N

ew

50.0

%

*TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

G

oal 2

: O

pera

tiona

l Exc

elle

nce:

The

Tex

as

Educ

atio

n Ag

ency

will

fulfi

ll th

e pr

omis

e fo

r all

Texa

s ch

ildre

n th

roug

h ch

alle

ngin

g as

sess

men

ts, s

uppo

rtive

sc

hool

env

ironm

ents

, and

hig

h st

anda

rds

of s

tude

nt,

cam

pus,

dis

trict

, and

age

ncy

perfo

rman

ce.

2.1.

1 Pe

rcen

t of S

tude

nts

Pass

ing

All T

ests

Tak

en

79.4

8%

81.6

1%

85.0

%

85.0

%

*TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

*T

BD

2.1.

2 Pe

rcen

t of A

frica

n-Am

eric

an S

tude

nts

Pass

ing

All

Test

s Ta

ken

67.0

2%

70.6

2%

80.0

%

80.0

%

*TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

*T

BD

2.1.

3 Pe

rcen

t of H

ispa

nic

Stud

ents

Pas

sing

All

Test

s Ta

ken

71.8

2%

75.3

0%

80.0

%

80.0

%

*TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

*T

BD

2.1.

4 Pe

rcen

t of W

hite

Stu

dent

s Pa

ssin

g Al

l Tes

ts T

aken

88

.68%

89

.71%

94

.0%

94

.0%

*T

BD

*TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

2.

1.5

Perc

ent o

f Asi

an-A

mer

ican

Stu

dent

s Pa

ssin

g Al

l Te

sts

Take

n 90

.01%

91

.15%

94

.0%

94

.0%

*T

BD

*TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

48

Cod

e G

oal/O

utco

me

Mea

sure

20

00

Actu

al

2001

Ac

tual

20

02

Proj

ecte

d 20

03

Proj

ecte

d 20

04

Proj

ecte

d 20

05

Proj

ecte

d 20

06

Proj

ecte

d 20

07

Proj

ecte

d 2.

1.6

Perc

ent o

f Nat

ive

Amer

ican

Stu

dent

s Pa

ssin

g Al

l Te

sts

Take

n 80

.13%

81

.76%

88

.0%

88

.0%

*T

BD

*TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

2.1.

7 Pe

rcen

t of E

cono

mic

ally

Dis

adva

ntag

ed S

tude

nts

Pass

ing

All T

ests

Tak

en

69.8

4%

73.2

9%

78.0

%

78.0

%

*TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

*T

BD

2.1.

8 Pe

rcen

t of S

tude

nts

Rea

ding

at G

rade

Lev

el (3

rd

Gra

de O

nly)

87

.3%

86

.2%

93

.0%

95

.0%

*T

BD

*TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

2.1.

9 Pe

rcen

t of S

tude

nts

Pass

ing

TAKS

Rea

ding

87

.28%

88

.76%

93

.0%

93

.0%

*T

BD

*TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

2.

1.10

Pe

rcen

t of S

tude

nts

Pass

ing

TAKS

Mat

hem

atic

s 87

.02%

89

.69%

90

.0%

90

.0%

*T

BD

*TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

2.

1.11

Pe

rcen

t of S

tude

nts

Who

se A

sses

smen

t Res

ults

are

In

clud

ed in

the

Acco

unta

bilit

y Sy

stem

85

.5%

85

%

88.0

%

92.0

%

*TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

*T

BD

2.1.

12

Perc

ent o

f Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n St

uden

ts W

ho a

re

Test

ed a

nd In

clud

ed in

the

Acco

unta

bilit

y Sy

stem

44

%

41.2

2%

90.0

%

90.0

%

*TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

*T

BD

2.1.

13

Perc

ent o

f Lim

ited

Engl

ish-

Prof

icie

nt S

tude

nts

Who

ar

e Te

sted

and

Incl

uded

in th

e Ac

coun

tabi

lity

Syst

em

71.6

%

69.6

%

75.0

%

75.0

%

*TBD

TB

D

*TBD

*T

BD

2.1.

14

Annu

al S

tate

wid

e D

ropo

ut R

ate

for A

ll St

uden

ts

1.56

%

1.3%

1.

6%

1.6%

1.

5%

1.5%

1.

4%

1.3%

2.

1.15

Pe

rcen

t of S

tude

nts

Who

Dro

p O

ut o

f the

Pub

lic

Scho

ol S

yste

m B

etw

een

the

Seve

nth

and

Twel

fth

Gra

des

8.1%

7.

2%

8.6%

6.

8%

6.6%

6.

6%

6.6%

6.

6%

2.1.

16

Perc

ent o

f Dis

trict

s R

ated

Exe

mpl

ary

or R

ecog

nize

d 57

.8%

61

.6%

30

.5%

30

.5%

*T

BD

TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

2.

1.17

Pe

rcen

t of C

ampu

ses

Rat

ed E

xem

plar

y or

R

ecog

nize

d 47

.7%

55

.8%

46

.7%

46

.7%

*T

BD

TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

2.1.

18

Perc

ent o

f Dis

trict

s w

ith U

pgra

ded

Rat

ings

92

.3%

10

0%

50.0

%

*TBD

*T

BD

TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

2.

1.19

Pe

rcen

t of C

ampu

ses

with

Upg

rade

d R

atin

gs

70.2

%

81.8

%

50.0

%

*TBD

*T

BD

TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

2.

1.20

Pe

rcen

t of D

istri

cts

Rat

ed B

elow

Aca

dem

ical

ly

Acce

ptab

le

.5%

.1

%

6.0%

*T

BD

*TBD

TB

D

*TBD

*T

BD

2.1.

21

Perc

ent o

f Cam

puse

s R

ated

Low

-Per

form

ing

2.3%

1.

5%

7.7%

TB

D*

TBD

* TB

D*

TBD

* TB

D*

2.1.

22

Perc

ent o

f Cha

rter S

choo

ls R

ated

Low

-Per

form

ing

New

N

ew

25.0

%

20.0

%

TBD

* TB

D*

TBD

* TB

D*

2.1.

23

Perc

ent o

f Gra

duat

es W

ho T

ake

the

SAT

or A

CT

61.8

%

62.2

%

63.0

%

63.0

%

63.0

%

63.0

%

63.5

%

63.5

%

2.1.

24

Perc

ent o

f Dis

trict

s R

ated

as

Hig

h-R

isk

in th

e Pr

ogra

m A

naly

sis

Syst

em th

e Pr

ior Y

ear T

hat

Impr

ove

Thei

r Rat

ing

in th

e C

urre

nt Y

ear

New

N

ew

77.0

%

80.0

%

TBD

* TB

D*

TBD

* TB

D*

2.1.

25

Perc

ent o

f Hig

h Sc

hool

Gra

duat

es N

eedi

ng

Rem

edia

tion

New

N

ew

New

*T

BD

*TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

*T

BD

2.2.

1 Pe

rcen

t of D

istri

cts

Rat

ed a

s M

id-T

echn

olog

y Pr

epar

ed o

r Abo

ve o

n th

e Te

xas

Star

Cha

rt fo

r Te

achi

ng a

nd L

earn

ing

with

Tec

hnol

ogy

New

N

ew

45.0

%

55.0

%

60.0

%

70.0

%

75.0

%

80.0

%

2.2.

2 An

nual

Dru

g U

se a

nd V

iole

nce

Inci

dent

Rat

e on

Sc

hool

Cam

puse

s, p

er O

ne H

undr

ed S

tude

nts

New

N

ew

3.0%

3.

0%

3.0%

2.

8%

2.8%

2.

6%

49

Cod

e G

oal/O

utco

me

Mea

sure

20

00

Actu

al

2001

Ac

tual

20

02

Proj

ecte

d 20

03

Proj

ecte

d 20

04

Proj

ecte

d 20

05

Proj

ecte

d 20

06

Proj

ecte

d 20

07

Proj

ecte

d 2.

2.3

Perc

ent o

f DAE

Ps M

eetin

g Al

l Acc

ount

abilit

y St

anda

rds

New

N

ew

67.0

%

67.0

%

*TBD

*T

BD

*TBD

*T

BD

2.2.

4 Pe

rcen

t of I

ncar

cera

ted

Stud

ents

Who

Com

plet

e th

e Le

vel i

n W

hich

The

y ar

e En

rolle

d 32

.7%

37

.1%

42

.0%

44

%

44%

44

%

44%

44

%

2.2.

5 Pe

rcen

t of E

ligib

le W

indh

am In

mat

es S

erve

d by

a

Win

dham

Edu

catio

n Pr

ogra

m in

the

Past

Fiv

e Ye

ars

90.8

%

91.7

%

92.0

%

93%

93

%

93%

93

%

93%

2.3.

1 Pe

rcen

t of H

igh-

Nee

d C

ampu

ses

that

Rec

eive

a

Mas

ter R

eadi

ng T

each

er G

rant

N

ew

New

37

.0%

37

.0%

49

.5%

62

.0%

74

.5%

87

.0%

2.3.

2 Pe

rcen

t of T

each

ers

with

Pro

per C

ertif

icat

ion

New

N

ew

83.1

%

83.2

%

83.3

%

83.4

%

83.5

%

83.6

%

2.3.

3 Tu

rnov

er R

ate

for T

each

ers

New

N

ew

New

15

.9%

16

.2%

16

.6%

17

.0%

17

.3%

2.

3.4

Perc

ent o

f Tea

cher

s Pa

rtici

patin

g in

the

Teac

her

Rea

ding

and

Mat

h Ac

adem

ies

New

N

ew

77.0

%

81.0

%

83.0

%

85.0

%

87.0

%

89.0

%

2.3.

5 Pe

rcen

t of G

rant

App

licat

ions

Pro

cess

ed w

ithin

60

Day

s N

ew

New

N

ew

75.0

%

78.0

%

81.0

%

84.0

%

87.0

%

2.3.

6 Pe

rcen

t of S

choo

l Dis

trict

Ann

ual T

extb

ook

Ord

ers

Proc

esse

d by

May

31st

N

ew

New

N

ew

92.0

%

95.0

%

97.0

%

98.0

%

98.0

%

2.3.

7 TE

A Tu

rnov

er R

ate

New

N

ew

New

10

.0%

10

.0%

10

.0%

10

.0%

10

.0%

* The

Sta

te B

oard

of E

duca

tion

will

dete

rmin

e th

e pa

ssin

g st

anda

rd fo

r the

TAK

S Pa

ssin

g R

ates

, and

Dis

trict

/ C

ampu

s Ac

coun

tabi

lity

Rat

ings

in N

ovem

ber 2

002.

Th

e ac

tual

s re

porte

d fo

r the

test

s ar

e re

late

d to

the

TAAS

test

. Th

e TA

KS te

st w

ill be

adm

inis

tere

d fo

r the

firs

t tim

e in

200

3.

50

Performance Measure Definitions Goal 1 Program Leadership: To fulfill the promise for all Texas children, the Texas Education

Agency will provide program leadership to the state public education system, ensuring all students achieve the state’s public education goals and objectives.

Objective 1.1 Public Education Excellence: All students in the Texas public education system will

graduate from high school with a world-class education.

OUTCOME MEASURES 1.1.1 Percent of Students Completing High School

DEFINITION: The percentage of students out of a 9th grade cohort who, in four years' time, either already have or are completing high school. PURPOSE: To report high school completion rate. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS. PEIMS submissions from districts: 101 (demog) records; 110 (enrollment) records; 201 (dropouts) records; 202 (grads) records; and, as they become available, 203 (leaver) records and GED test files. From the 1997-1998 school year, graduate and dropout records were replaced by leaver records (RT 203). METHOD OF CALCULATION: Completion is expressed as a percentage. The numerator includes all students out of a final cohort who graduate early, on time, earn a GED, or are finishing high school. The final cohort is comprised of all entering first-time 9th grade students, plus those who move in, minus those who move out, over a four-year period. DATA LIMITATIONS: Refinements in methodology are expected as more comprehensive withdrawal data become available in PEIMS. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.1.2 Percent of African-American Students Completing High School

DEFINITION: The percentage of African-American students out of a 9th grade African-American cohort who, in four years' time, either already have or are completing high school. PURPOSE: To report high school completion rate. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS. PEIMS submissions from districts: 101 (demog) records; 110 (enrollment) records; 201 (dropouts) records; 202 (grads) records; and, as they become available, 203 (leaver) records and GED test files. From the 1997-1998 school year, graduate and dropout records were replaced by leaver records (RT 203). METHOD OF CALCULATION: Completion is expressed as a percentage. The numerator includes all African-American students out of a final cohort who graduate early, on time, earn a GED, or are finishing high school. The final cohort is comprised of all African-Americans entering first-time 9th grade students, plus those who move in, minus those who move out, over a four-year period. DATA LIMITATIONS: Refinements in methodology are expected as more comprehensive withdrawal data become available in PEIMS. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: Yes. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.1.3 Percent of Hispanic Students Completing High School

DEFINITION: The percentage of Hispanic students out of a 9th grade Hispanic cohort who, in four years' time, either already have or are completing high school. PURPOSE: To report high school completion rate. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS. PEIMS submissions from districts: 101 (demog) records; 110 (enrollment) records; 201 (dropouts) records; 202 (grads) records; and, as they become available, 203 (leaver) records and GED test files. From the 1997-1998 school year, graduate and dropout records were replaced by leaver records (RT 203).

51

METHOD OF CALCULATION: Completion is expressed as a percentage. The numerator includes all Hispanic students out of a final cohort who graduate early, on time, earn a GED, or are finishing high school. The final cohort is comprised of all Hispanics entering first-time 9th grade students, plus those who move in, minus those who move out, over a four-year period. DATA LIMITATIONS: Refinements in methodology are expected as more comprehensive withdrawal data become available in PEIMS. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: Yes. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.1.4 Percent of White Students Completing High School

DEFINITION: The percentage of White students out of a 9th grade White cohort who, in four years' time, either already have or are completing high school. PURPOSE: To report high school completion rate. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS. PEIMS submissions from districts: 101 (demog) records; 110 (enrollment) records; 201 (dropouts) records; 202 (grads) records; and, as they become available, 203 (leaver) records and GED test files. From the 1997-1998 school year, graduate and dropout records were replaced by leaver records (RT 203). METHOD OF CALCULATION: Completion is expressed as a percentage. The numerator includes all White students out of a final cohort who graduate early, on time, earn a GED, or are finishing high school. The final cohort is comprised of all Whites entering first-time 9th grade students, plus those who move in, minus those who move out, over a four-year period. DATA LIMITATIONS: Refinements in methodology are expected as more comprehensive withdrawal data become available in PEIMS. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: Yes. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.1.5 Percent of Asian-American Students Completing High School

DEFINITION: The percentage of Asian-American students out of a 9th grade Asian-American cohort who, in four years' time, either already have or are completing high school. PURPOSE: To report high school completion rate. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS. PEIMS submissions from districts: 101 (demog) records; 110 (enrollment) records; 201 (dropouts) records; 202 (grads) records; and, as they become available, 203 (leaver) records and GED test files. From the 1997-1998 school year, graduate and dropout records were replaced by leaver records (RT 203). METHOD OF CALCULATION: Completion is expressed as a percentage. The numerator includes all Asian-American students out of a final cohort who graduate early, on time, earn a GED, or are finishing high school. The final cohort is comprised of all Asian-Americans entering first-time 9th grade students, plus those who move in, minus those who move out, over a four-year period. DATA LIMITATIONS: Refinements in methodology are expected as more comprehensive withdrawal data become available in PEIMS. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: Yes. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.1.6 Percent of Native American Students Completing High School

DEFINITION: The percentage of Native American students out of a 9th grade Native American cohort who, in four years' time, either already have or are completing high school. PURPOSE: To report high school completion rate. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS. PEIMS submissions from districts: 101 (demog) records; 110 (enrollment) records; 201 (dropouts) records; 202 (grads) records; and, as they become available, 203 (leaver) records and GED test files. From the 1997-1998 school year, graduate and dropout records were replaced by leaver records (RT 203).

52

METHOD OF CALCULATION: Completion is expressed as a percentage. The numerator includes all Native American students out of a final cohort who graduate early, on time, earn a GED, or are finishing high school. The final cohort is comprised of all Native Americans entering first-time 9th grade students, plus those who move in, minus those who move out, over a four-year period. DATA LIMITATIONS: Refinements in methodology are expected as more comprehensive withdrawal data become available in PEIMS. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: Yes. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.1.7 Percent of Economically Disadvantaged Students Completing High School

DEFINITION: The percentage of economically disadvantaged students out of a 9th grade economically disadvantaged cohort who, in four years' time, either already have or are completing high school. PURPOSE: To measure student high school completion. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS submissions from districts: 101 (demographic) records; 110 (enrollment) records; 203 (leaver) records, and GED test files. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Completion is expressed as a percentage. The numerator includes all economically disadvantaged students out of a final cohort who graduate early, on time, earn a GED, or are finishing high school. The final cohort is comprised of all economically disadvantaged students entering economically disadvantaged first-time 9th grade students, plus those who move in, minus those who move out, over a four-year period. DATA LIMITATIONS: Refinements in methodology are expected as more comprehensive withdrawal data become available in PEIMS. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.1.8 Percent of Equalized Revenue in the Foundation School Program

DEFINITION: Equalized revenue reflects the level to which the state has provided districts with equal access to funds, independent of wealth, and the extent to which districts have taken advantage of that equal access. PURPOSE: To measure equal access to revenue for school funding. DATA SOURCE: The most current annual revenue data are extracted from the agency's district planning estimate (DPE) model from the FSP master file. Data for charter schools are included. Revenue estimates are based on projected pupil counts and budgeted tax collections unless final year-end pupil count data are available in time for reporting. The most current data for recapture costs are extracted from the agency's Chapter 41 computation model. Estimates are used unless final year-end data are available in time for reporting. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Unequalized revenue includes funds raised by tax effort above the state funding formulae cap. For M&O taxes, the cap is $1.50. For debt taxes, the cap depends on the amount of old debt funded by the Existing Debt Allotment and new debt funded by the IFA. Unequalized revenue also includes excess Tier I revenue in budget balanced districts (where LFA exceeds FSP costs less ASF). It also includes excess Tier II funds in districts that raise revenue above the guaranteed yield (wealth level below $295,000 and above Tier II guarantee times $10,000). Finally, it includes profit to partners of districts contracting to educate nonresident students in order to reduce wealth according to TEC Chapter 41. Equalized revenue is the sum of state and local funds from both tiers of the FSP and net recapture from wealth equalizations. To compute, equalized revenue is summed across districts and the sum divided by total state and local revenue. The final ratio is multiplied by 100 to create a percentage. DATA LIMITATIONS: PEIMS data. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

53

1.1.9 Percent of Students in Districts with Substantially Equal Access to Revenues DEFINITION: This measure reflects the percentage of students in districts that generate revenue at or below the state guaranteed minimum. PURPOSE: To measure the percentage of students in districts with equal access to revenues. DATA SOURCE: The most current applicable annual data are extracted from the agency's DPE model from the FSP master file. Data for charter schools are included. Computations are based on projected pupil counts unless final year-end pupil count data are available in time for reporting. METHOD OF CALCULATION: This measure is computed by determining which districts have revenue levels per weighted ADA (WADA) that are at or below that to which the state will equalize funds. First, in each district, the yield per penny of tax rate per weighted pupil is computed by dividing the district's WADA into its taxable property value. If the result is equal to or less than the state guarantee level, that district has access to revenue that is considered equal to the access of other districts. The numbers of students in average daily attendance (ADA) that reside in these districts are then summed and divided by the total number of statewide ADA. The resultant ratio is then multiplied by 100 to convert it to a percentage. DATA LIMITATIONS: PEIMS data. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.1.10 Average Local Tax Rate Avoided From State Assistance for Debt Service

DEFINITION: Average Local Tax Rate Avoided From State Assistance for Debt Service is a measure of the degree to which school districts are able to avoid higher debt service tax rates by using state assistance for debt service for a portion of debt service payments. PURPOSE: To provide a measure of the principle effects of allotments in TEC Chapter 46. DATA SOURCE: State debt service assistance is maintained in spreadsheet form for the IFA and in the payment records for the Foundation School Program (foundation master file). Property values are stored in the foundation master file. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Payment amounts are calculated according to the formulas in TEC Chapter 46. Debt service requirements of school districts are taken from applications submitted by school districts for the IFA, and from Bond Review Board data for the EDA. Debt service tax collections are taken from data submitted as part of the final actual financial data submitted in PEIMS. The calculation of tax rate avoided is the result of dividing the statewide total of Chapter 46 state aid by the property value of districts that receive the assistance, then multiplying the result by 100. DATA LIMITATIONS: The computed tax rate for this measure uses the comptroller's property tax division property values for the preceding school year, which are the values used in calculating state aid. If a district has been awarded a decline in property values under TEC §42.2521, then the reduced values are used. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.1.11 Percent of Eligible Districts Receiving Funds From the Instructional Facilities Allotment

DEFINITION: This will measure the degree to which districts that are eligible to receive funds actually participate in the IFA program. Districts that issue bonds or enter lease-purchase agreements to finance the construction of qualified facilities and apply for funding prior to issuing/entering their debt are considered eligible for participation in the program. PURPOSE: To measure the degree to which districts that are eligible to receive funds actually participate in the IFA program. DATA SOURCE: The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) must review and approve bond issues and lease-purchase contracts for real property that are entered into by school districts and municipalities. An OAG approval letter will be used to determine which districts issued eligible debt. The IFA application data will identify which districts are eligible for the IFA program. Districts receiving IFA awards will be compared to the eligible district list to determine the

54

percentage of eligible districts that participate in the IFA program. The data in State Funding are maintained electronically as well as manually. METHOD OF CALCULATION: This measure will compare the number of districts that participate in the IFA program to the number of districts that issue eligible debt and have property wealth of $280,000 per student or less. This comparison will be reported as a percentage of eligible districts receiving funds from the IFA program. Districts that issue more than one debt will be counted only once for this measure. Percentage of eligible districts receiving IFA funds = number of districts that received IFA funds divided by the number of districts that issued eligible debt and have < $280,000/student. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported only once per year in the last quarter, reflecting prior year activity. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

Strategy 1.1.1 Foundation School Program - Equalized Operations: Ensure all Texas

students graduate from high school with a world-class education funded by an efficient and equitable school finance system; ensure that formula allocations support the state’s public education goals and objectives and are accounted for in an accurate and appropriate manner.

OUTPUT MEASURES 1.1.1.1 Total Average Daily Attendance (ADA)

DEFINITION: The estimated number of students that are in attendance statewide. PURPOSE: To measure the number of students that are in attendance statewide. DATA SOURCE: Attendance data are reported to PEIMS on attendance reports by all school districts. If available in time for reporting, final actual data are extracted from PEIMS. Data include charter schools but exclude non-foundation districts (Windham, the University of North Dallas, and county districts). If final data are unavailable, near-final data are extracted from the agency's DPE model from the FSP master file. METHOD OF CALCULATION: For each student, ADA is computed as the number of days present divided by the number of days taught. The result is then summed for all students in all districts statewide. DATA LIMITATIONS: PEIMS data. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.1.1.2 Total Average Daily Attendance (ADA) of Open Enrollment Charter Schools

DEFINITION: The estimated number of students in open enrollment charter schools that are in attendance statewide. PURPOSE: To measure the number of students that are in attendance at open enrollment charter schools statewide. DATA SOURCE: Attendance data are reported to PEIMS on attendance reports by all open enrollment charter schools. If available in time for reporting, final actual data are extracted from PEIMS. If final data are unavailable, near-final data are extracted from the agency's DPE model from the FSP master file. METHOD OF CALCULATION: For each student, ADA is computed as the number of days present divided by the number of days taught. The result is then summed for all students in all districts statewide. DATA LIMITATIONS: PEIMS data. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

55

1.1.1.3 Number of Students Served by Compensatory Education Programs and Services DEFINITION: Compensatory education programs and services are used to benefit students identified as being in at-risk situations. PURPOSE: To report the number of at-risk students served. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS fall (first) submission, at-risk student indicator. METHOD OF CALCULATION: A count of the number of identified at-risk students which is collected in the PEIMS fall (first) submission. DATA LIMITATIONS: It is available to report only once a year, at the end of the second quarter. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

EFFICIENCY MEASURES 1.1.1.1 Average Cost of Instructional Program Per Student

DEFINITION: The statewide average expenditure on classroom instruction per student. PURPOSE: To report the statewide average expenditure on classroom instruction per student. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS (P.ACTUAL). METHOD OF CALCULATION: Using most recent expenditure data reported via PEIMS, aggregate the annual expenditures of all districts on objects 61XX through 64XX from funds other than adult basic education and capital outlay in function 11 (instruction). Divide this amount by that year's statewide average daily attendance. DATA LIMITATIONS: Because of its dependency on expenditure data, this measure will always refer to prior year performance, will not be available until the third quarter of the year, and will not vary in the remaining quarter of that year. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.

1.1.1.2 Percent of Operating Funds Spent on Instruction

DEFINITION: The percentage of annual operating expenditures spent on classroom instruction and functions that directly support classroom instruction. PURPOSE: To report the operating expenditures spent on classroom instruction. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS. (P.ACTUAL). METHOD OF CALCULATION: Using most recent expenditures data reported via PEIMS, aggregate annual district expenditures on objects 61XX through 64XX from funds other than adult basic education and capital outlay in functions other than debt service, facilities acquisition, construction, and community services. Calculate instructional expenditures as sum of all expenditures in functions 10 (instructional service) and 20 (instructional-related services). Available for prior fiscal year in third quarter of subsequent fiscal year. DATA LIMITATIONS: Because of its dependency on expenditure data, this measure will always refer to prior year performance, will not be available until the third quarter of the subsequent year, and will not vary in the remaining quarter of that reporting year. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

EXPLANATORY MEASURES 1.1.1.1 Percent of Foundation School Program Provided by the State

DEFINITION: This calculation will compare state aid for the year to the sum of state aid and local tax revenue. PURPOSE: To determine the amount of state aid provided by the state.

56

DATA SOURCE: Foundation School Program payment system, PEIMS, and agency surveys of tax collection information. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Initial reports will be based on projections of both state aid and local taxes. For the second quarter, state aid will be updated to reflect current estimates of cash disbursement, and local taxes will be revised based on PEIMS budgeted tax collection. For the third quarter, state aid will be updated to reflect current estimates of cash disbursement, and local taxes will be reported based on second quarter figures. For the fourth quarter, local taxes will be updated to the projected tax collection information supplied annually by districts in a summer survey, and state aid will reflect the final cash disbursed for the year. DATA LIMITATIONS: For this purpose, state aid will include all cash disbursements made during the year for purposes of funding the allotment in TEC Chapters 42 and 46. State aid will not include any funds for the technology allotment, and will also exclude cash derived from funds recaptured under Chapter 41. Any adjustments to state aid from previous years (settle-up) will also be included in the cash disbursement calculation. State aid will also include funds that are set aside for statewide purposes from the compensatory education allotment and the gifted and talented allotment. Local taxes will include any tax collection, but not include penalty, interest, or taxes paid into a tax increment fund. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.1.1.2 Amount of State Aid Per Pupil

DEFINITION: State aid per pupil is money paid to a school district by the state with funds from the Foundation School Fund, the Available School Fund, and the Textbook Fund based on a set of formulae in statute for all tiers of the FSP. Recapture funds from districts required to reduce wealth per weighted pupil in accordance with the provisions of TEC Chapter 41 are included as state aid. When a district is contracting for the education of some of its students with a district required to reduce wealth, the portion of the funds paid to the lower-wealth partner as an offset to its FSP entitlement is considered to be state aid. Recapture funds from districts reducing wealth through the purchase of attendance credits from the state are also included. The resultant state aid estimate is expressed on a per pupil basis. PURPOSE: To report the state aid per pupil. DATA SOURCE: The most current state aid data are extracted from the agency's DPE model from the FSP master file and the separate database for the IFA. Data for charter schools are included. For the first three reporting periods, state aid estimates are based on projected pupil counts and budgeted tax collections. For the third quarter, final year-end pupil count data are used in computations if available in time for reporting. The most current data for recapture costs are extracted from the agency's Chapter 41 computation model. Estimates are used for the first three reporting periods. Final, year-end data are used for the fourth quarter if available in time for reporting. METHOD OF CALCULATION: For each district, an estimate of state aid is computed using the state finance formulae established in statute for all tiers of the FSP and the appropriate input data required of the formulae via the agency's FSP computer databases. These estimates are summed across districts and divided by the total number of students in ADA in the state. Charter schools are included in the estimate. DATA LIMITATIONS: Data used is based on reporting period noted in data source above. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

57

1.1.1.3 Amount of Local Revenue Per Pupil DEFINITION: Local revenue per pupil is money raised by a school district through its combined maintenance and operations (M&O) tax rate plus its Interest and Sinking Fund (I&S or debt service) tax rate levied against its property wealth (tax base). The resultant local revenue estimate is expressed on a per pupil basis. PURPOSE: To report the local revenue per pupil. DATA SOURCE: The most current local revenue data are extracted from the agency's DPE model from the FSP master file. ADA data for charter schools are included in statewide ADA estimates. For the first three reporting periods, local revenue per pupil calculations is based on projected pupil counts and budgeted tax collections. For the third quarter, final year-end pupil count data are used in computations if available in time for reporting. METHOD OF CALCULATION: For each district, an estimate of local revenue is available on the applicable data file. These estimates are summed across districts and divided by the total number of students in the ADA in the state. Charter schools, which have no tax bases or local revenues, are included in the estimate of ADA. DATA LIMITATIONS: Charter schools, which have no tax bases or local revenues, are included in the estimate of ADA. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.1.1.4 Compensatory Education ADA

DEFINITION: The estimated number of students that are counted for funding compensatory education programs (which are not necessarily the same students that are receiving the services). PURPOSE: To measure the ADA of compensatory education students. DATA SOURCE: Data are extracted from the agency's DPE model from the FSP master file. Data include charter schools but exclude non-foundation districts (Windham, the University of North Dallas, and county districts). METHOD OF CALCULATION: For each district, the pupil count used to fund compensatory education is based on the monthly average of the best six months of students eligible for the free and reduced price lunch program in the prior federal year. DATA LIMITATIONS: Data used is based on the reporting period noted in the data source. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.1.1.5 Bilingual Education/ESL ADA

DEFINITION: The estimated number of students in ADA that are being served in a bilingual/ESL education program. PURPOSE: To estimate the number of students that are served in a bilingual/ESL education program. DATA SOURCE: Attendance data are reported to PEIMS on attendance reports by all school districts operating bilingual/ESL education instructional programs. If available in time for reporting, final actual data are extracted from PEIMS. Data include charter schools but exclude non-foundation districts (Windham, the University of North Dallas, and county districts). If final data are unavailable, near-final data are extracted from the agency's DPE model from the FSP master file. METHOD OF CALCULATION: For each six-week reporting period, the number of eligible days present for those students counted for funding is divided by the number of days taught. An average of all six weeks is then computed. DATA LIMITATIONS: Data used is based on the reporting period noted in the data source. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.

58

NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.1.1.6 Gifted and Talented ADA

DEFINITION: The estimated number of students that are funded for gifted and talented programs statewide. PURPOSE: To report the number of students funded for gifted and talented programs statewide. DATA SOURCE: Attendance data are reported to PEIMS on attendance reports by all school districts operating approved gifted and talented programs. If available in time for reporting, final actual data are extracted from PEIMS. Data include charter schools but exclude non-foundation districts (Windham, the University of North Dallas, and county districts). If final data are unavailable, near-final data are extracted from the agency's DPE model from the FPS master file. METHOD OF CALCULATION: For each district, the estimate reflects either the number enrolled in its gifted and talented program or 5% of its ADA, whichever is smaller. DATA LIMITATIONS: Data used is based on the reporting period noted in the data source. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.1.1.7 Career and Technology Education FTEs

DEFINITION: The estimated number of full-time equivalent students that are participating in an approved career and technology education program. PURPOSE: To report the number of students participating in an approved career and technology education program. DATA SOURCE: Attendance data are reported to PEIMS on attendance reports by all school districts operating approved career and technology education instructional programs. If available in time for reporting, final actual data are extracted from PEIMS. Data include charter schools but exclude non-foundation districts (Windham, the University of North Dallas, and county districts). If final data are unavailable, near-final data are extracted from the agency's DPE model from the FSP master. METHOD OF CALCULATION: For each six-week reporting, the number of eligible days present for each career and technology "v-code" (instructional program) is multiplied by the corresponding assigned contact hour to convert to the number of contact hours by six weeks. An FTE count is then produced by dividing the number of contact hours by the number of days taught multiplied by six. An FTE average for all six weeks for the entire career and technology program is then computed. DATA LIMITATIONS: Data used is based on the reporting period noted in the data source. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.1.1.8 Special Education Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs)

DEFINITION: The estimated number of full-time equivalent students that are receiving special education services. PURPOSE: To measure the number of students who receive special education services. DATA SOURCE: Attendance data are reported to PEIMS on attendance reports by all school districts operating approved special education instructional programs. If available in time for reporting, final actual data are extracted from PEIMS. Data include charter schools but exclude non-foundation districts (Windham, the University of North Dallas, and county districts). If final data are unavailable, near-final data are extracted from the agency's DPE model from the FSP master.

59

METHOD OF CALCULATION: For each six-week reporting period for each special education instructional arrangement, the number of eligible days present for all students counted for funding is converted to contact hours by multiplying the number of days present by the assigned contact hour value for that instructional arrangement. Contact hours are then converted to FTEs by dividing contact hours by the number of days taught in the district multiplied by six. An average of all six weeks is then computed for each instructional arrangement. DATA LIMITATIONS: Data used is based on the reporting period noted in the data source. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.1.1.9 Number of Students Served by Special Education Services

DEFINITION: The number of students reported on Federal Child Count (IDEA-B) who are indicated as receiving special education services. PURPOSE: To report the number of students who receive special education services. DATA SOURCE: Child Count (IDEA-B 3-21). (PEIMS data will be used if the federal child count is eliminated.) METHOD OF CALCULATION: Total number of students reported by districts on federal child count. (The PEIMS count will be used if federal child count is eliminated.) DATA LIMITATIONS: It is possible that over the next two years the federal child count may be eliminated. If this happens, the PEIMS database will be used. If the PEIMS database is used, year-end performance may be lower than projected performance. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.1.1.10 Number of Students Served by Career and Technology Education Courses

DEFINITION: The number of secondary students who are participating in career and technology education courses during the reported school year. PURPOSE: To report the number of secondary students who chose career and technology education courses. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS student data records (P.vocserv(yr)f). METHOD OF CALCULATION: Data are reported by all school districts operating approved career and technology education instructional programs. DATA LIMITATIONS: Data are available during the first quarter of the year following the students' participation. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.1.1.11 Number of Students Served by Bilingual Education/English as a Second

Language Programs DEFINITION: The number of identified LEP students reported at the end of October on PEIMS student data records who are indicated as participating in bilingual education or ESL programs during the reported school year. PURPOSE: To report the number of students who are served by bilingual education/ESL programs. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS (P.enroll(yr)F). METHOD OF CALCULATION: Count is taken of LEP students who participate in bilingual or ESL programs as reported on PEIMS. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported at the end of October on PEIMS student data records. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

60

1.1.1.12 Number of Students Served by Gifted and Talented Programs

DEFINITION: The number of students identified according to 19 TAC §89.51 who are served in the gifted and talented program. PURPOSE: To report the number of students who are served by gifted and talented programs. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Use data reported to PEIMS. DATA LIMITATIONS: PEIMS data. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

Strategy 1.1.2 Foundation School Program - Equalized Facilities: Operate an equalized

school facilities program by ensuring the allocation of a guaranteed yield of existing debt and disbursing facilities funds.

OUTPUT MEASURES 1.1.2.1 Number of Districts Receiving IFA

DEFINITION: A count of school districts receiving funding through the IFA program during the period. PURPOSE: To report the number of districts who receive an IFA. DATA SOURCE: Allotment payments are maintained in an automated database within the State Funding Division. Manual records are also maintained. METHOD OF CALCULATION: IFA funds are defined as those authorized by TEC Chapter 46. Participating districts will be counted only once annually. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.1.2.2 Total Amount of State and Local Funds Allocated for Facilities (Billions)

DEFINITION: All funds allocated by the state specifically dedicated to pay debt on bonds issued for school facilities will be counted, along with all local funds which can be identified as raised to pay those debts. PURPOSE: To identify the funds allocated for debt service on bonds issued for school facilities. DATA SOURCE: Agency Accounting records; PEIMS budget detail. METHOD OF CALCULATION: State funds will include only the amounts actually paid to districts during the fiscal period. Local funds will be reported as an estimate from the winter submission of budgeted financial information in PEIMS, and will include only revenues from debt service taxes. DATA LIMITATIONS: PEIMS data. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

Objective 1.2 Student Success and Achievement: The Texas Education Agency will provide the

state’s public education system with program leadership to ensure all students are challenged, perform at grade level or above, and demonstrate strong performance in reading and the foundation subjects of mathematics, English language arts, science, and social studies.

61

OUTCOME MEASURES 1.2.1 Percent of Students Graduating Under the Recommended or Distinguished Achievement

High School Program DEFINITION: The recommended high school program is an academically rigorous program that prepares students for college or technical careers after high school. The distinguished achievement high school program is the advanced high school program that recognizes students that perform at a collegiate level while currently enrolled in high school. Districts are not required to offer these optional programs, which each consist of 24 credits; the distinguished achievement program includes 4 advanced measures. PURPOSE: To report participation of students in the recommended and distinguished achievement high school programs. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS database. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of students graduating from the recommended and distinguished achievement high school programs will be collected through PEIMS. This number collected will be divided by the total number of students graduating who receive a diploma. DATA LIMITATIONS: Districts are not required to offer these optional programs. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.2.2 Percent of Students with Auditory Impairment in Regional Day Schools for the Deaf Who

Graduate from High School DEFINITION: The percent of auditorially impaired (AI) students who graduate from the regional day school program for the deaf will be identified using data from the annual Texas Survey of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students. PURPOSE: To report the performance of students who graduate from the regional day school program for the deaf. DATA SOURCE: Annual Texas Survey of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The percent will be calculated by dividing the total number of graduates and dropouts into the number of students who graduate. DATA LIMITATIONS: Survey data; reported once annually. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.2.3 Percent of Students With Disabilities Who Complete High School

DEFINITION: The percentage of students with disabilities out of a 9th grade cohort who, in four years' time, either already have or are completing high school. PURPOSE: To report the high school completion rate of students with disabilities. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS submissions from districts: 101 (demographic) records; 110 (enrollment) records; 201 (dropouts) records; 202 (grads) records; and, as they become available, 203 (leaver) records and GED test files. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Completion is expressed as a percentage. The numerator includes all students with disabilities out of a final cohort who graduated early, on time, earn a GED, or are finishing high school. The final cohort is comprised of all entering first-time 9th grade students with disabilities, plus those who move in, minus those who move out, over a four-year period. DATA LIMITATIONS: Refinements in methodology are expected as a more comprehensive withdrawal data become available in PEIMS. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

62

1.2.4 Percent of Eligible Students Taking Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate Exams DEFINITION: The percent of public school 11th and 12th graders taking college board Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) examinations. PURPOSE: To measure how many 11th and 12th graders take the AP/IB exams. DATA SOURCE: College Board (CB) and International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO). METHOD OF CALCULATION: The CB and IBO administer the examinations. All data are compiled by CB and IBO and submitted to TEA. DATA LIMITATIONS: CB and IBO data. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.2.5 Percent of AP/IB Exams Qualifying for College Credit or Advanced Placement

DEFINITION: Students who score a 3 and above on an Advanced Placement (AP) exam or 4 and above on an International Baccalaureate (IB) exam have indicated they can do college level work while in high school and have the potential to earn college credit. Institutions of higher education make the final determination as to whether or not the college credit is earned and how much college credit is awarded. PURPOSE: Performance on this indicator indicates the amount of college credit that could be earned by a student while in high school and reflects the amount of potential savings to the state. DATA SOURCE: The College Board (CB), International Baccalaureate North America (IBNA), and the TEA Division of Research and Evaluation. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The CB and IBNA report the exam scores to TEA. The amount of college credit earned is determined by the institution of higher education that the student will attend. DATA LIMITATIONS: AP and IB examinations are administered in May. Examination data is not available from CB or IBNA until after the end of the fiscal year (August 31). CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.2.6 Percent of Career and Technology Students Placed On the Job or in a Postsecondary

Program DEFINITION: Percent of secondary students pursuing a coherent sequence in career and technology education, who are employed or are continuing their education at a higher level (re: TEC §29.181). PURPOSE: To determine employment and/or educational status of students with a concentration in career and technology education. DATA SOURCE: (1) Follow-up information for secondary and adult students is collected annually through the Automated Student and Adult Learner Follow-up System by the Texas State Occupational Information Coordinating Committee (SOICC). SOICC uses data from PEIMS, postsecondary institutions, and various employment sources to determine former students' employment and education status. (2) Estimates from other education and occupational databases. METHOD OF CALCULATION: SOICC follows up on students for the first year, after completion of an occupationally specific career and technology education program or after exiting the institution, to determine employment and/or educational status. DATA LIMITATIONS: SOICC follow-up does not currently capture more than 75% of the eligible population. To provide a more complete analysis of program performance, the agency will use statistically valid estimation methods for the part of the population that SOICC is not able to reach with its first-year follow-up analysis. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

63

1.2.7 Percent of Students Exiting Bilingual/English as a Second Language Programs Successfully DEFINITION: Percent of students exiting bilingual/English as a second language (ESL) programs successfully. PURPOSE: To report performance of bilingual/ESL programs. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS. (P.ENROLL(yr-1)F, P.ENROLL(yr)F, P.DEMOG DOB(yr)F) and student-level datatapes. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Percentage will be calculated by comparing the number of former LEP students in the current year who pass all sections of the English TAKS to the number of LEP students served the previous year. Students in Grades 3-12 will be matched by student ID numbers submitted by local districts. DATA LIMITATIONS: PEIMS data. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.2.8 Percent of Students Retained in Grade 3

DEFINITION: The percentage of students repeating Grade 3 PURPOSE: Promotion from Grade 3 to Grade 4 is evidence that a student has mastered the knowledge and skills required in Grade 3. Students who master the knowledge and skills required in Grade 3 are prepared to be successful in Grade 4. Retention rates, disaggregated by grade level, are required by TEC §39.182(a). DATA SOURCE: All data are submitted by school districts to the agency through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS). The following PEIMS views are accessed: P.ATTEND_STUDENT01, P.ATTEND_DEMOG01, P.DEMOG01, P.SPECED_STUDENT01.F, P.ATTEND_SPECED01, P.DISTRICT01F, P.GRADUATE<yr>, DS.PEI.STU.DET.DEMOG.DOB.YR<yr>.V8, P.ENROLL<YR+1>F, P.NONENR(YR+1>F, P.DISTRICT<yr> METHOD OF CALCULATION: Student data for two years are required. Students enrolled in both years and students who graduate at the end of the first year are included in the total student count (the denominator). Students found to have been enrolled in the same grade in both years are counted as retained (numerator). The rate is calculated by dividing the number of students retained by the total student count. DATA LIMITATIONS: The calculations require that student records be matched for two successive years. Students who leave Texas public schools for reasons other than graduation, and students new to Texas public schools cannot be included in the calculations. In addition, student records with identification errors that prevent matching in two years cannot be included in the calculations. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: Yes. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.

1.2.9 Percent of Students Retained in Grade

DEFINITION: The statewide retention rate for Grades K-12 is reported. The retention rate reflects the percentage of students repeating a grade, and is reported in response to requirements in TEC §§39.053 (d)(1) and 39.182 (a)(8). PURPOSE: To determine the percent of students who are retained in grade. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS. PEIMS views accessed: P.ATTEND_STUDENT (yr-1), P.DEMOG(yr-1), P.ENROLL(yr-1)F, P.MIGRANT_STUD(yr-1)F, P.SPECED_STUDENT(yr-1)F, P.ATTEND_SPECED(yr-1), P.ENROLL(yr)F, P.GRADUATE (yr-1), and P.NONENR(yr)F. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of students retained is divided by the total number of students. DATA LIMITATIONS: PEIMS data reported once annually. Prior year data reported. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.

64

1.2.10 Percent of Students Participating in the Ninth Grade Basic Skills Program Who Attain Sufficient Credit to Advance to Grade Ten DEFINITION: Measures the percentage of students participating in the 9th grade initiative programs that received the number of course credits necessary to advance to the 10th grade. PURPOSE: To accurately measure the primary purpose of the 9th grade initiative to provide a means for credit deficient students to earn credit and be on course for graduation. DATA SOURCE: The evaluation component of the program requires each participating campus to identify students who have earned enough credits to advance to the 10th grade. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Divide the total number of students earning credits to advance to the 10th grade by the total number of students participating in the program. DATA LIMITATIONS: New measure; self-reported data. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.2.11 Percent of Districts Receiving After-School Initiative Funds Showing a Decrease in DAEP

Referrals DEFINITION: Percentage of after-school initiative districts which see a decrease in a referrals to a juvenile justice alternative education program (JJAEP), referrals to a disciplinary alternative education program (DAEP), or students expelled without placement in a (JJAEP or DAEP) from the previous year. PURPOSE: To identify those programs that positively impacted the disciplinary behavior of participating students and their peers. DATA SOURCE: Grant list in program office; PEIMS. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Count districts participating in the after-school initiative for the entire fiscal year. Access which of those districts have seen a decrease in referrals of 6th, 7th, and 8th graders to JJAEPs or DAEPs since the previous fiscal year. Divide the number which saw a decrease by the total number participating, and multiply by 100. DATA LIMITATIONS: Data is self reported. The measure only tracks the disciplinary aspect of the program. The program also contains academic and parental involvement components that are not measured. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.2.12 Percent of Special Education Students Administered the Statewide Alternative

Assessment DEFINITION: The number of special education students administered the statewide alternative assessment. PURPOSE: To report the number of special education students administered the statewide alternative assessment. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS and student-level datatapes. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Number of special education students administered an alternative assessment as a percent of the total number of special education students based on PEIMS. This measure is based on students tested in reading, mathematics, and writing at Grades 3-8 and 10. DATA LIMITATIONS: PEIMS data, based on local ARD decisions. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

65

1.2.13 Percent of Students in State-Funded Optional Extended-Year Programs Promoted to the Next Grade Level as a Result of the Programs DEFINITION: Percent of students promoted to the next grade level as the result of the approved state-funded optional extended-year program (OEYP) which meets the requirements of TEC §29.082. PURPOSE: To report the achievement of students participating in the OEYP. DATA SOURCE: Distr ic t reports. Data is reported on a final expenditure report and final evaluation report. The final expenditure report is due 45 days after the project ends. The deadline for revisions to the final expenditure report is 30 days after the initial due date. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Percentage of students promoted to the next grade level as a result of the approved state-funded OEYP. The percent will be obtained by dividing the total number of students promoted by the total number of students enrolled. DATA LIMITATIONS: Data reported once annually. Prior year data reported. Self-reported by school districts. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.2.14 Percent of Adult Learners Who Complete the Level in Which They are Enrolled

DEFINITION: Students are enrolled in adult education programs at twelve federally defined levels. Adult education uses an open-entry/open-exit system (i.e., students are enrolling and exiting throughout the year, not just at semesters). This measure counts the percent of students who complete their level(s) during the year. PURPOSE: The measure progress of students in the aggregate, thus to measure success of programs in the aggregate. DATA SOURCE: Program data which adult education providers enter year-round into the adult and community education management information system (ACES). METHOD OF CALCULATION: Count the number of adults who completed the requirements for their level(s). Divide by the total number of adults who took the baseline assessment, attended instruction, and took the progress assessment. Multiply by 100. DATA LIMITATIONS: The measure includes only completion of a level: progress within a level is not reflected in this measure. CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.2.15 Percent of Campuses Receiving Investment Capital Fund Grants Showing Texas Learning

Index Growth in Reading DEFINITION: Percent of campuses receiving investment capital fund (ICF) grants which demonstrate TLI growth in reading. PURPOSE: To determine the gains in TLI growth for students participating in the program. DATA SOURCE: Student-level datatapes for students participating in programs funded by the ICF grants. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Data from campus reports of student performance results from nearest TAKS administration prior to the beginning of the grant period will be compared to data gathered from the farthest TAKS administration within the first calendar year of the grant period. The number of campuses showing a gain in the average reading TLI score between the current year and the previous year will be counted for this measure. The campuses showing a gain will be divided by the total number of campuses participating in the grant program for the funding year. DATA LIMITATIONS: No direct link between ICF grants and TLI growth in reading. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

66

Strategy 1.2.1 Academic Excellence: Plan and implement challenging academic, advanced academic, career and technology education, and bilingual/English as a second language educational programs to ensure that all Texas students graduate from high school with a world-class education.

OUTPUT MEASURES 1.2.1.1 Number of Students Eligible for Awards Under the Texas Advanced Placement

Incentive Program DEFINITION: Students who receive a 3 or above on advanced placement examinations or 4 or above on the international baccalaureate examinations may receive reimbursement for the testing fee. PURPOSE: To reflect the goal of quality education that enables students to meet potential. DATA SOURCE: CB and IBO. METHOD OF CALCULATION: CB and IBO administer the exams. All data are compiled by CB and IBO. DATA LIMITATIONS: Data is available in October after the close of the fiscal year. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.2.1.2 Number of Students in Tech-Prep Programs

DEFINITION: The number of students in a coherent sequence of courses for Tech-Prep. PURPOSE: To report the number of students participating in Tech-Prep programs. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Data are reported for secondary students by all school districts operating approved Tech-Prep career and technology education instructional programs. DATA LIMITATIONS: PEIMS data. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.2.1.3 Number of Students Served in Summer School Programs for Limited 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 instrument submitted to the Bilingual Education Unit. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Count of LEP students who are served in summer school programs as reported on the form. DATA LIMITATIONS: Report data once at the beginning of the fiscal year. Data is from the prior school year. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

Strategy 1.2.2 Student Success: Build the capacity of school districts to ensure that all Texas students have the skills they need to succeed; that all that all third grade students read at least at grade level and continue to read at grade level; and that all secondary students have sufficient credit to advance and ultimately graduate on time with their class.

67

OUTPUT MEASURES 1.2.2.1 Number of Students Served in Kindergarten and Pre-Kindergarten Grant

Programs DEFINITION: Number of Kindergarten students served in grant programs exclusive of Optional Extended Year Program which is funded by State Compensatory funding. Number of students ages 3-5 participating in discretionary grants. PURPOSE: Represents supplementary funding that targets the kindergarten and pre-kindergarten students. These grants target a high percentage of economically disadvantaged students. Research states that many of the students in the identified group enter school not ready to learn; therefore supplementary instruction targeted at diminishing the gap in the readiness of a large group of students increases chances of their academic success upon entering first grade and during subsequent years in school. DATA SOURCE: District reported through activity/progress reports. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Add the number of students in each grant and enter the cumulative number from all discretionary grants serving this age group. DATA LIMITATIONS: None. CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.2.2.2 Number of Students Participating in the Student Success Initiative Accelerated

Reading Program DEFINITION: The number of students administered a reading assessment instrument and referred to the accelerated reading program. PURPOSE: Students are administered a reading test to help teachers to develop an aggressive reading program for each child referred to the accelerated reading program. DATA SOURCE: Report received by TEA. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Divide the total number of students referred for accelerated instruction by the total number of children in K-2 administered a reading test. DATA LIMITATIONS: School district reporting. Schools are not required to adopt a specific assessment. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

Strategy 1.2.3 Achievement of Students at Risk: Develop and implement instructional

support programs that take full advantage of flexibility to support student achievement and ensure that all at-risk students graduate from high school with a world-class education.

OUTPUT MEASURE 1.2.3.1 Number of Title I Campuses Rated Exemplary or Recognized

DEFINITION: Campuses are rated exemplary or recognized because their performance met or exceeded the established accountability standard for exemplary or recognized ratings. Title I campuses rated exemplary or recognized will be counted for this measure. PURPOSE: To report performance of campuses receiving Title I funds. DATA SOURCE: Accountability system files and Title I, Part A campus file. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of Title I campuses receiving the exemplary or recognized ratings in the statewide public school accountability system is included in this measure. Campus ratings will be obtained from the accountability system files and compared to the Title I, Part A campus file. DATA LIMITATIONS: Data is available in the fourth quarter. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative.

68


EXPLANATORY MEASURE 1.2.3.1 Number of Migrant Students Identified

DEFINITION: The number of Texas children identified and recruited as migratory as defined by current federal law and regulations. Recruited children have been certified according to federal rules to have migrant status. Children identified and recruited under ESEA migrant education provisions are provided an array of supplemental education and support services from various funding sources. PURPOSE: To identify and certify migrant students and target appropriate services. DATA SOURCE: New Generation System (NGS), a federal database for identified and encoding migrant student data. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Schools districts and ESCs identify and recruit eligible migrant students between September 1 and August 31. Depending on their grade level and educational needs, these students are provided supplemental education and support services from various funding sources. The purpose of the migrant education program is to provide students identified recruited, and certified as having migrant status access to a range of services. DATA LIMITATIONS: Data limited to period reported. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

Strategy 1.2.4 Students with Disabilities: Develop and implement programs that ensure all students with disabilities graduate from high school with a world-class education.

OUTPUT MEASURES 1.2.4.1 Number of Students Served by Regional Day Schools for the Deaf

DEFINITION: The number of Auditorially Impaired (AI) students served by the Regional Day Schools for the Deaf will be identified. PURPOSE: To identify AI students served by the Regional Day Schools for the Deaf . DATA SOURCE: PEIMS, December 1 Child Count, and the annual Texas Survey of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students. One PEIMS view will be used to report special education AI students information and then another for RDSPD student information. For special education, use P.SPECED_STUDENTyrF, DISABILITY1, DISABILITY2, DISABILITY3, and for RDSPD, use REGIONAL_DEAF.="1" or "2." METHOD OF CALCULATION: A manual comparison will be made of the number of students from the available data sources. The highest count will be used and reported. DATA LIMITATIONS: The highest count will be used and reported. Data is available in the third quarter. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.2.4.2 Number of Deaf Students Served in the Public School System

DEFINITION: Students with auditory impairments served in the public school system will be identified. PURPOSE: To report the number of students with auditory impairments served by the public school system. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS, December 1 Child Count, and the annual Texas Survey of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students. One PEIMS view will be used to report special education AI students information and then another for RDSPD student information. For special ed., use P.SPECED_STUDENTyrF, DISABILITY 1, DISABILITY 2, or DISABILITY 3. For RDSPD, use REGIONAL_DEAF="1" or "2".

69

METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of AI students who are not served by regional day schools and the highest count of students served by regional day schools from available data sources will be summed and reported. DATA LIMITATIONS: Data limited to period reported. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.2.4.3 Number of Students Served by Statewide Programs for the Visually Impaired DEFINITION: A count of the total number of students with visual impairments in Texas. PURPOSE: To report the use of statewide programs for students with visual impairments in Texas. DATA SOURCE: Annual January Statewide Registration of Visually Impaired Students. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number is taken from the Annual January Statewide DATA LIMITATIONS: Data is available in the third quarter. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

Strategy 1.2.5 School Improvement and Support Programs: Encourage educators, parents, community members and university faculty to improve student learning and develop and implement programs that meet student needs. Develop and implement the support programs necessary for all students to graduate from high school with a world-class education.

OUTPUT MEASURES 1.2.5.1 Number of Pregnant Teens and Teen Parents Served by Teen Pregnancy and

Parenting Programs DEFINITION: This is the total number of students served by a school district with a state and locally funded teen pregnancy and parenting program grant per TEC §42.152(f). The students served by the program may be pregnant, parenting, or both during the school year. The program serves both male and female parenting students. The students will be counted one time only per year. PURPOSE: To report the participation of students in the program. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS data file. METHOD OF CALCULATION: This will be an annual PEIMS count of students served. DATA LIMITATIONS: The students will be counted one time only per year. Data is available in the fourth quarter. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.2.5.2 Number of Districts with After-School Initiative Funds DEFINITION: The number of districts with campuses that are participating in the Texas After-School Initiatives for Middle Schools. PURPOSE: The number of zip code eligible campuses in districts reflects participation in a program that has a three required components: (1) Academic Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS)-based curriculum, (2) Character education/ citizenship, and (3) a plan for parent and or mentor involvement. All three required components have the opportunity to impact student achievement, to reduce referrals to the juvenile justice system, and to increase familial support. DATA SOURCE: District reports and Notice of Grant Awards (NIOGA). METHOD OF CALCULATION: Addition of all districts represented with current fiscal year. DATA LIMITATIONS: None.

70

CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.2.5.3 Number of Students Served by State-Funded Optional Extended-Year Programs DEFINITION: A count of the number of students served in an approved state-funded OEYP which meets the requirements of TEC §29.082. PURPOSE: To identify the number of students participating in OEYP programs. DATA SOURCE: District reports. Data are reported by the school district on a final expenditure report. The final expenditure report is due 45 days after the project ends. The deadline for revisions to the final expenditure report is 30 days after the initial due date. METHOD OF CALCULATION: A tally of the number of students served in the districts state-funded OEYPs that has been approved by the commissioner in a given fiscal year. DATA LIMITATIONS: Districts report students served. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.2.5.4 Number of Schools with Approved State-Funded Optional Extended-Year Programs DEFINITION: A count of the number of schools receiving services through an approved state-funded optional extended-year program (OEYP) which meets the requirements of TEC §29.082. PURPOSE: To report the number of schools with approved OEYPs. DATA SOURCE: District reports. Data are reported by the school district on a final expenditure report. The final expenditure report is due 45 days after the project ends. The deadline for revisions to the final expenditure report is 30 days after the initial due date. METHOD OF CALCULATION: A tally of the number of schools in districts that receive services through a state-funded OEYP that has been approved by the commissioner in a given fiscal year. DATA LIMITATIONS: None. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

EXPLANATORY MEASURE 1.2.5.1 Number of Open Enrollment Charter Schools

DEFINITION: Open Enrollment Charter (OEC) schools are authorized by statute and approved by the SBOE. PURPOSE: To report the number of OEC schools in the state. DATA SOURCE: SBOE minutes. METHOD OF CALCULATION: RFP process is used by SBOE. DATA LIMITATIONS: None. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

Strategy 1.2.6 Adult Education and Family Literacy: Develop adult education and family literacy programs that encourage literacy and ensure that all adults have the basic education skills they need to contribute to their families, communities, and the world.

71

OUTPUT MEASURES 1.2.6.1 Number of Students Served Through State Adult Education Cooperatives

DEFINITION: The number of students served by state adult education cooperatives. Local adult education providers maintain enrollment records of students. PURPOSE: To determine the number of students served by state adult education cooperatives. DATA SOURCE: Annual individual student data submitted by adult education providers in August through TEA's adult education management information system. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Using individual student data submitted by adult education providers in August of each year, the agency computes the total number of adults enrolled in both state- and federally-funded programs. State education funds represent about one-third of combined state and federal adult education funds used for direct instructional services. DATA LIMITATIONS: A report is compiled at the end of the program year. Data is available at the end of the fiscal year. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.2.6.2 Number of Families Served by Even Start Family Literacy Programs DEFINITION: Number of families served by Even Start family literacy programs. Even Start projects maintain enrollment records of participants. PURPOSE: To report the number of families served by Even Start family literacy programs. DATA SOURCE: Annual report submitted by Even Start projects in October. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Using a manual count of annual reports submitted by Even Start projects in October of each year, the agency computes the total number of families that participated. DATA LIMITATIONS: A report is compiled at the end of the program year. Data is available at the end of the fiscal year. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

1.2.6.3 Number of Families Served by AVANCE Programs DEFINITION: A count of the number of families served by local AVANCE parenting education programs. PURPOSE: To report the number of families served by AVANCE programs. DATA SOURCE: Each local AVANCE office will collect data and report it to the national office quarterly. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of families served by AVANCE programs will be calculated annually by each local office. The sum of local programs will be computed by the national AVANCE office. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported from third party. Data outside TEA control. Data dependent on program expansion at the local level. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

Goal 2 Operational Excellence: The Texas Education Agency will fulfill the promise for all Texas children through challenging assessments, supportive school environments, and high standards of student, campus, district, and agency performance.

72

Objective 2.1 Accountability: The Texas Education Agency will sustain high levels of accountability in the state public education system.

OUTCOME MEASURES 2.1.1 Percent of Students Passing All Tests Taken

DEFINITION: Percent of students passing all tests taken. PURPOSE: To measure student performance. DATA SOURCE: Student-level datatapes. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of students who meet minimum expectations on all TAKS tests taken as a percent of the total number of students tested. This measure is based on students tested in Grades 3-11 in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.1.2 Percent of African-American Students Passing All Tests Taken

DEFINITION: Percent of African-American students passing all tests taken. PURPOSE: To measure student performance. DATA SOURCE: Student-level datatapes. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of African-American students who meet minimum expectations on all TAKS tests taken as a percent of the total number of African-American students tested. This measure is based on students tested in Grades 3-11 in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.1.3 Percent of Hispanic Students Passing All Tests Taken

DEFINITION: Percent of Hispanic students passing all tests taken. PURPOSE: To measure student performance. DATA SOURCE: Student-level datatapes. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of Hispanic students who meet minimum expectations on all TAKS tests taken as percent of the total number of Hispanic students tested. This measure is based on students tested in Grades 3-11 in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.1.4 Percent of White Students Passing All Tests Taken

DEFINITION: Percent of White students passing all tests taken. PURPOSE: To measure student performance. DATA SOURCE: Student-level datatapes. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of White students who meet minimum expectations on all TAKS tests taken as a percent of the total number of White students tested. This measure is based on students tested in Grades 3-11 in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

73

2.1.5 Percent of Asian-American Students Passing All Tests Taken DEFINITION: Percent of Asian-American students passing all tests taken. PURPOSE: To measure student performance. DATA SOURCE: Student-level datatapes. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of Asian-American students who meet minimum expectations on all TAKS tests taken as a percent of the total number of Asian-American students tested. This measure is based on students tested in Grades 3-11 in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.1.6 Percent of Native American Students Passing All Tests Taken

DEFINITION: Percent of Native American students passing all tests taken. PURPOSE: To measure student performance. DATA SOURCE: Student-level datatapes. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of Native American students who meet minimum expectations on all TAKS tests taken as a percent of the total number of Native American students tested. This measure is based on students tested in Grades 3-11 in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.1.7 Percent of Economically Disadvantaged Students Passing All Tests Taken

DEFINITION: Percent of economically disadvantaged students passing all tests taken. PURPOSE: To measure student performance. DATA SOURCE: Student-level datatapes. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of economically disadvantaged students who meet minimum expectations on all TAKS tests taken as a percent of the total number of economically disadvantaged students tested. This measure is based on students tested in Grades 3-11 in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies. Economically disadvantaged students are those who are eligible for free or reduced-price meals under the National School Lunch and Child Nutrition Program or are those who have another economic disadvantage, e.g., are from a family with an annual income at or below the official federal poverty line, are eligible for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) or other public assistance, have received a Pell Grant or comparable state program of need-based financial assistance, are eligible for programs assisted under Title II of the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), or are eligible for benefits under the Food Stamp Act of 1977. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.1.8 Percent of Students Reading at Grade Level (3rd Grade Only)

DEFINITION: Percent of students reading at grade level. PURPOSE: To read at grade level which is a significant indicator of student performance. DATA SOURCE: Student-level datatapes. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of students who meet minimum expectations on TAKS reading as a percent of the total number of students tested in reading. This measure is based on students tested in Grade 3. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually.

74

CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.1.9 Percent of Students Passing TAKS Reading

DEFINITION: Percent of students reading at grade level. PURPOSE: To measure student performance in reading. DATA SOURCE: Student-level datatapes. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of students who meet minimum expectations on TAKS reading as a percent of the total number of students tested in reading. This measure is based on students tested in Grade 3. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.1.10 Percent of Students Passing TAKS Mathematics

DEFINITION: Percent of students passing TAKS mathematics. PURPOSE: To report the percent of students who are passing TAKS. DATA SOURCE: Student-level datatapes. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of students who meet minimum expectations on TAKS mathematics as a percent of the total number of students tested in mathematics. This measure is based on students tested in Grades 3-8 and 10 in mathematics. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.1.11 Percent of Students Whose Assessment Results are Included in the Accountability System

DEFINITION: Percent of students whose assessment results are included in the base rating component of the accountability system. PURPOSE: To determine the percent of students whose assessment results are included in the accountability system. DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data (student assessment files). METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of students who take one or more tests and whose results are included in the base rating component accountability system divided by the total number of answer documents submitted. An answer document must be submitted for each student enrolled in the district in grades tested. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.1.12 Percent of Special Education Students Who are Tested and Included in the Accountability

System DEFINITION: Percent of students who are tested and, therefore, are included in the base rating component of the accountability system. PURPOSE: 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 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.

75


2.1.13 Percent of Limited English-Proficient Students Who are Tested and Included in the

Accountability System DEFINITION: Percent of limited English-proficient (LEP) students who are tested and, therefore, are included in the accountability system. PURPOSE: To report the percent of LEP students whose assessment results are included in the accountability system. DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data (student assessment files) . METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of LEP students who take one or more tests in English or Spanish divided by the total number of answer documents submitted for LEP students. An answer document must be submitted for each student enrolled in the district in grades tested on the testing dates; LEP status is indicated on the answer document. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.1.14 Annual Statewide Dropout Rate for All Students

DEFINITION: This measure reports the annual dropout rate for the state for Grades 7-12, based on the dropout reporting policies established for the state data collection system, PEIMS, mandated in TEC §42.006; the state accountability system mandated in TEC §§39.051 and 30.073, and in response to other reporting requirements such as TEC §39.182. PURPOSE: To report the annual dropout rate for the state for Grades 7-12, based on the dropout reporting policies. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS. PEIMS views accessed to prepare denominator: P.ATTEND_STUDENT(yr-1), P.DEMOG(yr-1), P.ENROLL(yr-1)F, P.MIGRANT_STUD(yr-1)F, P.SPECED_STUDENT(yr-1)F, and P.ATTEND_SPECED(yr-1). PEIMS views accessed to prepare the numerator: P.DEMOG_DROP_DOB(yr-1), P.DROP_COLLECT(yr-1), P.DROP_OFFICIAL(yr-1), P.DROP_RCVR_RSN(yr-1), and P.DROP_REASON(yr-1). METHOD OF CALCULATION: The state dropout rate is determined by using a standard equation for all collection and reporting requirements, such as in TEC §§39.182, 39.051, and 42.006. It is based upon dropouts reported by school districts in the previous year divided by the total number of students enrolled in Grades 7-12 the same year. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually. Prior year data reported. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.

2.1.15 Percent of Students Who Drop Out of the Public School System Between the Seventh and

Twelfth Grades DEFINITION: This measure reports the longitudinal dropout rate for the state for Grades 7-12, based on reporting policies established for the state data collection, PEIMS, mandated in TEC §42.006. PURPOSE: To report the longitudinal dropout rate. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The state longitudinal dropout rate is the percentage of students from a cohort or class of 7th graders that drop out before completing their high school education. The dropout rate is calculated by dividing the number of students that drop out before completing high school by the number of students in the original cohort or class of 7th graders. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually. Prior year data reported. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.

76

2.1.16 Percent of Districts Rated Exemplary or Recognized DEFINITION: A district is rated exemplary or recognized because its performance met or exceeded the established accountability standards for exemplary or recognized ratings. PURPOSE: To report district ratings. DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of districts receiving the exemplary or recognized ratings in the statewide public school accountability system is divided by the total number of districts in the state that are eligible to receive a rating. DATA LIMITATIONS: Eligible campuses include campuses designated “not rated,” but does not include “not applicable” campuses, or those campuses with insufficient data to evaluate. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.1.17 Percent of Campuses Rated Exemplary or Recognized

DEFINITION: Campuses are rated exemplary or recognized because their performance met or exceeded the established accountability standard for exemplary or recognized ratings. PURPOSE: To report campus ratings. DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of campuses receiving the exemplary or recognized ratings in the statewide public school accountability system is divided by the total number of eligible campuses in the state. DATA LIMITATIONS: Eligible campuses include campuses designated “not rated,” but does not include the “not applicable” campuses, or those campuses with insufficient data to evaluate. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.1.18 Percent of Districts with Upgraded Ratings

DEFINITION: Percent of districts rated below academically acceptable in the prior year which improved their rating in the current year. PURPOSE: To report district improvement. DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The districts which earned a rating below academically acceptable in the prior year are identified. Among these, a count is made of the number which earned an improved rating in the current year. The number improved is divided by the number below academically acceptable in the prior year. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.1.19 Percent of Campuses with Upgraded Ratings

DEFINITION: Percent of campuses rated low-performing in the prior year which improved their rating in the current year. PURPOSE: To report campus improvement. DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of campuses in the current year, which earn an improved rating from the prior year, divided by the total number of campuses. DATA LIMITATIONS: Campuses which are no longer in operation are not included in considering improvement in the current year. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

77

2.1.20 Percent of Districts Rated Below Academically Acceptable DEFINITION: A district is rated below academically acceptable because its performance fell below academically acceptable in the statewide public school accountability standard for an academically acceptable or higher rating. PURPOSE: To report district ratings. DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of districts rated below academically acceptable in the statewide public school accountability system is divided by the total number of districts in the state eligible to receive a rating. DATA LIMITATIONS: Charter districts are not rated, so the number of charters is not included in the denominator when computing this percentage. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.

2.1.21 Percent of Campuses Rated Low-Performing

DEFINITION: Campuses are rated low-performing because their performance fell below the established accountability standard for an acceptable rating. PURPOSE: To report campus ratings. DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of campuses rated low-performing is divided by the total number of eligible campuses in the state. DATA LIMITATIONS: Eligible campuses include campuses designated “not rated,” but does not include the “not applicable” campuses, or those campuses with insufficient data to evaluate. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.

2.1.22 Percent of Charter Schools Rated Low-Performing

DEFINITION: Charter schools are rated low-performing because their performance fell below the established accountability standard for an acceptable rating. PURPOSE: To report performance for charter schools. DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of charter schools rated low-performing is divided by the total number of charter schools in the state. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.

2.1.23 Percent of Graduates Who Take the SAT or ACT

DEFINITION: The number of graduates taking the ACT and/or SAT will be reported as a percentage of all graduates, and is reported as required by TEC §39.051(b)(6). PURPOSE: To report the percent of graduates who take the ACT and/or SAT. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS and test data. PEIMS views accessed: DS.PEI.STU.DET.ATTEND (SAS copy of the attendance file), P.DEMOG_GRAD_DOB(yr-1), P.GRADUATE (yr-1), P.ENROLL_DEMOG(yr-1)F, and P.ATTEND_SPECID(yr-1). METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of graduates taking the ACT and/or SAT is divided by the total number of non-special education graduates. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually. Prior year data reported. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

78

2.1.24 Percent of Districts Rated as High-Risk in the Program Analysis System the Prior Year That Improve Their Rating in the Current Year DEFINITION: The Program Analysis System (PAS) was developed at the suggestion of the State Auditor's Office (SAO Report No. 99-555, June 1999) in order to enhance the agency's ability to detect serious noncompliance by subrecipients. PURPOSE: In addition to conducting cyclical District Effectiveness and Compliance (DEC) visits, the agency will use the PAS to evaluate annually each district's overall process and performance in serving special populations. Districts deemed to be at high risk of noncompliance or effectiveness will receive a DEC visit, in addition to those districts that receive a cyclical visit. DATA SOURCE: Data is primarily received via PEIMS submissions and TAKS datasets. Program areas also receive district-level data via paper submissions related to specific programs and grants. Data are received primarily via PEIMS and TAKS and are analyzed by staff in each program area. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Each program area has identified key indicators on which to evaluate districts. These indicators include measures of student performance and district processes. All districts in the state are evaluated on all indicators and are assigned a risk level ranging from zero (low risk) to four (high risk). Districts that perform at or below the state median or a specified performance level are assigned a risk level of zero. Districts are assigned risk levels of 1-4 depending on how far they are from the specified performance level in relation to all other districts. Indicator risk levels are aggregated to the program level and program risk levels are aggregated to the district level. Districts with high risk levels across multiple program areas will receive a DEC visit. The measure is calculated by comparing the number of districts in the current year which earn an improved rating from the prior year divided by the total number of districts deemed to be at risk. DATA LIMITATIONS: Some program data is date dependent and may reflect the state of the program two years prior to the visit. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.1.25 Percent of High School Graduates Needing Remediation

DEFINITION: Of the Texas public high school graduates who attempted the initial TASP/Alternative test or who were exempt from the test, the percent that failed any section of the initial TASP/Alternative test excluding those who were exempt. PURPOSE: This measure provides an indication of the students that graduate from the Texas Public Education system intending to attend college without demonstrating academic skills sufficient to attend college. These students will need to begin their college experience with developmental education courses. DATA SOURCE: Data are from the latest cohort (fall/spring/summer high school graduates) as reported annually by the institutions to the Texas Education Agency (PEIMS) and Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (CBM001 and CBM002) and compiled by the Educational Data Center. EDC provides the Center for College Readiness reports based on this data by matching the PEIMS graduates with the CBM002 to determine those students who required developmental education. METHOD OF CALCULATION: (1) Take the number of fall/spring/summer high school graduates (from PEIMS). (2) Of those students, determine the number exempt from the TASP/Alternative test. (3) Subtract #2 from #1 to determine the non-exempt students. (4) Of those students in #3, determine the number who took the initial TASP/Alternative test (from CBM002). (5) Of those students in #4, determine the number who did not pass all sections of the initial TASP/Alternative test. (6) Add #2 and #4 to determine students that tested or were exempt. (7) Divide #5 by #6 and express it as a percentage. DATA LIMITATIONS: Data are reported to TEA and the THECB by the institutions. The THECB does not have data on students who attend a private institution or an out-of-state institution. Some students defer testing for documented reasons. Data does not include non-exempt Texas public high school graduates who do not take the test.

79

CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: Yes. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target. Strategy 2.1.1 Assessment and Accountability System: The state’s assessment and

accountability systems will continue to provide a basis for evaluation and reporting the extent to which students, campuses, and districts achieve high standards.

OUTPUT MEASURES 2.1.1.1 Number of Campuses Rated Low-Performing for Two Out of the Three Most

Current Years DEFINITION: Number of campuses rated low-performing for two out of the three most current years. PURPOSE: To report campus improvement. DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The three most current years of ratings are analyzed to determine the number of campuses rated low-performing in any two of these three years. DATA LIMITATIONS: Data for this measure is available in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.

2.1.1.2 Number of Districts Rated Below Academically Acceptable for Two Out of the

Three Most Current Years DEFINITION: Number of districts rated below academically acceptable for two out of the three most current years. PURPOSE: To report district improvement. DATA SOURCE: Accountability system data. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The three most current years of ratings are analyzed to determine the number of districts rated below academically acceptable in any two of these three years. DATA LIMITATIONS: Data for this measure is available in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.

2.1.1.3 Number of Student Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) Tests

Administered DEFINITION: Student tests administered. PURPOSE: To report the number of subject area examinations taken. DATA SOURCE: Student-level datatapes. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of subject area examinations taken by students in the statewide assessment program. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually. CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

EXPLANATORY MEASURE 2.1.1.1 Percent of Underreported Students in the Leaver System

DEFINITION: Districts are required to account for all students enrolled during the year in Grades 7-12. Districts report that students have returned in the fall or left their districts.

80

Students for whom districts failed to account are "underreported." Percent of underreported records is percent not accounted for out of all students enrolled. PURPOSE: Policymakers and members of the public depend on district reporting of dropouts from Texas public schools. The accuracy of the dropout data provided to policy makers and members of the public depends on the quality of district reporting. Students not accounted for, or underreported student records, compromise the quality of dropout and leaver data available. Measuring and reporting percent of underreported records enables the agency to monitor and encourage improvements in data quality, and enables policymakers and members of the public to assess the quality of the information. DATA SOURCE: All data are submitted by school districts to the agency through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS). The following PEIMS views are accessed:P.DIST_ROSTER_DOB01, P.DEMOG_GRAD_DOB01, P.OVER_REPORT_GRAD01, P.OVER_REPORT_DROP01, P.DEMOG_EXIT_DOB01, P.OTHR_EXIT_OFFICL01, P.OVER_REPORT_EXIT01, P.OTHR_EXIT_RECVRD01, P.DISTRICT01, P.DISTRICT01F, P.DIST_ROSTER_DOB01, USERTEA.PEV.YR0001.DROP.DR0102N METHOD OF CALCULATION: The denominator is the sum across districts of cumulative totals of students enrolled in Grades 7-12 during the school year. Enrollment and leaver files are searched to determine students reported in each district. Students for whom no enrollment or leaver records are found are counted as underreported. The numerator is the sum across districts of counts of underreported students. The result is reported as a percentage. DATA LIMITATIONS: The method of calculation requires that student enrollment and attendance records submitted for a school year be matched to enrollment and leaver records submitted the following school year. In some cases, matches cannot be made because errors have been made in student identification fields. Students whose records are present in both years but fail to match will be included in the count of underreported students. Although these records do indicate flaws in data quality, they do not represent failures of districts to report on the whereabouts of students. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.

Objective 2.2 Effective School Environments: Support school environments that ensure educators

and students have the materials they need to succeed. OUTCOME MEASURES

2.2.1 Percent of Districts Rated as Mid-Technology Prepared or Above on the Texas Star Chart for Teaching and Learning with Technology DEFINITION: Percent of districts rated as mid-technology Prepared or above on the Texas Star Chart for teaching and learning with technology. PURPOSE: To assess district proficiency in the area of technology. DATA SOURCE: Texas Star Indicators database - the data from the online indicator survey is captured in a database at the agency. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Districts complete the online Texas Star Indicator survey that includes questions on teaching and learning, professional development, administration, and infrastructure. The tool then calculates the rating in each area and composite score. DATA LIMITATIONS: Self-reported data. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.2.2 Annual Drug Use and Violence Incident Rate on School Campuses, per One Hundred

Students DEFINITION: The rate of incidents of on-campus drug use and violence, per one hundred students, as reported by the districts to the agency.

81

PURPOSE: Districts receiving funds under NCLB, Title IV, Part A, Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program should be able to demonstrate a decrease in their incident rates. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS (425) records, Discipline Reasons 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 41. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of incidents reported statewide will be divided by the state's total enrollment, and that number will be divided by 100. DATA LIMITATIONS: Data is self-reported by school districts and may be over- or under-reported. Also, the PEIMS 425 Record in its current format may not give an exact count fro this measure, since some incidents of on-campus drug use or violence may not be covered by the codes listed above. The codes listed are as though a list as possible without including discipline incidents not concerning drug use or violence. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.

2.2.3 Percent of DAEPs Meeting All Accountability Standards

DEFINITION: Percent of Disciplinary Alternative Education Program Evaluated as Performance Accountability Acceptable based on a thorough review of all the DAEPs evaluated under TEC §37.008(m). PURPOSE: To report DAEPs meeting Accountability Standards. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS database and TAKS records. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Method of calculation will be determined. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.2.4 Percent of Incarcerated Students Who Complete the Level in Which They are Enrolled

DEFINITION: Percent of offenders who complete the current level of enrollment. PURPOSE: To assess student performance in adult education. DATA SOURCE: Windham student databases. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Computer searches database for offenders who have advanced to the next level, based on TABE scores, TASP eligibility, and passing the GED. DATA LIMITATIONS: Search methodology. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.2.5 Percent of Eligible Windham Inmates Served by a Windham Education Program in the Past

Five Years DEFINITION: To report the percent of eligible Windham inmates who have been served by a Windham education program during the past five years. PURPOSE: To assess educational opportunities available to Windham inmates. DATA SOURCE: Computer query of Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) database and Windham School District database. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The total number of offenders who receive Windham services within the past five years divided by the number of Windham eligible releases. Eligible offenders are those determined to have an educational need who are custody-eligible. DATA LIMITATIONS: Search methodology. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

82

Strategy 2.2.1 Instructional Materials: Provide students equitable access to instructional materials and technologies supporting the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills.

OUTPUT MEASURES 2.2.1.1 Number of Textbooks and Digital Content Purchased From Conforming Lists

DEFINITION: The number of textbooks and digital content on the conforming lists of adopted textbooks purchased for use in districts during a given school year. PURPOSE: To supply adopted textbooks and digital content to teachers and students in an equitable manner. DATA SOURCE: EMAT database. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Determined by calculating how many state-adopted textbooks from conforming lists are shipped to the districts and purchased for the districts by the state for use during the current school year. Purchase data is maintained in the EMAT database, and automated reports are generated. DATA LIMITATIONS: Self-reported data. CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.2.1.2 Number of Textbooks and Digital Content Purchased From Nonconforming Lists DEFINITION: The number of textbooks on the nonconforming lists of adopted textbooks purchased for use in districts during a given school year. PURPOSE: To supply adopted textbooks to teachers and students in an equitable manner. DATA SOURCE: EMAT database. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Determined by calculating how many state-adopted textbooks from nonconforming lists are shipped to the districts and purchased for the districts by the state for use during the current school year. Purchase data is maintained in the EMAT database, and automated reports are generated. DATA LIMITATIONS: Self-reported data. CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

EFFICIENCY MEASURE 2.2.1.1 Average Cost Per Textbook and Digital Content Purchased

DEFINITION: The total amount of funds used to purchase instructional materials for use during a given school year divided by the number of units of instructional materials purchased. PURPOSE: Relates to strategy of adopting and distributing instructional materials in an equitable manner. DATA SOURCE: EMAT database. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Determined by dividing the cost of purchasing the instructional materials for use during the current school year by the number of units purchased. Purchase data is maintained in the EMAT database, and automated reports are generated. DATA LIMITATIONS: Self-reported data. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.

83

Strategy 2.2.2 Educational Technology: Implement educational technologies that increase the effectiveness of student learning, instructional management, professional development, and administration.

OUTPUT MEASURE 2.2.2.1 Number of Students Receiving Course Credit Through Distance Learning

DEFINITION: Alternative delivery courses provided via telecommunications systems. Currently, satellite delivery such as T-STAR and TETN as well as newly developed district and regional videoconferencing networks, Internet online courses, and instructional TV. PURPOSE: To measure use of distance learning systems. DATA SOURCE: PEIMS data collection: Number of students where credits=”Y” and distance learning indicator is “Y.” PEIMS view: p.coursecomplete FY/Field:dst_learn. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Actual number of students receiving high school graduation credit for a course delivered by satellite and other distance learning technologies. The number of students is the number of students receiving high school graduation credit for a course delivered by satellite count, with an individual being counted for each course attended. DATA LIMITATIONS: Data is available at the end of the fiscal year. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

Strategy 2.2.3 Safe Schools: Reduce the number of criminal incidents on school campuses, enhance school safety, and ensure that students in the Texas Youth Commission and disciplinary and juvenile justice alternative education programs are provided the instructional and support services needed to graduate from high school with a world-class education.

OUTPUT MEASURE 2.2.3.1 Number of Students in Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs (DAEPs)

DEFINITION: This is the number of student referrals to a TEC §37.008 alternative education program (AEP). PURPOSE: Use of alternative education programs is an essential aspect of a safe schools strategy. DATA SOURCE: TEA's data; PEIMS 425 Report. METHOD OF CALCULATION: This measure counts referrals of students, and is a duplicated count of students referred in the prior school year. One student may be referred to a TEC §37.008 AEP more than once during the school year. DATA LIMITATIONS: Data is collected once a year by TEA. Data reported reflect referrals in the prior year. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.

Strategy 2.2.4 Child Nutrition Programs: Implement and support efficient state child

nutrition programs. OUTPUT MEASURES 2.2.4.1 Average Number of School Lunches Served Daily

DEFINITION: This measure is defined as average daily participation (ADP) in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). PURPOSE: To report the average number of students served by the school lunch program. DATA SOURCE: A monthly reimbursement claim form received from each school district participating in the NSLP. The relevant data are entered monthly into an agency

84

computer subsystem, which subsequently provides monthly reports, on request, which identify statewide NSLP participation (ADA, ADP, etc.). METHOD OF CALCULATION: This is calculated by dividing the total number of reimbursable school lunches served by the total number of days schools are operational in a given month. Individual monthly data are discrete; however, when two or more month's data are accumulated, moving averages result. Only the first three quarters of the fiscal year are used in determining annual performance since, for the most part, schools are not in operation during the summer (fourth quarter) and use of summer data skews annual data significantly. DATA LIMITATIONS: Estimated data is used until actual becomes available. Data is corrected each quarter to reflect actual. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.2.4.2 Average Number of School Breakfasts Served Daily DEFINITION: This measure is defined as Average Daily Participation (ADP) in the National School Breakfast Program (NSBP). PURPOSE: To report the average number of students served by the school breakfast program. DATA SOURCE: A monthly reimbursement claim form received from each school district participating in the NSBP. The relevant data are entered monthly into an agency computer subsystem, which subsequently provides monthly reports, on request, which identify statewide NSBP participation (ADA, ADP, etc.). METHOD OF CALCULATION: This measure is calculated by dividing the total number of reimbursable school breakfasts served by the total number of days schools are operational in a given month. Individual monthly data are discrete; however, when two or more month's data are accumulated, moving averages result. Only the first three quarters of the fiscal year are used in determining annual performance since, for the most part, schools are not in operation during the summer (fourth quarter) and use of summer data skews annual data significantly. DATA LIMITATIONS: Estimated data is used until actual becomes available. Data is corrected each quarter to reflect actual. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No.

DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

Strategy 2.2.5 Windham School System: Work with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to ensure that students have the basic education skills they need to contribute to their families, communities, and the world.

OUTPUT MEASURES 2.2.5.1 Number of Contact Hours Received by Inmates within the Windham School

District DEFINITION: The best 180 days of school attendance for each campus are summed to give the total number of contact hours for the year. PURPOSE: To identify the number of contact hours delivered in Windham ISD. DATA SOURCE: Windham attendance database. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The entries for eligible inmates in the official Windham attendance database are summed daily for each campus. DATA LIMITATIONS: Data source limited to period reported. CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

85

2.2.5.2 Number of Offenders Passing General Education Development (GED) Tests DEFINITION: The number of offenders passing the GED in a state fiscal year. PURPOSE: To assess the educational attainment of Windham inmates. DATA SOURCE: Windham School District GED database. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The GED database is searched; results are reported in the fourth quarter. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported once annually. CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

EFFICIENCY MEASURE 2.2.5.1 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.

Objective 2.3 Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Support: Recruit, retain, and support educators in school districts, charter schools, and the Texas Education Agency to ensure that all students in the Texas public education system graduate from high school with a world-class education.

OUTCOME MEASURES 2.3.1 Percent of High-Need Campuses that Receive a Master Reading Teacher Grant

DEFINITION: The number of high-need campuses that receive a master reading teacher grant. PURPOSE: To report the participation of high-need campuses in the program. DATA SOURCE: Applications from campuses that receive a master reading teacher grant. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Number of high-need campuses that receive at least one master reading teacher grant divided by the number of identified high-need campuses. DATA LIMITATIONS: The master reading teacher grant program is contingent on continued funding from the legislature. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.3.2 Percent of Teachers with Proper Certification

DEFINITION: Percent of teachers with proper certification for the grade level and subject being taught.

PURPOSE: This promotes a higher standard for teachers and improves the quality of education. It is also a requirement from the NCLB (No Child Left Behind) act. DATA SOURCE: There is a plan to map this information into the PEIMS system from SBEC by

2004. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Divide the total number of teachers with the proper certification by the total number of teachers. DATA LIMITATIONS: Ability of PEIMS to report the data from SBEC.

86

CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: Yes. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.3.3 Turnover Rate for Teachers

DEFINITION: Turnover rate for teachers in the State of Texas. PURPOSE: Teacher turnover can be viewed as one indicator of the relative health of the Texas Education System. Presumably, the lower the turnover rate, the more stability in the educational setting, a feature assumed to promote improved student performance. DATA SOURCE: The source is PEIMS, Fall Submission, for the two years used in the calculation. The turnover rate for teachers is published annually on the Academic Excellence Indicator Reports (AEIS). METHOD OF CALCULATION: Turnover rate for teachers is the total FTE count of teachers not employed in the district in the fall of the current year who were employed as teachers in the district in the fall of the previous year, divided by the total teacher FTE count for the fall of the previous year. Social security numbers of reported teachers are compared from the two semesters to develop this information. Staff members who remain employed in the district but not as teachers are counted as teacher turnover. At the state-level, this measure is the sum of all the district turnover FTE values divided by the sum of the district prior year teacher FTEs. That is, the state-level turnover rate is weighted average of the district turnover rates. The state value is a measure of average district turnover in Texas. DATA LIMITATIONS: The only data limitations are directly related to the accuracy of the data provided by the districts. It is an annual calculation only. This measure is published on the AEIS reports in the fall (usually late October) and represents information about the prior school year. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: Yes. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.

2.3.4 Percent of Teachers Participating in the Teacher Reading and Math Academies DEFINITION: Percent of eligible teachers participating in the student success initiative teacher reading and math academies. PURPOSE: To train teachers better who can help prepare children to read and understand mathematics. DAT A SOURCE: Number of eligible teachers listed in PEIMS data for the school year and the number of teachers who received training. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Divide the number of teachers trained by the number of teachers in PEIMS. DATA LIMITATIONS: PEIMS data accuracy. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.3.5 Percent of Grant Applications Processed within 60 Days

DEFINITION: Percent of formula and discretionary grant applications from school districts that are processed within a 60-day cycle. PURPOSE: The measure provides information as to whether TEA is processing formula and discretionary grants for schools in a timely manner. DATA SOURCE: All formula grant information will be tracked in a new Grant Application System that should be ready by September 2004. The discretionary grant information will be tracked in a Grant Tracking Log which should be ready for use by September 2003. METHOD OF CALCULATION: For discretionary grants, the date the grant was selected for funding is the beginning date and the date that the NOGA (Notice of Grant Award) is finalized will be used as the date completed. For formula grants, the date the grant is received at TEA is the beginning date and the date that the NOGA is finalized is the completed date. The total number of grants

87

that are completed in less than or equal to 60 days will be divided by the total number of grants processed for school districts. DATA LIMITATIONS: Implementing a tracking system. This measure only includes grant applications that are processed from school districts. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: Yes. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.3.6 Percent of School District Annual Textbook Orders Processed by May 31st

DEFINITION: This measure quantifies how well TEA has processed school district annual textbook orders by the end of the reporting period, May 31st. PURPOSE: This is significant because it “forecasts” the timeliness of requested textbook shipments to school districts. DATA SOURCE: The Educational Materials Procurement (EMAT) system. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Determined by dividing the total number of textbook orders processed by TEA on or before May 31st by the total number of public schools and open-enrollment charter school districts that have submitted their annual textbook orders by May 31st . DATA LIMITATIONS: The primary limitation would be any malfunction that occurs in the EMAT system hardware or software. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: Yes. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.3.7 TEA Turnover Rate

DEFINITION: The TEA annualized turnover rate compares the year-to-date separations (vacated positions) in a given quarter to the average headcount (filled positions) year-to-date. PURPOSE: The structure of TEA depends on a lower TEA turnover rate to provide more stability and quality of service to its customers including School Districts, ESCs, etc. DATA SOURCE: Month end data downloaded from USPS. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Each quarter, the year-to-date number of separations (vacated positions) is divided by the total average year-to-date number of filled positions at TEA. DATA LIMITATIONS: The average filled positions for each quarter vary slightly throughout the year. CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: Yes. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target. Strategy 2.3.1 Teaching Excellence and Support: Ensure educators have access to

quality training tied to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills; develop and implement professional development initiatives that encourage K-16 partnerships. Ensure that the regional education service centers facilitate effective instruction and efficient school operations by providing core services, technical assistance, and program support based on the needs and objectives of the school districts they serve.

OUTPUT MEASURES 2.3.1.1 Number of Training Hours Purchased with State Program Funds

DEFINITION: Total number of ESC training hours purchased with state program funds. PURPOSE: This will provide a picture of what the state funds are buying and promotes the importance of training hours for all types of educators. DATA SOURCE: ESCs will collect the data based on training classes provided and number of attendees. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Each training class that is funded with at least 50% state funds, either in their base or from other state funds passed through from TEA, will be used in the total calculation. Each class will be calculated by multiplying the total

88

number of attendees by the length of the class in hours (rounded to .5 hours) and then multiplied by the percent of state funds used for the training. DATA LIMITATIONS: Training must be paid with at least 50% state funds. CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: Yes. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.3.1.2 Number of Teachers Who Participate in Mathcounts Training

DEFINITION: The number of teachers who participate in mathcounts training. PURPOSE: To measure participation in the mathcounts training program. DATA SOURCE: Data provided by the Texas Engineering Foundation, sponsor of mathcounts program. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Count the number of teachers who participate in mathcounts training. DATA LIMITATIONS: Reported from Texas Engineering Foundation. CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.3.1.3 Number of Educators Receiving ESC-Based Training in Technology

DEFINITION: A count of the number of teachers, administrators, counselors, librarians, and teacher aides attending technology-related workshops and training sessions (this includes instructional technology and the use of data) that are conducted by the regional education service centers (ESCs). PURPOSE: To report the number of educators who participate in the training being provided by ESCs in the area of technology. DATA SOURCE: Regional ESCs. METHOD OF CALCULATION: This measure is the sum of the total number of educators attending technology-related workshops and training sessions (this includes instructional technology and the use of data) that are conducted by the ESCs. The number of educators is a duplicated count, with an individual being counted for each workshop and/or training session attended. DATA LIMITATIONS: Data collected and aggregated from 20 ESCs. CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.3.1.4 Number of Teachers Receiving Training in Dyslexia and Related Disorders

Services DEFINITION: The number of teachers receiving dyslexia and related disorders training by regional ESC staff. The teachers will be trained during the school year and summer institute. PURPOSE: To measure training in dyslexia services. DATA SOURCE: Information will be collected and reported to TEA by the Region ESC dyslexia contacts in their quarterly reports. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Number of teachers trained in dyslexia training sessions and summer workshops will be collected by Region X ESC and combined with the number of teachers trained in the Texas Reading Academies. The total is reported to TEA. DATA LIMITATIONS: None. CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

89

Strategy 2.3.2 Scientific Research - Best Practices: Ensure that Texas public education policy and programs are supported by world-class scientific research.

Strategy 2.3.3 Agency Operations: Develop and implement efficient and effective

business processes and operations that support the state’s goals for public education and ensure all Texas students graduate from high school with a world-class education.

OUTPUT MEASURES 2.3.3.1 Number of Campuses Investigated for Exemption Rates

DEFINITION: Schools are allowed to exempt special education or LEP students from the state assessment by action of the local Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) Committee or the Language Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC). PURPOSE: The Special Data Inquiry Unit in the Division of School Governance, Equal Educational Opportunity, and Complaints Management investigates instances when excessive numbers of allowable exemptions or excessive numbers of absences of students eligible to be tested are determined. DATA SOURCE: The core data used in this performance is not based upon a PEIMS view, but rather a series of grade-level SAS TAKS ([email protected](yr-1).taks.sas.stu.g_.dsk.au(yr-1) datasets. This assessment data is then compared to data reported in P.ATTEND_SPECED(yr) (special education data), P.ATTEND_Biling(yr) (bilingual education data), P.ATTEND_STUDENT(YR) (attendance data), P.DEMOG(yr) (student id, ethnicity, economic disadvantaged status), and P.DISTRICT and P.CAMPUS are used to provide district and campus information (district name, campus name, regions). METHOD OF CALCULATION: Campuses are identified for review when (1) the number of ARD exemptions exceeds the number of students enrolled in special education by 20%, (2) the number of LEP exemptions exceeds the number of students enrolled in bilingual/ESL programs by 20%, (3) the ratio of students absent during the state assessment compared to the average daily absence rate exceeds 120%, or (4) the ratio of documents coded with an "other" score code compared to the total number of documents exceeds the calculated coefficient of significance (mean value plus 2 standard deviations). Small numbers of students tested are considered in the analysis formulas for exemptions and absences. DATA LIMITATIONS: Data for the measure is available in the fourth quarter. CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.

2.3.3.2 Number of Complaint Investigations Conducted DEFINITION: Review allegations and conduct appropriate intervention activities and/or referrals on complaints. Report the number of closed complaints which are a result of appropriate intervention activities. PURPOSE: To report the reviews of complaints and the closure of these complaints. DATA SOURCE: Closure letters on file in the Division of School Governance, Equal Educational Opportunity, and Complaints Management. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Intervention activities related to complaints include telephone intervention, capacity building workshops, desk audits, and onsite investigations. This measure is the count of closed complaints indicated by closure letters written in response to formal written complaints and/or allegations. DATA LIMITATIONS: None. CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.

90

2.3.3.3 Amount of Available School Fund Income (Millions) DEFINITION: Income earned by the investment of the PSF. PURPOSE: To determine the available school fund income. DATA SOURCE: CAMRA system. METHOD OF CALCULATION: All income received by the PSF is recorded into the CAMRA system and in USAS. DATA LIMITATIONS: Movement of stock market. CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.3.3.4 Number of Certificates of High School Equivalency (GED) Issued

DEFINITION: The GED Unit issues certificates of high school equivalency to students who successfully complete the GED tests. Issuance of certificates is automated and will be reported on a quarterly basis. PURPOSE: To report the number of certificates issued by the GED Unit. DATA SOURCE: Mainframe. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Data will come from mainframe records. DATA LIMITATIONS: Self-reported. CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: No.

DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target. 2.3.3.5 Number of Special Education Campuses and Programs Receiving Onsite

Monitoring Visits DEFINITION: SB 1, Chapter 29, Educational Programs, calls for onsite monitoring of special programs on a scheduled basis. Evaluations include onsite visits to campuses that provide special education services. This count is the number of onsite visits of LEA programs that provide special education services. PURPOSE: The focus of the visits is twofold: (1) the quality of programs serving students with special needs and (2) the extent to which programs comply with state/federal rules and regulations. DATA SOURCE: Master schedule of the Division of Accountability Evaluations. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of LEAs receiving onsite monitoring visits that provide special education programs to qualifying students with disabilities, including approved, non-public, and residential care facilities. DATA LIMITATIONS: Only the initial visit will be counted, i.e., if an LEA is revisited for follow up, the follow-up visit will not be counted. CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.3.3.6 Number of Bilingual Education Campuses and Programs Receiving Onsite

Monitoring Visits DEFINITION: SB 1, Chapter 29, Educational Programs, calls for onsite monitoring of special programs on a scheduled basis. Evaluations include onsite visits to campuses that provide bilingual education and special language program services. This count is the number of onsite visits to LEA programs that provide such education services. PURPOSE: The focus of the visits is twofold: (1) the quality of programs serving students with limited English-proficiency and (2) the extent to which programs comply with state and federal rules and regulations. DATA SOURCE: Master schedule of the Division of Accountability Evaluations. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number of LEAs receiving onsite monitoring visits that provide ESL and bilingual education programs to qualifying students with limited English-proficiency.

91

DATA LIMITATIONS: Only the initial visit will be counted, i.e., if an LEA is revisited for follow-up, the follow-up visit will not be counted. CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.3.3.7 Number of School Practitioners Recruited and Trained Through the Texas

School Improvement Initiative (TSII) DEFINITION: Participants trained in the Texas School Improvement Initiative (TSII) project in the peer onsite review process used for campus intervention teams required under TEC §39.131. PURPOSE: School practitioners trained through the TSII assist in the campus intervention teams which assist campuses in meeting their campus performance objectives. DATA SOURCE: Active membership database maintained by the Division of Accountability Development and Support. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Using records of TSII training maintained by the Division of Accountability Development and Support, the number of participants is determined. Since ESC staff, other TEA staff, and some college and university faculty utilize the TSII training materials to assist school personnel in improvement efforts, the TSII training participants include representatives of these groups in addition to the primary participants, which include district and campus professional educators. In addition, professional educators representing alternative campuses will be trained as peer reviewers for evaluating alternative campuses registered with the alternative accountability system that fail to meet their approved targeted campus performance objectives. DATA LIMITATIONS: Database maintained in division. CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.3.3.8 Number of Governance Special Investigations Conducted

DEFINITION: The Division of School Governance, Equal Educational Opportunity, and Complaints Management conducts investigations in districts where alleged violations related to assessment issues, civil rights, financial audits, and other legal provisions and statutes are reported. PURPOSE: To measure agency efforts to respond to complaints. DATA SOURCE: Records are kept in the Division of School Governance, Equal Educational Opportunity, and Complaints Management. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The number reported reflects the number of districts in which investigations are conducted by the Division of School Governance, Equal Educational Opportunity, and Complaints Management staff. The number does not indicate the extent, complexity, or result of the investigation. DATA LIMITATIONS: None. CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.

EFFICIENCY MEASURES 2.3.3.1 Average Cost of Accreditation Onsite Review

DEFINITION: Onsite peer review visits are conducted at academically unacceptable districts and low-performing campuses based on the performance analysis of the academic excellence indicators. PURPOSE: To determine the average cost of accreditation onsite reviews. DATA SOURCE: Monthly budget reports and travel reports.

92

METHOD OF CALCULATION: The total budget for the Division of Accountability and School Accreditation, adjusted for cost of accreditation visits, is divided by the number of accreditation visits conducted to academically unacceptable districts and low-performing campuses. The method of calculation that is used to determine the average cost is as follows: (A) Division 415 Salaries + Benefits = (X) multiplied by the time and effort reported and related to accreditation visits that include low-performing and need peer review; (B) Actual travel costs of staff members that were assigned to the visits each quarter; (C) Operating costs will be calculated from the percent of accreditation visits that occur in each quarter; and (D) CALCULATION: (A) + (B)_+ (C) = Total costs per quarter divided by the number of visits to determine the average cost, so related to the measure. DATA LIMITATIONS: This amount includes data retrieval data retrieval, manipulation, in-house preparation, report writing, post-visit negotiations and appeals, ESC visits, and visits due to required sanctions and/or interventions. It does not consider the differences in cost due to the size of the district or length of the visit, the distance or the length of the visit, the distance from the office, and many other significant variables. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.

2.3.3.2 Internal Active PSF Managers: Performance in Excess of Assigned Benchmark

DEFINITION: By employing active portfolio management strategies, the Investments Division of the TEA is expected to produce returns over a complete investment cycle that are in excess of the benchmark assigned by the State Board of Education as set forth in the Permanent School Fund Investment Procedures Manual. PURPOSE: To serve as a measure of value added by internal investment managers for the Permanent School Fund. DATA SOURCE: The source/collection of data will be performance reports provided by the performance measurement consultant to the Permanent School Fund and the Permanent School Fund Investment Procedures Manual as adopted by the State Board of Education. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The method of calculation is to compare the composite returns of internal managers to their respective assigned benchmarks as reported by the performance measurement consultant. DATA LIMITATIONS: None. CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: Yes. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.3.3.3 Internal Passive PSF Managers: Performance Equal to Benchmark Index

DEFINITION: By employing passive portfolio management strategies, the Investments Division of the TEA is expected to produce returns over a complete investment cycle that are equal to the benchmark assigned by the State Board of Education as set forth in the Permanent School Fund Investment Procedures Manual. PURPOSE: To serve as a measure of value added by internal investment managers for the Permanent School Fund. DATA SOURCE: The source/collection of data will be performance reports provided by the performance measurement consultant to the Permanent School Fund and the Permanent School Fund Investment Procedures Manual as adopted by the State Board of Education. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The method of calculation is to compare the composite returns of internal managers to their respective assigned benchmarks as reported by the performance measurement consultant. DATA LIMITATIONS: None.

93

CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: Yes. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.3.3.4 External Active Managers: Performance in Excess of Assigned Benchmark Net of

Management Fees DEFINITION: By employing active portfolio management strategies, external investment managers are expected to produce returns, net of management fees, over a complete investment cycle that are in excess of the benchmark assigned by the State Board of Education as set forth in the Permanent School Fund Investment Procedures Manual. PURPOSE: To serve as a measure of value added by external investment managers for the Permanent School Fund. DATA SOURCE: The source/collection of data will be performance reports provided by the performance measurement consultant to the Permanent School Fund and the Permanent School Fund Investment Procedures Manual as adopted by the State Board of Education. METHOD OF CALCULATION: The method of calculation is to compare the composite returns of external managers to their respective assigned benchmarks as reported by the performance measurement consultant. DATA LIMITATIONS: None. CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: Yes. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

EXPLANATORY MEASURES 2.3.3.1 Average Percent Equity Holdings in the PSF

DEFINITION: This item is the market value of the PSF equity holdings expressed as a percentage of the total market value of the PSF. PURPOSE: To assess the equity holdings in the PSF. DATA SOURCE: CAMRA system. METHOD OF CALCULATION: This item is calculated by pricing all of the holdings on the PSF and determining the market value of each asset category and then expressing each category's value as a percent of the total market value. DATA LIMITATIONS: None. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

2.3.3.2 Percent of PSF Portfolio Managed by External Managers DEFINITION: This item is the market value of all PSF holdings managed by external money managers expressed as a percentage of the total market value of the PSF. PURPOSE: External management is guided by an investment plan developed and approved by the SBOE. DATA SOURCE: CAMRA system. METHOD OF CALCULATION: This item is determined by pricing all of the holdings in the PSF and determining the market value of each portfolio managed by external managers and then expressing that value as a percentage of the total market value of the PSF. DATA LIMITATIONS: None. CALCULATION TYPE: Noncumulative. NEW MEASURE: No.

DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Lower than target.

94

Strategy 2.3.4 Central Administration: The Commissioner of Education shall serve as the educational leader of the state.

Strategy 2.3.5 Information Systems - Technology: The Texas Education Agency will

purchase, develop, and implement information systems that support students, educators, and stakeholders.

OUTPUT MEASURE 2.3.5.1 Number of Times Texas Education Agency Data Marts are Accessed

DEFINITION: This measure counts the number of visits to agency websites providing data mart products. PURPOSE: To measure use of agency data marts. DATA SOURCE: Identified websites and selections. METHOD OF CALCULATION: Monthly count from an automated monitoring tool. DATA LIMITATIONS: Webserver count. CALCULATION TYPE: Cumulative. NEW MEASURE: No. DESIRED PERFORMANCE: Higher than target.

95

TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY Workforce Plan FY 2003-2007

I. CURRENT WORKFORCE PROFILE (SUPPLY ANALYSIS)

A. Critical Workforce Skills

TEA oversees the public school districts and charter schools in Texas. The following skills are critical to perform the agency’s business functions:

Program Implementation and Evaluation Financial Teamwork/Communication Technical Literacy and Systems Analysis Policy Planning/Research Change Management

The agency implemented a Workforce Balanced Scorecard in 2001 to build agency capacity for achieving public education goals and objectives and ensure that workforce issues were being addressed strategically, at the highest levels of the organization. As part of that Workforce Balanced Scorecard, the agency has identified several strategic positions in high turnover areas. They are identified as Information Technology positions and positions requiring travel 1/3 or more of the business days for 10-12 months. Strategic positions can also include other classified positions deemed necessary to the operations of the agency as approved. The agency also tracked such critical strategic indicators as the number of exceptional candidates placed in the pool of potential employees, turnover rate, succession planning, dispersal of merit increases, and time to hire in the Workforce Balanced Scorecard. The scorecard strategy map is shown below.

96

B. Workforce Demographics

The following charts illustrate the agency’s full-time and part-time workforce as of May 1, 2002. TEA’s workforce is comprised of 66% females and 34% males out of a workforce of 853 employees. A great percentage of the workforce consists of former teachers, who are predominantly female. In the 2000-2001 school year, 77.3% of the state’s teachers were female.

Gender

Male 34%

Female 66%

The agency’s racial and ethnic distribution consists of 63.7 % White; 21.2% Hispanic; 10.8% Black and 4.3% Other. Whereas, the state’s workforce profile reflects 55.8% White; 25.6% Hispanic; 14.3% Black; and 4.3% Other.

Ethnicity

Black, 11%

Hispanic, 21%

Other, 4%

White, 64%

97

Seventy-two percent of the agency’s workforce is over the age of 40. Many of the agency’s education-related professional positions require several years of public school education experience, which is a contributing factor to having an older workforce. In addition, in certain strategic positions, the agency seeks out administrators who have retired from the public school system.

Age

50 - 5934%

40 - 4932%

30 - 3922%

16 - 296%

60 & older6%

C. Employee Turnover

The agency’s turnover rate has been less than the State’s overall turnover rate for the last four years. In FY 1997, TEA had a significantly high turnover because of the Legislature’s mandate to separate the State Board of Educator Certification (SBEC) from TEA effective August 1997. Forty-nine employees transferred to SBEC.

Turnover

16.54%

19.74%

16.70%15.36% 16.35%

17.37%

14.27%

17.58%18.93%

17.60%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

TEA State

98

The agency provides various incentive/retention programs to help entice longer tenure. These programs include the pay-for-performance merit system; one-time merits; enhanced compensation programs; retention bonus program; tuition reimbursement program; employee service awards; telecommuting/satellite workers; compressed work hours; in-house staff development training; and an employee assistance program. The agency’s Quality Workplace Committee, made up of administrative to mid-level professional staff, is instrumental in assisting the agency in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of employees and the workplace so that employees are enabled to fulfill the mission of the agency. This committee responds to employee concerns regarding workplace issues or problems and recommends solutions.

State employees, as a whole, are now finding more stability in their positions; therefore, the turnover rate has remained fairly low throughout this fiscal year and should continue until the end of the fiscal year. As of May 1, 2002, the annualized turnover rate is 5%. This low turnover rate is due primarily to the economy and the fact that so many hi-tech firms have experienced lay-offs. In years past, the agency experienced high turnover in the information technology area. The agency has also retained 85% of employees who were hired in fiscal year 2001. As the economy improves, the Agency could experience an increase in turnover. TEA provides many retention programs/benefits to encourage longer tenure.

Over 50% of the agency’s workforce has been employed with the agency for less than 5 years; 17% of the workforce has been employed up to 9 years and 22% of our employees have been employed from 10 to 20 years.

Agency Tenure

Less than 5 years51%

5 - 9 years 17%

10 - 20 years22%

More than 30 years2%

20 - 30 years8%

99

Within the next five years, approximately 23% of the agency’s workforce is eligible to retire, which will significantly impact the amount of agency knowledge that will be lost. With the anticipated loss of knowledge and expertise, the agency will cross-train and develop succession plans to bridge the gap to ensure continuity.

Retirement Eligibility

50

4035

41

27

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07

Fiscal Year

Perc

ent E

ligib

le

II. FUTURE WORKFORCE PROFILE (DEMAND ANALYSIS)

A. Critical Functions Program implementation and evaluation, teamwork/communication, policy planning/research, financial, technical literacy/systems analysis, and change management will continue to play a strategic role in the operation of the agency. Due to the number of employees eligible to retire and an improving economy, the agency anticipates an increase in the attrition rate. As part of our Balanced Workforce Scorecard, we will focus on recruiting exceptional candidates to fill strategic positions. Many of these exceptional candidates will come from the school districts as former teachers and administrators. These candidates will have the skill sets needed to fulfill the years and experience levels required to perform these critical functions.

B. Expected Workforce Changes

The agency will continue to maximize technology for increased efficiencies.

C. Anticipated Increase/Decrease in Number of Employees Needed to do the Work

No increase in FTEs is anticipated. Further reduction in FTEs would affect the agency’s ability to perform core functions. Contract help may be needed to accomplish our mission if required to reduce FTEs.

D. Future Workforce Skills Needed

To effectively accomplish the agency’s mission and goals, program implementation and evaluation, teamwork/communication, policy planning/research, financial, technical literacy/systems analysis, and change management competencies will be required.

100

III. GAP ANALYSIS

The agency does not anticipate a shortage of workers; however, there could be some challenges in recruiting exceptional candidates due to budgetary constraints. This could pose problems in hiring key management positions. Retention programs and a statewide examination of the creative use of benefits to offset relatively low salaries will be critical to ensuring the capacity, quality, and knowledge of employees in the agency and in the state workforce as a whole.

In addition, workforce skills will need to keep pace with evolving technology. The use of technology may eliminate the need for data entry positions. Many functions have been outsourced when cost-effective. State policy should examine alternatives that facilitate outsourcing while keeping agencies accountable for FTE caps.

IV. STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT

TEA’s Human Resources Division's mission is to provide good quality customer service to our internal and external customers; to recruit qualified applicants; and to retain a capable and committed workforce that is strategically focused to manage, monitor, and improve the Texas public education system's capacity for excellence. We will continue to focus on the following programs in an effort to build and maintain an exceptional workforce:

Retention Program Recruitment Plans Career Development Program Succession Planning Leadership Development Organizational training and employee development

101

Survey of Organizational Excellence The Texas Education Agency participates in the Survey of Organizational Excellence (SOE) conducted by the University of Texas School of Social Work. Positive gains have been observed in the majority of the construct scores over time. Eighteen of the 20 survey construct scores significantly increased from the 2000 scores. The 2002 results demonstrate that, overall, employees believe the Texas Education Agency continues to improve its organizational processes and quality of the workplace environment. The SOE construct score results are listed below.

Construct 2002 Score (Rank)

Score Difference2002 vs. 2000

2000 Score(Rank)

1998 Score (Rank)

1996 Score(Rank)

Quality 406 (1) +37 369 (2) 359 (3) 320 (3)

Strategic Orientation 391 (2) -4 395 (1) 396 (1) 355 (2)

External Communication 384 (3) +15 369 (3) 353 (4) 311 (4)

Employment Development 384 (4) +38 346 (6) 331 (5) 302 (5)

Benefits 380 (5) +21 359 (4) 371 (2) 363 (1)

Physical Environment 380 (6) +30 350 (5) 324 (7) 279 (8)

Burnout 377 (7) +54 323 (10) 307 (12) 256 (15)

Job Satisfaction 376 (8) +41 335 (8) 312 (9) 265 (11)

Availability of Information 375 (9) +62 313 (14) 298 (14) 259 (13)

Time & Stress Management 374 (10) +41 333 (9) 323 (8) 292 (6)

Goal Oriented 371 (11) +35 336 (7) 325 (6) 278 (9)

Diversity 367 (12) +47 320 (12) 311 (10) 282 (7)

Fairness 366 (13) +77 289 (18) 274 (20) 244 (18)

Empowerment 364 (14) +71 293 (17) 278 (18) 234 (19)

Holographic 359 (15) +47 312 (15) 295 (15) 253 (16)

Change Oriented 354 (16) +33 321 (11) 310 (11) 265 (12)

Team Effectiveness 352 (17) +38 314 (13) 304 (13) 257 (14)

Supervisor Effectiveness 348 (18) +60 288 (19) 277 (19) 234 (20)

Internal Communication 334 (19) +22 312 (16) 290 (17) 247 (17)

Fair Pay 262 (20) -12 274 (20) 291 (16) 276 (10) A score of 300 marks a threshold for employee perception. Scores above 300 indicate that employee perception of an issue is positive. Quality, Strategic Orientation, External Communication, Employment Development and Benefits have been consistently ranked highest by employees. TEA’s scores for Quality, Strategic Orientation, External Communication, Employment Development, Physical Environment, Burnout, Job Satisfaction, Availability of Information, Time and Stress Management, Goal Oriented, Diversity, Fairness, Holographic, Change Oriented, Team Effectiveness, Supervisor Effectiveness and Internal Communication ranked higher than all comparative benchmark data scores. The benchmarks are Statewide Average, FTE (organizations with 310-1,000 FTEs), Mission (organizations with educational missions), and SACC (State Agency Coordinating Council). Staff Development works in coordination with agency leadership to address issues associated with low scoring constructs. Open dialog with agency leadership and employees (to include the agency’s Quality Workplace Committee), and the use of follow-up surveys and agency focus groups are strategies that have proven effective in identifying and resolving construct issues.

102

Information Resources Strategic Plan

1. TEA IR Goals, Objectives and Strategies

Item Description IR Goal 1 Access to Education Information: Make agency data and information available to those who need it

for use in policy analysis, research and decision-making, whether they be educators, parents, legislators, superintendents, board members, or agency staff.

TEA Strategic

Plan

TEA IR Goal 1 supports TEA Strategic Plan Goal 2 (Operational Excellence); TEA Objective 2.2. (Effective School Environments); TEA Strategy 2.2.1. (Instructional Materials); TEA Strategy 2.2.2. (Educational Technology); TEA Objective 2.3. (Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Support); TEA Strategy 2.3.3. (Agency Operations); and TEA Strategy 2.3.5. (Information Systems-Technology).

State Strategic

Plan

TEA IR Goal 1 primarily supports Goal 4 in the State Strategic Information Resources Plan, Transforming Government Through Information Resources Management and related statewide objectives and outcomes.

IR Objectives

• Ensure equity of access to information and educational content. • Develop and maintain an effective information management system (architecture, policy,

and process) which supports sharing and integration of data and improves administrative efficiency.

• Provide easy access to understandable data and information in ways that support decision-making and enhance the quality of decisions made.

• Provide an integrated statewide library resource sharing system, through which educators and students can identify, access, and retrieve resources held in libraries across the state and which facilitates effective library administration and the development of local library collections.

• Provide awareness of and electronic resources for the implementation of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), including the integration of technology applications across the curriculum.

• Research and pilot alternate delivery systems for instructional materials to update, supplement, and/or replace hardcopy textbooks.

• Provide training and support to agency staff, ESCs, and district staff to maximize TEA’s investment in technology.

• Understand and align with Texas IT policies, rules, standards, and guidelines. • Understand and align with IT industry trends and standards. Participate in and support Texas e-

government initiatives. IR

Strategies The Pre-Kindergarten - 16 Student/Staff Public Education Integrated Data Resource (P16 PEIDR) provides a strategy for implementing TEA’s Long-Range Plan for Technology, 1996-2010. TEA provides leadership and support in the use of technology through a wide variety of technology initiatives that give Texas students, parents, teachers, administrators, legislators, and business leaders access to the tools, products, and information they need to make decisions, to educate, to plan, and to learn. The P16 PEIDR project supports IR Goal 1 by collaborating with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and State Board for Educator Certification with access to Pre-kindergarten - 16 student, staff, and financial integrated Texas public education data. Following are specific strategies that support IR Goal 1: • Develop a customer interface that is simple to learn and use and that is customized to the needs

of various customer groups. • Adopt policies that ensure consistent information management across TEA. • IMPROVE INTEGRATION OF DATA, FILES, PRODUCTS, SERVICES, AND SYSTEMS. • Solicit input from customers (Steering Committees and Focus Groups, Educational

Technology Advisory Committee, ESC Technology Task Force, ESC/TEA Technology Planning Group, Texas Library Connection Focus Groups, T-STAR Advisory Group, T-

Item Description

103

STAR Digital Task Force, TETN Infrastructure Planning Group, TETN Content and Services Planning Group, and Technology Applications TEKS Center for Educator Development Focus Groups).

• Continue to implement projects that improve customer service. • Develop data repositories that integrate major agency data sources, as well as additional

data from external data sources to enhance longitudinal and comparative analysis and decision-making.

• Develop effective partnerships with sister agencies such as the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, State Board for Educator Certification, etc., to enhance the P16 PEIDR.

• Participate in the state portal to the maximum extent possible. • Provide capabilities and tools for faster, easier agency and public data access. • Provide technology training for TEA staff. • Develop and maintain electronic records management policies and procedures. • Improve the utility of the agency website, including development of an agency portal and

an agency intranet. TEA

Programs Supported

All TEA programs are supported by TEA IR Goal 1.

IR Goal 2 Business to Business Applications: Provide business to business (B2B) applications which support both internal agency operations and business transactions (including data collections) between and among the agency and school districts, ESCs, and other business partners.

TEA Strategic

Plan

TEA IR Goal 1 supports TEA Strategic Plan Goal 2 (Operational Excellence); TEA Objective 2.2. (Effective School Environments); TEA Strategy 2.2.1. (Instructional Materials); TEA Strategy 2.2.2. (Educational Technology); TEA Objective 2.3. (Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Support); TEA Strategy 2.3.3. (Agency Operations); and TEA Strategy 2.3.5. (Information Systems - Technology).

State Strategic

Plan

TEA IR Goal 2 primarily supports Goal 1 in the State Strategic Information Resources Plan, Transforming Government Through Information Resources Management and related statewide objectives and outcomes.

IR Objectives

• Improve data quality, collection, consistency, and accuracy. • Deliver products that are more timely to the creation of the data and kept current with the latest

information. • Develop and enhance applications that serve business needs, support information

requirements, and customer productivity. • Ensure that business priorities drive IS priorities and funding. • Give guidance on applying appropriate technology to the business and adopt horizon.

IR Strategies

• Support and enhance the work of internal Information Systems oversight and advisory groups (such as, Information Planning Committee, TEA Data Advisory Council, Policy Committee on Public Education Information, and the Technology Standards Committee).

• Develop business applications that utilize web capabilities to develop web-enabled forms/systems for business transactions.

• Migrate current non-browser accessible applications to be browser or web accessible. • Provide leadership to implement effective information management practices. • Use and enhance the Enterprise Data Model. • Migrate to new computing platforms as required to meet customer needs. • Improve PEIMS and other collection systems. • Continue to work with partners (school districts, ESCs, etc.) to identify and develop tools

and techniques to improve data quality and increase public trust. TEA

Programs Supported


IR Goal 3 Infrastructure: Build the technology infrastructure within the agency and the broad public education system to support information access, content delivery, business applications, and distance learning, as well as to improve internal staff productivity.

Item Description

104

TEA Strategic

Plan

TEA IR Goal 1 supports TEA Strategic Plan Goal 2 (Operational Excellence); TEA Objective 2.2. (Effective School Environments); TEA Strategy 2.2.1. (Instructional Materials); TEA Strategy 2.2.2. (Educational Technology); TEA Objective 2.3. (Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Support); TEA Strategy 2.3.3. (Agency Operations); and TEA Strategy 2.3.5. (Information Systems - Technology).

State Strategic

Plan

TEA IR Goal 3 primarily supports Goals 2 and 3 in the State Strategic Information Resources Plan, Transforming Government Through Information Resources Management and related statewide objectives and outcomes.

IR Objectives

• Maintain and enhance the physical infrastructure and processing capacity to support customer business requirements.

• Provide leadership on issues related to efficient use of information resources. • Provide the software tools necessary to enhance individual and group performance. • Provide an effective technical training program. • Maintain and enhance the security of private and confidential data. • Define, plan, and maintain technology architecture for TEA. • Assure that all IT projects align with TEA architecture.

IR Strategies

The P16 PEIDR calls for the use of the Internet, Texas Education Telecommunications Network, Education Service Centers’ regional networks, and T-STAR. These four areas form the building blocks of an integrated telecommunications services network designed to support the interactive exchange of data and information throughout the Texas K-12 public school community. The P16 PEIDR includes projects that will provide an infrastructure that enables public education stakeholders to readily access and use public education information for analysis, planning, and decision-making. The initiative embodies the design, implementation, operation, and maintenance of an integrated telecommunications network that is defined by constantly evolving content and services. Following are specific strategies that support IR Goal 3: • Facilitate the creation of a technology infrastructure that reaches to the classroom and an

information architecture that merges both instructional and administrative content. • Maximize advantages of WTDROC facilities. • Form partnerships with other agencies to explore joint or coordinated grant opportunities. • Develop and maintain an effective information resources technical architecture. • Ensure adequate processing and network capacity across all platforms from the desktop to

the mainframe. • Develop and maintain processes that support continued improvements in the

infrastructure. • Enhance staff capabilities through improved recruitment, retention, and staff development

activities. • Use outsourcing to effectively support the agency infrastructure. • Maintain an effective technology refresh system. • Maintain and test effective disaster recovery plans and business resumption plans for the

infrastructure that is provided and supported by Information Systems. • Prepare for telecommuting.

TEA Programs Supported


105

2. TEA Major Applications Application Name AskTED Application Description Agency-wide repository of organization data and relationships of

organizations and people as represented in the enterprise model. The application provides for maintenance and viewing of organization data. Organizations can be related to persons and/or roles or other organizations. Examples include Shared Service Arrangements or Education Service Centers and School Districts. Directory and mailing label information is presented on a Web page for printing. Mailing label information can also be downloaded to PC files. There are extensive reports that are available under the Quick Reports option.

Database Type Sybase Development Language Perl, Java Sharing Department of Protective and Regulatory Services and Department

of Health. Campus data via data files is Ee-mailed to them. Future Planning on rewriting database. Application Name Child Nutrition Integrated Management System (CNP-IMS) Application Description CNP-IMS processes $55 million per month in school food service

claims at over 1,000 school districts via an online system. The system also provides reliable tracking of claim adjustments to meet state and federal requirements.

Database Type Sybase Development Language APT, SQR, NetDynamics, JCL Sharing N/A Future Internet redevelopment effort. New Summer feeding program

added recently. Application Name Educational Materials (EMAT) Application Description Supports the adoption and acquisition of educational materials

(textbooks. workbooks, etc.) for school districts. . Monitors the distribution of materials and creates transaction vouchers to pay vendors.

Database Type Sybase Development Language Java Sharing N/A Future N/A Application Name Charter Schools Tracking System (CHT) Application Description Contains detailed information on Open Enrollment charter Charter

Schools including status, contacts and terms of charter authorized by the State Board of Education (SBOE).

Database Type MS SQL Server Development Language ASP Sharing N/A Future N/A

106

Application Name Foundation School Program (FSP) Application Description A financial system that computes the allocation of state funds to be

distributed to the districts and tracks the payments. Database Type VSAM Development Language COBOL, GES Sharing N/A Future Redesign/rewrite scheduled for production by August 31, 2002. Application Name WEB SAS (IFM) Application Description Standard Application System for submitting applications for

applications for grant funds and managing shared services arrangements.

Database Type MS SQL Server Development Language ASP, VB Script, Java Script Sharing Might possibly be shared with other state agencies in the future. Future Incorporate as part of eSAS initiative scheduled for production in

2004. Application Name Integrated Statewide Administrative System (ISAS) Application Description ISAS facilitates timely, accurate, and usable information to reflect

the financial and fiscal operation of the aAgency and to apply controls in accordance with the Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures (GAAP) and applicable state and federal laws and regulations. This system also satisfies the acquisition and tracking of goods (procurement component) and services for the aAgency consistent with appropriate laws, rules, and regulations from planning stage to disposal in an efficient and effective manner while interfacing and integrating with other appropriate resource systems. ISAS replaced the Financial Management System (FMS).

Database Type Sybase Development Language COBOL, PeopleSoft, SQR Sharing N/A Future Upgrade planned for PeopleSoft 8.4 by 8/1/2003 Application Name FR Loader (FRL) Application Description Provides technical interface from USPS to the Financial Resource

Management FoxPro applications Database Type X-base, Sybase Development Language FoxPro, SAS Sharing N/A Future Upgrade needed Application Name Mid-Year PEIMS Collection (MPINT) Application Description System that collects student, staff, financial, and organization data

from districts and education service centers in mid year. Database Type DB2, flat files Development Language Ideal, JCL Sharing N/A

107

Future N/A Application Name Summer PEIMS Collection (SPINT) Application Description System that collects student, staff, financial, and organization data

from districts and education service centers during the summer. Database System DB2, flat files Development Language Ideal, COBOL Sharing N/A Future N/A

108

Application Name Fall PEIMS Collection (FPINT) Application Description System that collects student, staff, financial, and organization data

from districts and education service centers during the fall. Database Type DB2, flat files Development Language Ideal, JCL Sharing N/A Future N/A Application Name Extended Year PEIMS Collection (EPINT) Application Description System that collects student, staff, financial, and organization data

from districts only. Database Type DB2, flat files Development Language Ideal, JCL Sharing N/A Future N/A Application Name PEIMS EDIT + (PEDIT) Application Description EDIT + provides a mean to perform data validation for district data

on the TEA file server. . No validation can be performed before the data is extracted and sent to TEA using the Internet. EDIT + generates error-listing reports on any errors or warnings detected providing districts a method of validating their data for accuracy before submitting to TEA.

Database Type UDB Development Language VB, Java, SQR, Crystal Reports Sharing N/A Future N/A Application Name State School Attendance (SAR) Application Description This non-PEIMS system produces the Principals' Annual Report of

Student Attendance and Contact Hours for the 13 state schools. The output from this system provides input to the PEIMS Attendance DSS system for the 13 state schools.

Database Type Access Development Language Access Sharing N/A Future to be incorporated into PEIMS and FSP

109

Application Name School Attendance Queries (SAQ) Application Description The system is used to perform desk audits of common student

accounting errors. Inquiries are run against the previous years PEIMS data. Normally about 800 districts are audited.

Database Type SAS Development Language SAS Sharing N/A Future N/A Application Name Perkins Grant Application Application Description The Perkins Grant system is a web based system used by the

school districts to submit SAS applications for Carl Perkins Grant. . Database Type MS SQL Development Language ASP,HTML,VB Script, Javascript, Access reports Sharing N/A Future N/A Application Name Adult Community Education (ACES) Application Description The Adult and Community Education System application is a web-

enabled adult education student tracking and reporting system. The system's primary function is to track and report the status of students participating in Texas adult education programs...

Database Type MS SQL Server Development Language Visual Basic, VB Script, ASP, Crystal Reports Sharing Data is FTP to UT for student matching on GED info Future N/A Application Name Independent and Indirect Cost Application Description This web-enabled system provides the capability to enter district

audit reports directly into a database, produce reports and automatically calculate indirect cost information.

Database Type Sybase Development Language Visual Basic Sharing N/A Future Major changes planned for summer 2002 Application Name GED Application Description This mainframe application is used to track GED information and to

provide a means to print GED certificates of completion. Database Type DB2 Development Language IDEAL

Sharing Student data is mailed to TWC and FTPd to UT Future Pending funding: to be rewritten in ASP, VB Script; on MS SQL

Server

110

Application Name Waivers (State) Application Description The application is used to track all waivers regulated by State law. Database Type MS SQL Sever Development Language MS Access Sharing N/A Future N/A Application Name Complaints Application Description The system is used to track all complaints received by the agency. Database Type MS Access Development Language MS Access Sharing N/A Future N/A Application Name Drivers Safety Training Application Description This system is used by the drivers training division to track all

drivers safety training within the State and to track the issuance of certificates of completion.

Database Type Access Development Language Access Sharing N/A Future N/A Application Name Master Reading Teacher Application Description Master Reading on line Grant application and tracking system Database Type MS SQL Server Development Language ASP, VB Script, Java Script Sharing None currently. . In the future, could share data with SBEC Future N/A Application Name Public Information Request Tracking System (PIRTS) Application Description Used to log and track the status of Open Record requests Database Type MS SQL Server Development Language ASP, VB Script, Java Script, Ccrystal Reports Sharing N/A Future N/A Application Name Reading Initiative (RI) Application Description Tracks Information on the state wide Reading Initiative grant to

school districts. Includes Includes the assessment instruments used and information on expenditures.

Database Type MS SQL Server Development Language ASP, VB Script, Java Script Sharing N/A Future N/A

111

Application Name Student Transfer System (STS) Application Description The Student Transfer System database contains data used to

identify districts that are in or out of transfer compliance with respect to students residing in one school district and attending school in another district or at a charter school. The data consists of school district contact and compliance information, student information, review and approval information, and claims exemption information.

Database Type MS SQL Server Development Language ASP, VB Script, Java Script Sharing N/A Future The database will eventually include ADA related data with respect

to students who have caused a district to be out of compliance. Application Name Web Expenditure Reporting Application Description A web-enabled application that allows the schools districts to

request refunds for monies that were budgeted to their fund source. Database Type Sybase Development Language Net Dynamics Sharing N/A Future Rewrite planned.

112

2. TEA Major Databases Database Name Child Nutrition Program Database (CNP) Database Description Database contains school district and campus information required

for monthly claims processing for free and reduced meals reimbursement to schools. It also contains historical claims information.

Database Type Sybase Size 379 MB Estimated Growth 37 MB year GIS Data N/A Sharing N/A Future Internet redevelopment effort. New Summer feeding program

added recently. Database Name Education Material Acquisition (EMAT) (EDILE)

(EMAT_ADOPTION) Database Description Database contains information, including visually handicapped

information, supporting textbook ordering, shipment, and payment as well as the maintenance of state and school district textbook inventories.

Database Type Sybase Size 4.8 GB Estimated Growth 400 MB year GIS Data N/A Sharing N/A Future N/A Database Name Foundation School Program (FSP) Database Description Database contains data used in the computation of school district

entitlements to state funds under the Foundation Schools Program and is used to distribute entitlements to the local education agencies.

Database Type VSAM Size 75MB GIS Data N/A Sharing N/A Future Redesign/rewrite scheduled for production by August 31, 2002. Database Name Integrated Statewide Administrative System (ISAS) (ISAS

Interface) Database Description Database contains timely, accurate, and usable information to

reflect the financial and fiscal operation of the agency. Database Type Sybase Size 27.4GB Estimated Growth 5 GB year GIS Data N/A Sharing N/A Future Upgrade planned for PeopleSoft 8.4 by 8/1/2003.

113

Database Name Organization Database (ORG) (ORGRPT) Database Description Database contains organization data and relationships of

organizations and people as represented in the enterprise model. Database Type Sybase, DB2 Size 270 MB Estimated Growth 27 MB year GIS Data N/A Sharing N/A Future N/A Database Name Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) Database Description Database contains student, staff, financial, and organization data

from school districts and education service centers in mid year. Database Type DB2 OS/390 Size 120.5 GB Estimated Growth 10 GB year GIS Data N/A Sharing N/A Future N/A Database Name PEIMS EDIT+ (PEIPRD) Database Description Database linked to web application used by school districts to

ensure that the data reported meets the PEIMS Data Standards established by TEA. The PEIMS editing process provides data transfer, validation, and reporting to the state’s education service centers, school districts, and schools.

Database Type DB2 UDB for UNIX Size 240 GB Estimated Growth 50 GB year GIS Data N/A Sharing N/A Future N/A Database Name Personal Identification (PID) Database Description Database is the single authoritative source of demographic

information on persons. Data about current public school students, people taking college placement teacher tests, and GED students is integrated into this database.

Database Type DB2 OS/390 Size 7.8 GB Estimated Growth 1 GB year GIS Data N/A Sharing N/A Future N/A Database Name Perkins Grant Application (PRKPRD) Database Description The Perkins Grant Application system is a web based online SAS

application system used by the school districts to submit applications for the Carl Perkins Grant.

Database Type MS SQL Server Size 19 MB Estimated Growth 2 MB year GIS data N/A Sharing N/A Future N/A

114

Database Name Adult Community Education (ACES) Database Description The Adult and Community Education System (ACES) application

is a web-enabled adult education student tracking and reporting system. The system's primary function is to track and report the status of students participating in Texas adult education programs.

Database Type MS SQL Server Size 3.2 MB Estimated Growth 1 MB year GIS Data N/A Sharing Data is FTP to UT for student matching on GED info. Future N/A Database Name Independent and Indirect Cost (Audit) Database Description This web-enabled system provides the capability to enter district

audit reports directly into a database, produce reports and automatically calculate indirect cost information.

Database Type Sybase SIZE 917 MB Estimated Growth 100 MB year GIS Data N/A Sharing N/A Future Major changes planned for summer 2002. Database Name GED (GEDPRD) Database Description This mainframe application is used to track GED information and

to provide a means to print GED certificates of completion. Database Type DB2 Size 3.5 GB Estimated Growth 500 MB year GIS Data N/A Sharing Student data is mailed to TWC and FTPd to UT Future Pending funding: to be written in ASP, VB Script; on MS SQL

Server Database Name Waivers (WVRPRD) Database Description The application is used to track all waivers regulated by State law. Database Type MS SQL Server Size 33 MB Estimated Growth 3 MB year GIS Data N/A Sharing N/A Future N/A Database Name Complaints (cpt3data.mdb) Database Description The system is used to track all complaints received by the agency. Database Type Access Size 20 MB Estimated Growth 2 MB year GIS Data N/A Sharing N/A Future N/A

115

Database Name Drivers Safety Training (Data\Comm\Driving) Database Description This system is used by the drivers training division to track all

driver safety training within the State and to track the issuance of certificates of completion.

Database Type Access Size 100 MB Estimated Growth 10 MB year GIS Data N/A Sharing N/A Future N/A Database Name Texas Library Connection Union Catalog Database Description Database contains records of more than 40 million items held in

4,100 school libraries participating in the Texas Library ConnectionDatabase Type Web-based Size Large - currently stored by vendor - may desire to store at TEA in

the future GIS Data N/A Sharing N/A Future Plans to include holdings of all school libraries and move to TEA . Database Name Texas Library Connection Membership Database Description Database contains district and campus information including

information about the number, size, and automation of library programs. It is used to enroll and identify campuses participating in the Texas Library Connection.

Database Type Access Size 20MB GIS Data N/A Sharing Database is shared with the Texas Library Connection Information

Center and with vendors who mount information from the database on to the TEA website. FTP has been used for transfer. Data needs to be shared with vendors who provide services for members.

Future This database should self populate much of the needed information from existing TEA databases; it currently does not. Districts have to supply identifying information. Database also needs to instantly and automatically update information on the TEA website. Currently, updated information is supplied through the TEA web, but that information must be manually added to the existing database.

Database Name 25% Texas Library Supplement (TLC) Database Description Database is application process for districts to apply for funding

through H.B.1, Art III., Rider 70. Web-based application feeds information to a SQL Server database which is then used to generate reports to accounting to generate payment, the legislature, and professional organizations.

Database Type MS SQL Server Size 10 MB Estimated Growth 1 MB year GIS Data N/A Sharing N/A Future N/A

116

Database Name Charter School Tracking (CSTPRD) Database Description Contains detailed information on Open Enrollment Charter

Schools including status, contacts and terms of the charter authorized by the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE).

Database Type MS SQL Server Size 250 MB Estimated Growth 10 MB year GIS Data N/A Sharing N/A Future N/A Database Name GED In School Service Program (GEDIS) Database Description Contains information on students enrolling in and exiting from a

GED in school service program that prepares them to take the GED test.

Database Type MS SQL Server Size 8 MB Estimated Growth 8 MB year GIS Data N/A Sharing N/A Future N/A Database Name Master Reading Teacher (MRT) Database Description Master Reading Teacher On-Line Grant Application. Database Type MS SQL Server Size 45 MB Estimated Growth 5 MB year GIS Data N/A Sharing None currently. In the future, could share data with SBEC. Future N/A Database Name Public Information Request Tracking System (PIRTS) Database Description Used to log and track the status of formal information requests to

the agency including Open Records requests. Database Type MS SQL Server Size 78 MB Estimated Growth 50 MB year GIS Data N/A Sharing N/A Future N/A Database Name Reading Initiative (RI) Database Description Contains information on the state wide Reading Initiative grant to

school districts. Includes the assessment instruments used and information on expenditures.

Database Type MS SQL Server Size 19 MB Estimated Growth 2 MB year GIS Data N/A Sharing N/A Future N/A

117

Database Name WEB SAS (IFM) Database Description Standard Application System for submitting applications for

applications for grant funds and managing shared services arrangements.

Database Type MS SQL Server Size 60 MB Estimated Growth 10 MB year GIS Data N/A Sharing Might possibly be shared with other state agencies in the future. Future Incorporate as part of eSAS initiative scheduled for production in

2004. Database Name People Soft Services Procurement (SPRO) Database Description Contains information on contract services, bids and vendors. Database Type MS SQL Server Size 3.4 GB Estimated Growth 500 MB year GIS Data N/A Sharing N/A Future N/A Database Name Student Transfer System (STSPRD) Database Description The Student Transfer System database contains data used to

identify districts that are in or out of transfer compliance with respect to students residing in one school district and attending school in another district or at a charter school. The data consists of school district contact and compliance information, student information, review and approval information, and claims exemption information.

Database Type MS SQL Server Size 62 MB Estimated Growth 50 MB year GIS Data Currently, there is no GIS data stored in the system, and none is

anticipated for the future. Sharing Currently, there is no inter-agency data sharing and none is

anticipated for the future. Future The database will eventually include ADA related data with respect

to students who have caused a district to be out of compliance. Database Name Public Access Initiative Data Warehouse (PEDPRD) Database Description An interagency data warehouse containing organization, financial,

student, and staff data for TEA, SBEC, and THECB. Database Type DB2 UDB for UNIX Size 180 GB Estimated Growth 20 GB year GIS Data N/A Sharing The data is shared between TEA, THECB and SBEC in

accordance with FERPA. VPN access is provided to participating agency staff or other secure connection via the application tools. Data comes from TEA, THECB, SBEC and CPA and is shared by the three agencies (TEA, THECB and SBEC).

Future Additional data sources are being reviewed for possible inclusion. Data will be used to research student outcomes and possible future teacher shortages.

118

Database Name Financial Performance Data Mart (FPMPRD) Database Description Contains the TEA school district financial data mart. Database Type DB2 UDB for UNIX Size 16 GB Estimated Growth 2 GB year GIS Data N/A Sharing The data is shared between TEA, THECB and SBEC. VPN

access is provided to participating agency staff or other secure connection via the application tools. Data comes from TEA and the Comptrollers Office and is shared by the three agencies (TEA, THECB and SBEC).

Future This data mart will be subsumed into the revised data warehouse. Database Name Student Performance Data Mart (SPDPRD) Database Description Contains the TEA student information data mart including

information on student enrollment, attendance, and course completion.

Database Type DB2 UDB for UNIX Size 28 GB Estimated Growth 5GB year GIS Data N/A Sharing The data is shared between TEA, THECB and SBEC in

accordance with FERPA. VPN access is provided to participating agency staff or other secure connection via the application tools. Data comes from TEA, THECB and SBEC and is shared by the three agencies (TEA, THECB and SBEC).

Future This data mart will be subsumed into the revised data warehouse. Database Name Education Staff Data Mart (ESDPRD) Database Description Contains the TEA school district staff data mart including

demographic and financial information on school district staff. Database Type DB2 UDB for UNIX

Size 15 GB Estimated Growth 3GB year GIS Data N/A Sharing The data is shared between TEA, THECB and SBEC in

accordance with FERPA. VPN access is provided to participating agency staff or other secure connection via the application tools. Data comes from TEA, THECB and SBEC and is shared by the three agencies (TEA, THECB and SBEC).

Future This data mart will be subsumed into the revised data warehouse.

119

3. Information Resources Management Organizations, Policies, and Practices

Category Summary/Overview

IR Priorities

Information resources projects, activities, and priorities are managed and coordinated by the various division managers throughout the agency and the Information Planning Committee (IPC). The role of the committee is to provide oversight for both information management and use of information resources across the agency. The Information Planning Committee (IPC) is responsible for policymaking, priority-setting and providing strategic direction for information resources across the agency and resolving intra-agency issues associated with data definition and usage. Its membership is comprised of Deputy and Associate Commissioners, the General Counsel, the Internal Auditor, and the Managing Director of Information Services. The IPC establishes policies that contribute to the effective protection, management, and allocation of agency information and technology resources; establishes priorities for allocating IT resources to projects which meet agency priorities as well as approving what information is made available; what products are derived from agency data; and determining the standards for the data and related documentation. The Policy Committee on Public Education Information (PCPEI) is an advisory group that reviews and recommends changes to the PEIMS collection. They or their technical expert representatives on the Information Task Force will conduct annual reviews of collections to promote the useful, accurate and timely collection of student demographic and academic performance, personnel, and school district financial information. The committee is composed of thirty representatives from school districts, education service centers, state government, and educational associations. The Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) was created to work in an advisory capacity to increase the equity, efficiency, and effectiveness of student learning; instructional management; staff development; and administration. The latest efforts of this committee are in the development, implementation, and evaluation of technology guidelines to provide districts with the tools for self-assessment that will aid in the effective integration of technology across the curriculum. This sixteen-member committee is composed of teachers, district technology coordinators, parents and representatives from education service centers, and higher education. Other initiatives receive input from stakeholders through the T-STAR Advisory Committee, TLC focus groups, ESC/TEA planning groups and the ESC Technology Task Force.

Planning Information technology planning is accomplished across many levels at TEA. While numerous plans exist today in the agency, most can be aligned into one of three major categories: Strategic Plans, Project-Centric Plans, and Staff-Centric Plans. Strategic planning at the agency involves a variety of stakeholders, most notably executive management and IS management. Examples of TEA strategic planning include IR Strategic Plan (LBB), Information Systems Department Strategic Plan (TEA), Biennial Operating Plan (LBB), Long-Range Plan for Technology (Legislature), IS Master List (TEA), Master Plan for Educational Technology (Legislature), and Business Continuity Plan (DIR). Please refer to “IR Priorities” section above for key committees involved in the IT strategic planning process at TEA.

120

Planning (continued)

Information technology planning is accomplished across many levels at TEA. While numerous plans exist today in the agency, most can be aligned into one of three major categories: Strategic Plans, Project-Centric Plans, and Staff-Centric Plans. Strategic planning at the agency involves a variety of stakeholders, most notably executive management and IS management. Examples of TEA strategic planning include IR Strategic Plan (LBB), Information Systems Department Strategic Plan (TEA), Biennial Operating Plan (LBB), Long-Range Plan for Technology (Legislature), IS Master List (TEA), Master Plan for Educational Technology (Legislature), and Business Continuity Plan (DIR). Please refer to “IR Priorities” section above for key committees involved in the IT strategic planning process at TEA. Project-centric planning at the agency involves primarily technical project managers, project staff, IS management, and end users. Examples of TEA project centric planning include Project Development Plans, Documentation Plans, Software Maintenance Plans, Training Plans, Risk Management Plans, Software Quality Plans, Test Plans, Quality Assurance Plans, Configuration Management Plans, etc. Staff-centric planning at the agency involves IS management and technical staff. Examples of TEA staff centric planning include Performance Plans and Training Plans.

Quality Assurance

For software projects, quality assurance is a responsibility of the project managers and the quality assurance manager. Requirements and design reviews are held with customers. Unit, integration, and systems tests are planned and executed, and user documentation reviews are conducted. Customer acceptance and sign-off is a step in the development methodology, and acceptance testing is performed by the customer before any system is placed into production. A process for post project reviews is in place. A risk management methodology was developed and implemented in the fall of 1994 and upgraded in 2001. A risk analysis is performed and risk management plans are developed for all major projects. The scope of the effort is determined by the size, complexity, and evident risks of the project. Quality assurance practices developed in accordance with DIR guidelines for internal quality assurance were established and used for Y2K as early as 1997 and, subsequently, applied to other projects. All seven areas included in the quality assurance practices under the IRM Act are included under TEA’s quality assurance process. Quality assurance tasks are the responsibility of the PEIMS Ad Hoc Reporting Unit in the Customer Support, Consulting, and Training Division. The main objective of QA for this unit is to verify that the PEIMS DB2 views are correct and consistent with each other. Future plans include checking PEIMS data for district reporting inconsistencies.

Personal Computer

Replacement Schedule

TEA has a desktop seat management contract with Northrop Grumman that facilitates personal computer management and support. The contract is from June 2000 through the end of the 2007 fiscal year. The contract provides for a desktop/laptop for each person, help desk support, and deskside hardware and software support. TEA worked with Northrop Grumman to establish a PC replacement schedule that meets the needs of its employees. In general, the replacement schedule adheres to a modified industry standard PC life cycle as defined in DIR’s PC Life Cycles Guidelines. The agency has many monitoring staff who travel to schools and school districts to accomplish their day-to-day work assignments. These staff have docked laptops as their assigned workstations. These laptops are replaced on a two-year cycle because of the wear and tear of traveling. In addition, the agency has a group of software developers who are considered power users. These desktops are replaced on a two-year cycle so that the power users can keep current with hardware technology while developing software applications. The remainder of the desktops is replaced on a three-year cycle.

121

Procurement

All acquisitions of information technologies are completed through the Texas Marketplace in compliance with state and federal statute and rules in coordination with the agency’s Purchasing and Contracting Divisions. Once a decision is made to acquire information technology, the factors that are taken into consideration include the TEA architecture; the projected useful life of the technology; urgency; availability/stability of funding; industry standards; cost and cost-benefit analysis of lease vs. purchase; and the staff skills and experience related to management of assets and contracts.

Disaster Recovery/ Business Continuity Planning

The agency subscribes to the practice of business resumption and disaster recovery. Although disaster recovery planning for information resources was initiated in 1990, the first comprehensive agency risk/threat assessment and business impact analysis was not completed until October 1994. When these were presented to agency executive management in December 1994, the commissioner of education approved the establishment of a Risk Management Steering Committee. A joint committee, consisting of key personnel from the Division of Systems Operations and Support and the Division of Agency Infrastructure, is currently developing a comprehensive business continuity/disaster recovery plan for the agency. This plan will utilize the McHale Court facility as an alternate business resumption facility, based on a cold-site recovery strategy. With transition of mainframe computing to the West Texas Disaster Recovery and Operations Center (WTDROC), operational responsibility for mainframe backup, off-site storage, and disaster recovery has been transferred to Northrop-Grumman. The agency has assumed oversight responsibility and will periodically review backup, off-site storage, and disaster recovery practices and procedures to ensure that vendor service levels meet agency security standards and requirements as prescribed in 1 TAC 201.13(b). The current service level agreement with Northrop-Grumman is 100% recovery in 48 hours to a hot disaster recovery site. A nightly incremental backup has been instituted to augment the weekly full-dump disaster recovery backup of all enterprise data. All backup files are routinely moved to and retained in an off-site location. Enterprise data will be recovered within fourteen days to the McHale Court site using a cold-site strategy.

Data Center Operations

TEA currently has all mainframe computer operations at the WTDROC.

Standards

Following is a list of agency operating policies and procedures for compliance with and implementation of information resources statewide standards. The agency is currently in the process of developing policies and procedures for E-mail use. 07-40 Teleworking 09-01 Business Continuity Planning 10-01 Acquisition of Desktop Computing Hardware and Software 10-02 Computer Room Security 10-03 Confidential, Sensitive, and Restricted Enterprise Information 10-04 Information Resources Security 10-05 Internal Audit Participation in Automated Systems Development 10-06 Requests for Information Systems Department Services 10-07 TEA Data Approval Committee 10-08 Use of Information Network Resources

Documents

TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY STRATEGIC PLAN · education system--TEA, the State Board of Education, re gional education service cent ers, independent school districts, campuses, charter