1991-1992. - eric · 2014. 5. 7. · 3.3 retention rates for first year teachers: 1988 - 1992 44...

ED 370 164

TITLE

INSTITUTIONREPORT NOPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

EA 025 724

Quality, Equity, Accountability: Long-Range Plan for

Public Education, 1991-1995. Interim Evaluation,

1991-1992.Texas Education Agency, Austin.GE3-410-06Mar 93167p.; For a related document, see ED 337 900.Publications Distribution, Texas Education Agency,1701 N. Congress Avenue, Austin, TX 78701-1494.

Raports Evaluative/Feasibility (142)

MF01/PC07 Plus Postage.*Educational Assessment; Educational Improvement;*Educational Objectives; Educational Quality;Elementary Secondary Education; *Long Range Planning;*Outcomes of Education; *Statewide Planning*Texas

This document presents an evaluation of actions taken

by the Texas State Board of Education during the 1991-92 school year

to achieve the goals and objectives of its "Long-Range Plan."

Following the vision statement, an evaluation summary describes

progress made toward statewide education goals. Each of the nine

chapters after the evaluation summary, deals with a specific goal

area: (1) Goal 1: Student Learning; (2) Goal 2: Curriculum and

Programs; (3) Goal 3: Personnel; (4) Goal 4: Organization and

Management; (5) Goal 5: Finance; (6) Goal 6: Parent Responsibility;

(7) Goal 7: Community and Business Partnerships; (8) Goal 8: ResearchDevelopment, and Evaluation; and (9) Goal 9: Communications. Within

each chapter, the goal, goal summary, objectives, and state-level

actions are reprinted from the original document. This information is

followed by an evaluation of state-level actions, performancemeasures, and the board's legislative recommendations to the 73rd

Texas Legislature. Two appendices contain the Academic Excellence

Indicator System report and graphs for the 1991-92 school year, and

comparative data on Texas' progress toward the National Education

Goals. A total of 26 exhibits are included. (LMI)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

U.S. DEPARTMENT Of EIXiCATIONOffice ol Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER IERIC)

I/This document has been reproduced asreceived trom the person or organization

Quality,originating it

0 Minor changes have belin made to improvereproduction Quality

Poinls ot v.evr or oPinions Staled itt this doc.., .ment do not necessarily represent officialOE RI position or polety

Equity,Accountability:

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

S.

This document is not copyrighted: any or all sections may be duplicated.

For more information or additional copies, contact:Publications DistributionTexas Education Agency1701 N. Congress AvenueAustin, Texas 78701-1494(512) 463-9734

/

INTERIM EVALUATION

1991 1992

Quality,Equity,Accountability:

Long-Range Plan for Public Education, 1991 - 1995

Texas State Board of Education

4

State Board Of Education1701 North Congress Avenue

Austin, Texas 78701-1494(512) 463-9007

Carolyn Honea Crawford. Ph.D.ChaamanBoni:mint 1 hiamt 7

Will D. 1)asisVice

Astnct 1 0

Mary Helen Berlanya

Di-ars 1 2

Alma A. Allen, Ed.D.1,ima.m. Di.anet 4

Jack Christie. D.C.Distrs.

Emmett .1. Conrad. M.D.;

Monte 1lasieI. /!stut t 17,

William 1 . HudsonWs.lma Di-anct 1 4

Patsy JohnsonSulph. a *mgt. D6tni

Geraldine MillerDab, I h.trici 1 'E

Rene NoilezEl Paso Distort 1

Robert H. OffuttSan An' no Dintrict

Diane PatrickArlingtim District 1 1

Mary Knotts PerkinsLufkin Distrit t 8

Esteban SosaSan Aim imo. District 3

Lionel R. Meno. Ed.D.Cinuniaoner of Edui Anon(512i 463 8985

March 1993

TO MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE AND CITIZENS OF TEXAS:

In March 1991, the State Board of Education published Quality, Equity,Accountability: Texas State Board of Education Long-Range Plan for PublicEducation, 1991-1995, its four-year plan for improving public education inthis state. Texas Education Code §11.26(b) requires biennial evaluations ofthe plan. This document assesses the board's progress over the first twoyears of implementation.

Over that time, the board has focused on improving student achievement andincreasing local flexibility. Through the Academic Excellence IndicatorSystem, the student assessment program, and the accreditation andmonitoring systems, we have given schools, students, parents, and thecommunity a stake in the performance of all students. The board's policyinitiatives have identified best practice models for schools to emulate.Through such strategies as the sunset review of board rules, site-baseddecision-making, and the waiver process, local educators have moreopportunities to respond to local needs and priorities.

Although we are proud of our efforts to raise standards and expectations,there is still much to be done and we look forward to addressing thecontinuing challenges set forth in our Long-Range Plan.

On behalf of the State Board of Education, I commend to you ourassessment of progress toward the Long-Range Plan.

Respectfully submitted,

Carolyn Honea Crawford, C irmanState Board of Education

31S1c5PV AMA

Members of theTexas State Board of Education

OFFICERS

Carolyn Honea Crawford, BeaumontChairman, State Board of EducationDistrict 7

Will D. Davis, AustinVice-Chairman, State Board of EducationDistrict 10

Mary Helen Berlanga, Corpus ChristiSecretary, State Board of EducationDistrict 2

BOARD MEMBERS

Alma Allen, HoustonDistrict 4

Jack Christie, D.C., HoustonDistrict 6

Emmett J. Conrad, M.D., DallasDistrict 13

Monte Hasie, LubbockDistrict 15

William L. Hudson, Wichita FallsDistrict 14

Patsy Johnson, Sulphur SpringsDistrict 9

EXECUTIVE STAFFLionel R. MenoCommissioner of Education

Geraldine Miller, DallasDistrict 12

René Nuhez, El PasoDistrict 1

Diane Patrick, ArlingtonDistrict 11

Mary Knotts Perkins, LufkinDistrict 8

r

Robert H. Offutt, San AntonioDistrict 5

Esteban Sosa, San AntonioDistrict 3

6

Page i

State Board of Education Committees

PERSONNEL

René Nutiez, ChairAlma AllenJack ChristieEmmett J. ConradDiane Patrick

STUDENTS

Geraldine Miller, ChairMary Helen BerlangaPatsy JohnsonRobert H. Off uttMary Knotts Perkins

SCHOOL FINANCE

Will D. Davis, Co-chairWilliam L. Hudson, Co-chairCarolyn Honea CrawfordMonte HasieEsteban Sosa

LONG-RANGE PLANNING

Mary Knotts Perkins, ChairAlma AllenJack ChristieEmmett J. ConradCarolyn Honea CrawfordWill D. DavisPatsy JohnsonDiane Patrick

PERMANENT SCHOOL FUND

Esteban Sosa, ChairMary Helen BerlangaMonte HasieWilliam L. HudsonGeraldine MillerRené NuriezRobert H. Offutt

Page ii7

Long-Range Plan Interim Evaluation: 1991-1992

Table of Contents

Introduction vii

The Vision ix

Evaluation Summary xi

Goal 1: Student Learning 1

Goal 2: Curriculum and Programs 17

Goal 3: Personnel 35

Goal 4: Organization and Management 47

Goal 5: Finance 63

Goal 6: Parent Responsibility 73

Goal 7: Community and Business Partnerships 79

Goal 8: Research, Development, and Evaluation 85

Goal 9: Communications 97

Future Actions of the State Board of Education 103

Appendices

1991-92 Academic Excellence Indicator SystemState Report 107

National Goals for Education 135

Page iii

8

Acknowledgments

This document was prepared for the State Board of Education by the Texas EducationAgency Division of Policy Planning and Evaluation in the Department of ProfessionalDevelopment and Planning. The project staff appreciates the contributions of all agencystaff who provided assistance in compiling this evaluation.

PROJECT STAFF

LINDA L. CIMUSZ, AdministratorDepartment of Professional Development and Planning

CRISS CLOUDT, CoordinatorDivision of Policy Planning and Evaluation

DANIEL ARRIGONA, Project Mo -lager

MAUREEN MOORE SCHEEVEL, Planner

DAVID JACOB, Systems Analyst

Page iv Long-Range Plan Interim Evaluation: 1991-1992

9

Table of Exhibits

1.1 Student Assessment Transition Plan 5

1.2 Estimates of Assessment Time in Hours per Student 6

1.3 Academic Excellence Indicators 8

1.4 Dropout Rate Reduction Goals 11

2.1 Well-Balanced Curriculum,Grades Prekindergarten through Twelve 20

2.2 Goals for the Improvement of Higher Education in theMaster Plan for Vocational and Technical Education,1991 UPDATE 23

2.3 Proposed Below-Grade Level Phaseout Schedule 24

2.4 Core Proficiencies Recommended for All High School Graduates 25

2.5 Overage Students, 1 or More Years 29

2.6 Overage Students, 2 or More Years 29

2.7 Map of Middle School Network 31

2.8 Comparative Data:Texas School Survey of Substance Abuse, 1988-1992 32

3.1 Map of Professional Preparation Programs 38

3.2 Centers for Professional Developmen- and Technology 40

3.3 Retention Rates for First Year Teachers: 1988 - 1992 44

3.4 Professional Staff by Gender and Ethnicity 45

3.5 Hispanic Students and Teachers 45

3.6 1991-92 Secondary Teacher Counts and Incidence of Permits 46

1 Flowchart of Revised Accreditation Process 55

4.2 Sunset Review of State Board of Education Rules 56

4.3 Relationship Among the Committee on Student Learning, theLegislative Education Board, and the State Board of Education 59

Page v

I 0

5.1 Permanent School Fund Balance for the Year Ending August 31, 1992 69

8.1 Innovative Education Grant Program Project Areas 92

9.1 Growth in TENET Usage, 1991-1992 100

9.2 Academic Preparation of Texas High School Graduates 102

9.3 Preparation of Texas High School Graduatesfor Post-Secondary Roles 102

Page vi

11Long-Range Plan Interim Evaluation: 1991-1992

Introduction

In November 1990, the State Board of Education adopted its long-range plan for public

education for the years 1991 1995. The plan contained nine goals, 71 objectives, 104state actions, more than 120 actions for local schools and communities, and oneoverriding purpose: ensuring quality, equity, and accountability in the Texas sy:ten of

public education.

I n Quality, Equity, Accountability: Texas State Board of Education Long-Range Plan forPublic Education, 1991-1995, the board articulated a vision of education that recognizesthe importance of our state's system of public schools to the continued growth andvitality of our social, economic, and cultural institutions. As envisioned by the board,public education is responsible and will be held accountable for providing the environ-ments, materials, and resources that allow all students to attain educational excellence.In this vision, educators lead a concerted and coordinated effort that provides allstudents, from the primary years to adulthood, opportunity to reach their full potential.From this perspective, education involves teachers, students, parents and families,care providers, Regional Education Service Centers, institutions of higher education,businesses, and community organizations working together to achieve educationalexcellence and equity.

The months since January 1991 have seen both progress and change in Texas publicschools. Texas Commissioner of Education Lionel R. Meno assumed office in July1991. His emphasis on student achievement that student performance is non-negotiable and that educational programs must accommodate themselves to studentneeds and goals has guided Texas educators and policy makers as they develop asystem of education. In this system, the flexibility to achieve high quality studentoutcomes goes hand in hand with a system of accountability that ensures that theseoutcomes are met. Investing teachers and campus administrators with the authorityand ability to achieve the high standards of student performance specified by the boardhas changed the roles and relationships that support education at the state and locallevel.

This report presents an evaluation of actions taken by.the State Board of Education toachieve the goals and objectives of its Long-Range Plan. The period covered by thisevaluation has seen a deregulation of educational processes and rules accompanied bya call for greater involvement of parents, families, and community members on Texascampuses. The board has provided leadership to this period of change by adoptingbroad-based policies that offer frameworks to guide state and local educators in theimplementation of developmentally appropriate and research-based curriculum andinstructional strategies that ensure success for all students.

Introduction Page vii

12

This evaluation of board action to achieve the goals stated in Quality, Equity, Account-ability covers the period from January 1, 1991 to August 31, 1992, which is the end ofthe 1992 fiscal year. This ending date, however, is occasionally pushed back to the endof 1992 to cover the completion and approval of major board initiatives and policies. Thisevaluation also highlights actions of the Commissioner of Education, however, it doesnot cover the initiatives, functions, and achievements of the Texas Education Agencyin detail. They will be included in the report to the 73rd Texas Legislature on the activitiesof the Central Education Agency.

This evaluation is divided into nine chapters, each covering a goal of the Long-RangePlan. Within each chapter, the Long-Range Plan goal, goal summary, objectives, andstate-level actions are reprinted from the original document. This information isfollowed by an evaluation of state-level actions specified in the Long-Range Plan, a

section specifying future actions of the State Board of Education, a section reporting onthe performance measures adopted within each goal of the plan, and, as appropriate,the board's legislative recommendations to the 73rd Texas Legislature. Two appendi-ces are included in the evaluation. The first is the state Academic Excellence IndicatorSystem report and graphs for the 1991-92 school year. The second appendix, takenfrom the 1992 National Education Goals Report, shows baseline and 1992 data toindicate Texas' progress on the National Education Goals.

Page viii Long-Range Plan Interim Evaluation: 1991-1992

13

The Vision

The State Board of Education of Texas envisions a state whose first priority is itschildren. The vision of this Board of Education, therefore, is limited neither to schoolsas they currently exist nor to education.

The society in which Texas' children develop into Texas' leaders must provideenrichment and nourishment for their minds and bodies, high expectations for theirfuture potential, and recognition of their current demands. Such a society will ensurethat infant and child care are secure and attentive and that parents have the resourcesto meet their children's intellectual, physical, and social needs.

Texas schools will welcome children who, because of their experiences prior toentering school, are ready to learn. They will provide programs to parents who needliteracy, job training, and parenting skills. They will be located on campuses, communitycenters, and job sites. They will be equipped with the technology that promoteseffective learning and efficient management.

The public education system will take the lead in ensuring coordination and provisionof the services that children and their families need in order for children to succeed inschool. Schools will not succeed, however, if they act alone. Attaining this visiondemands the concerted and coordinated dedication not only of educators but also of allof those who interact with children and who share responsibility for their growth andwelfare. These include parents, teachers, and other direct care providers, members ofthe health care, human services, and judicial and legal systems at the local, state, andfederal levels, as well as neighbors, employers, and other community and businessmembers.

This theme of mutual effort on behalf of children pervades this Long-Range Plan. Publiceducation is responsible and will be held accountable for providing the multipleappropriate instructional environments, effective materials, qualified staff, and suitablefacilities that yield student achievement. The State Board of Education recognizes,however, that too many children enter school less ready to learn and less healthy thantheir peers. Too many children suffer from deprivation and low expectations whichjeopardize their ability to achieve. The need for common effort is great.

With this effort, the Texas public education system will be one in which:

Schools vary widely in practice, site, and curriculum delivery in response tothe needs of their students.

The Vision 14 Page ix

Teachers have the responsibility, training, and resources to guide develop-mentally appropriate instruction efficiently.

Performance, rather than process, determines advancement.

Performance and socioeconomic status are unrelated.

Adults can enhance their job and life skills.

The future of Texas social, economic, and environmental depends upon the qualityof its educational system. The quality of our lives and that of our children requires thestrongest possible commitment to this future. The State Board of Education rallies allTexans to join in being advocates on behalf of our children.

Page x15


Evaluation Summary

STUDENT LEARNING

To assure that all students achieve their full educa-tional potential, the State Board of Education hasapproved a rigordus statewide student assessmentprogram, implemented initiatives to raise achieve-ment for all students, developed an extensivereporting system of student achievement and schoolperformance across a range of academic excellenceindicators, and established policy frameworks to guidelegislative action, rule-making, and program imple-mentation toward the goal of success for all students.

The statewide student assessment program approvedby the board raises standards and increases expecta-tions; broadens the subjects assessed, yet reducesthe time spent on testing; ties assessment moreclosely to the instructional period being assessed; andlinks individual student performance to school anddistrict performance through the Academic Excel-lence Indicator and state accreditation systems. Theprogram includes a new norm-referenced test de-signed to compare Texas students' performance withstudents nationally.

To raise student achievement, the board increasedthe passing standard on the statewide student as-sessment from 60 to 70 percen Policy statementsadopted by the board call for heterogeneous groupingof students based on instructional needs, rather thantracking students based on prior demonstrations ofability. New assessment rules approved by the boardsupport greater accommodation of students with spe-cial needs. The 'board has also directed the TexasEducation Agency to collaborate with school districtssuccessful in raising Texas Assessment of AcademicSkills (TAAS) scores of all students.

The board approved the Academic Excellence Indica-tor System (AEIS), which reports levels of studentachievement and school performance across a broadrange of measures. AEI S reports, comparing actual to

Evaluation Summary Page xi

1 6

expected levels of performance, are developed foreach campus and school district in the state. The AEISis an invaluable planning tool for campus improvement.

The board's policy initiative reaches across all gradesand addresses special student populations to provideeducators with a coordinated set of goals and recom-mendations that is based on high standards of studentachievement and professional performance. The boardhas completed the first two steps in the grade-levelpolicy development cycle by adopting policies for middlegrade and high school education. It has also establisheda statewide process for articulating student outcomegoals.

These policies seek to ensure quality, equity, andaccountability in education by encouraging state policymakers, local educators, and community members todesign curriculum to address real-world challenges; toemphasize instruction that is developmentally appro-priate and nurturing of both academic and personalgrowth; to assure professional development is re-search-based and connected to campus academicgoals; and to encourage student support so that allstudents come to school ready and able to learn.

The policy statements are supported by specific stateand local recommendations that focus on achievinghigh levels of educational performance.

CURRICULUM ANDPROGRAMS

The State Board of Education has worked to provide awell-balanced curriculum to all students, supported byhigh-quality instructional programs designed to meetstudent needs and goals. Board action has focused onthe state curriculum to ensure that it prepares studentsfor the challenges they will face after graduation; es-tablished a plan for the formulation of student outcomegoals, the essential skills and knowledge that all stu-dents must master if the state is to reach its educationalgoals; and encouraged districts to develop innovativeprograms that meet specialized needs of studentswithout sacrificing the integrity and quality of districts'regular education programs.

Page xii Long-Range Plan Interim Evaluation: 1991-1992

17

The board has revised the state curriculum for earlygrades to align them with generally accepted develop-mentally appropriate instruction. Through its review ofthe essential elements, the board has sought to infusethe content areas of the state curriculum with real-world skills that foster lifelong learning. The board hasused curriculum review to strengthen textbookadoption and provide greater challenge in the studentassessment system.

Board action has increasingly focused on the results ofeducation for the state's students. The board hasendorsed a set of challenging academic proficienciesthat all students should demonstrate upon leavingTexas high schools. In addition, it is participating in aprocess to establish high-level educational goals thatencourage competency-based progress through thecurriculum over seat-time.

The board has taken a number of steps to support thedevelopment of innovative programs. Rather thanlimiting itself to a review of rules affecting specializedstudent populations, the board has developed a set ofpolicy goals that draws upon the strengths of special-ized instructional programs and encourages highexpectations and performance of all students. Tomake these policy goals a reality, the board encour-ages local schools to share their successes andexpertise.

GOA 1. 3

PERSONNEL

The State Board of Education is concerned that pirepa-ration and professional development of teachers arefocused on outcomes, that teaching in Texas is com-petitive with states across the nation, and that teachingon the 6,000 campuses in this state is dynamic andresponsive to the challenges of an increasingly com-plex society.

Demand for teachers in Texas outpaces the supply.The imbalance is related to both the status of profes-sional educators and the challenge of adequatelypreparing new and veteran educators to succeed in

Evaluation Summary

18Page xiii

increasingly diverse classrooms. The board has ad-dressed both issues through rule review, fundingapproval, policy development, and legislative recom-mendation.

One reason for this supply and demand imbalance isthe relatively low level of average teacher salaries inour state. Average teacher salaries in Texas ranked34th in the nation in 1991; they slipped to 35th in 1992.To upgrade the status of educators, the board hasrecommended that the legislature increase teacherpay to the projected national average by 1997. Theboard's policy initiative on professional developmentaddressed the salary issue as well as other strategiesto upgrade the professionalism of educators.

The board took a series of actions to strengthenteacher preparation and teacher training programs. Itsupported a broad-based policy initiative on profes-sional preparation and development. The policystatement calls for strengthening the state's teachereducation programs to better prepare teachers withpedagogical, content-specific; and managerial skillsthey need to succeed in their classrooms. Alternativecertification programs, which enrich the ranks of edu-cators in Texas with greater numbers of minorityteachers and teachers who bring important workplaceexperience into the classroom, are strongly supportedby the board.

Teacher training does not end with graduation from ateacher preparation program; rather it should be acareer-long endeavor. The board approved funding foreight Centers for Professional Development and Tech-nology and a number of recruitment and professionaldevelopment programs to provide teachers with op-portunities to meet the varied instructional needs ofstudents through field-based training that is collabora-tive, based on the best of current research, and allowsfor the full use of technology.

Page xiv Long-Range Plan Intel im Evaluation: 1991-1992

1 9

ORGANIZATION ANDMANAGEMENT

The State Board of Education has provided leadershipin the organization and management of the state'spublic education system by establishing policy goalsthat guide Texas educators to high standards of stu-dent achievement and professional performance,overseeing the development and implementation of asystem of performance-based school accreditation,and clarifying both its role and the role of the TexasEducation Agency in relation to local school districts.The system of accountability initiated by the boardestablishes state standards of performance, providesschools and districts with greater flexibility to achievethese standards, and holds them accountable for theirability to ensure student achievement.

The board has overseen the development and imple-mentation of a performance-based accreditationsystem for Texas school districts. This system linksthe evaluation of schools and districts to studentperformance as reported in the Academic ExcellenceIndicator System. The new system of accreditationemphasizes results. Districts with high levels of stu-dent performance are recognized within the newaccreditation system and provided measures of regu-latory relief. Districts with problematic performanceare provided multifaceted, research-based assistance.

Central to this system is a new relationship betweenstate and local educators. The state establishes goalsand standards of student performance and monitorsschool and district progress in achieving these results.Local educators are provided authority and flexibility todevelop programs needed to guarantee that achieve-ment.

Reflecting the national trend, the board has acted toderegulate public education in Texas and approve areorganization plan that streamlines the Texas Educa-tion Agency and transfers many functions formerlyreserved by the state to the local level. In September1992, the board began the final year of a three-yearsunset review of education rules in the Texas Ad-ministrative Code. Through the review, the board hasamended and eliminated rules to better support a

Evaluation Summary n4 !?Page xv

system of education that is flexible, accountable, andresults-based.

Education policies adopted by the board provide frame-works of school organization and teacher, administrator,and student performance. Developed collaborativelywith educators, parents, and community members,they shift the perspective of the board away fromprocedural rules to a system of educational outcomesand goals, which reflect the standards of achievementand professionalism necessary to excel in an increas-ingly challenging world.

GpAL 5

FINANCE

Four principles guide State Board of Education actionin areas related to school finance: achieving equitythrough a constitutional system of school funding;establishing a Foundation School Program fundinglevel that assures adequacy; providing funds to sup-port critic& education initiatives; and increasingadministrative efficiency. Board actions to fulfill theseprinciples and accomplish the school finance goal inthe Long-Range Plan have occurred in an uncertainenvironment due to the fact that the state's publicschool finance system was declared unconstitutionalby the Texas Supreme Court in 1989. Efforts of legis-lators to craft an efficient, equitable, and constitutionalpublic school finance system have extended overseveral regular and special legislative sessions.

Within this environment of change, the board hastaken steps to implement a school funding system thatis accountable and that provides all students opportu-nities and facilities to master desired outcomes. Newrules related to compensatory and remedial educationprovide additional funds to improve instruction foridentified students and seek to end divisions betweenprograms that serve them and a district's regulareducation program. Reporting practices stated in therules hold schools to high standards of accountabilityfor the performance of students enrolled in theseprograms.

Page xviLong-Range Plan Interim Evaluation: 1991-1992

The board has implemented new rules to assureadequacy of school facilities, overseen the disburse-ment of $50 million in emergency school facilitiesfunds, and explored policy issues related to the impactof school facilities on educational quality.

The board has continued to provide efficient manage-ment of the Permanent School Fund, a public trustfund that supports the basic per-pupil allotment withinthe Available School Fund and guarantees locally-issued school bonds to assure that school districtshave access to the lowest possible interest and bondfinancing rates.

PARENTRESPONSIBILITY

The State Board of Education has supported parentand family involvement in education by developingpolicies that provide a foundation for enhanced part-nerships between educators, students, and theirfamilies. It has fostered the involvement of parentsand families through pilot and innovative educationprograms and community adult literacy efforts. Theboard has encouraged a range of parent and familyinvolvement activities; it has not issued mandates todirect them. Instead, the board relies on schools anddistricts to use the campus improvement process todevelop and implement parent and family involve-ment programs that are geared to the needs and goalsof the students and families they serve.

While providing a policy and programmatic foundationto increase parent and family involvement in educa-tion, board action in coordinating services to studentsin early childhood, latchkey, and parenting programsoften follows leads established by the Legislature, theGovernor's office, and some local districts. Boardleadership must marshall multiple resources to en-sure that all children can learn in ways that strengthenthe abilities of educators to perform their tasks. Ser-vices outside traditional notions of education can beinstrumental in preparing students and families forfuture educational achievement.

Evaluation Summary Page xvii

22

COMMUNITY ANDBUSINESSPARTNERSHIPS

The State Board of Education has endorsed a publiceducation system in which educators and students arestrongly connected to and highly cognizant of theresources and requirements of the communities inwhich they live and work. Board action to increasecommunity involvement in education seeks toencour-age, not require, districts and campuses to developand implement community partnership programs thatare tailored to local needs and goals. The board hasexamined issues related to school-to-work transitionand drawn upon private sector expertise to developrecommended proficiencies for high school graduatesand identify priority occupations for Texas citizens.Policies for adult and community education are slatedfor board development and approval.

State-level partnerships among education, communityinstitutions, and the private sector are tremendouseducational resources whose potential has yet to befully realized. Board action will seek further develop-ment of these resources in an effort to createpartnerships that prepares Texas for the 21st century.

GOAL 8

RESEARCH,DEVELOPMENT, ANDEVALUATION

Current trends in education seeking deregulation ofschool processes, greater emphasis on student out-comes, and empowerment of classroom teachers andlocal administrators change the context and conditionsof state-level action. The State Board of Education hasresponded by moving away from regulation and spe-cialized-rules to the development of broad-b,:sededucation policies and initiatives. It has begun extricat-ing itself from the determination of classroom routinesand processes, turning to focus on student perfor-mance and the accountability of schools for achievingstate standards of performance. Research and evalua-tion on creative and effective education practices arecritical to the successful transformation of state-levelactions and roles. Best practices informed by research,and measures of accountability validated through it,are both inputs and benchmarks of the changing con-text in which the state's system of public educationserves its students and communities.

Page xviii


The board has identified a number of critical researchareas to support the development of policies andaccountability measures and to investigate the effectof legislative and board action on Texas schools andstudents. It has overseen the implementation of pilotand innovative programs to explore alternative meth-ods of meeting student needs and goals and to givedistricts support in seeking new organizational andinstructional arrangements. The board's Committeeon Long-Range Planning provides a forum for thearticulation of the latest research, innovations, andsuccessful programs in Texas and across the nation.

This two-year period of the Long-Range Plan saw thecompletion of the first phase of the board's Long-Range Plan for Technology. During this phase of thetechnology plan, the board focused on providing, thelegislative initiatives and technological infrastructurenecessary to support a technology system that en-compasses the state public education system andlinks it to other educational, research, and businessinformation resources.

GOAL 9

COMMUNICATIONS

Providing a public forum for input and informationabout state education initiatives, issues, and perfor-mance has been identified by the State Board ofEducation as one of its primary goals. The boardsupports the recognition of outstanding academicperformance by students, schools, and districts.

With the policy development and sunset review pro-cesses, the board has broadened the avenues ofpublic access to state education decision making. Sitevisits and hearings in Austin and across the state havebeen vital components of these processes. Actionsby the board have standardized reporting formats forcampus, district, regional, and state performance onthe Academic Excellence Indicator System. The boardhas continued to support the expans. ,n of the use oftechnology in public education in Texas. Implementa-tion of an ever-increasing telecommunications networkfor the state's educators has marked this phase of theboard's Long-Range Plan for Technology.

Evaluation Swnmary Page xix

24

GOAL 1

Goal Summary

STUDENTLEARNINGAll students will achieve their fulleducational potential.

STATE-LEVEL ACTIONS SHOULD ELIMINATE POLICIES THAT HINDER

STUDENT SUCCESS, IMPLEMENT A PLAN FOR REDUCING THE DROP-

OUT RATE, DEVELOP STATEWIDE STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING

STUDENTS' LITERACY SKILLS, AND COORDINATE EDUCATION WITH

HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES STATEWIDE.

Objectives Stated in the Long-Range Plan

1-1 Set increasingly challenging expectations for academic performance by all students in Texasschools.

1-2 Strengthen and increase the acquisition of literacy, reading, writing, spelling, and other com-munications skills.

1-3 Develop second language proficiencies in all students.

1-4 Close the achievement gap between educationally disadvantaged students and other popula-tions.

1-5 Support the development of infants and young children through early childhood education andparenting education.

1-6 Identify and assist slower learners to achieve their learning potential.

1-7 Through enhanced dropout prevention efforts, raise the graduation rate to 95 percent of studentswho enter the seventh grade.

1-8 Identify and provide appropriate prevention and intervention strategies for students with specialneeds.

1-9 Measure student learning through multiple indicators.

Goal 1 : Studeru Learning Page 1

25

State-Level Actions Specified in the Long-Range Plan

1. Expand student performance measures and raise standards, including:

a. Increase the rigor of state-mandated tests at least every five years and develop appropriatestandards. In addition to measuring students' skills in reading, writing, and mathematics, testswill assess knowledge of science, social studies, and foreign languages as well as critical-thinking and problem-solving ability.

b. Adopt a single norm-referenced test for the third through the eleventh grades.

c. Establish nontraditional measures for identifying and assessing student potentiai and perfor-mance, such as student portfolios, writing samples, and artistic endeavors.

d. Assess vocational education courses such as auto mechanics, plumbing, business computerprogramming, and retail merchandising for their effectiveness in preparing students for em-ployment or higher education.

e. Develop and implement a system of Academic Excellence Indicators.

2. Develop statewide strategies for improving students' literacy and communications skills. Thesestrategies will give special attention to at-risk students, students with special needs such as thehandicapped and learning disabled, students with limited English literacy skills, ethnic and minoritystudents, and young children.

3. Implement foreign language programs, beginning with model programs, in elementary, middle, andhigh schools.

4. Eliminate educational policies that hinder student success and instead implement policies such asflexible schedules and flexible advancement. Identify laws that contribute to at-risk status andpropose changes.

5. Expand early childhood education and parenting programs by:

a. securing additional state funds that equitably target pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and the earlyelementary grades;

b. establishing a variety of early childhood education models, including in-home programs andtraining for parents of infants and young children;

c. involving parents as a vital component of all early childhood education programs;

d. adopting appropriate certification and inservice training for early childhood teachers, since theyrequire specific qualifications and skills to work with young children; and

e. establishing eligibility standards for programs to serve three-year-olds and implementing acurriculum appropriate to their stage of physical, social, and intellectual development.

6. Promote techniques and programs appropriate for the learning styles of slower learners, i.e.,students whose 10 scores fall into the 70 to 89 range.

7. Develop and implement a state plan for reducing the dropout rate to not more than five percent ofstudents who enter the seventh grade each year. Coordinate plans with the private sector andappropriate state programs to keep at-risk students from leaving school before graduation.

8. Coordinate statewide health, mental health, and social services with education.

Pap 2 Long-Range Plan Interim Evaluation: 1991-1992

26

Evaluation of State-Level Actions

LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

The state defines and measures expecta-tions of student achievement through thestatewide assessment program. Statewidestudent assessment, authorized in Section21.551 of the Texas Education Code, is con-ducted within a program composed of acriterion-referenced component, whichcompares student performance to a passingstandard established by the State Board ofEducation, and a norm-referenced corn po-nent, which compares student performanceto a representative sample of students. Thecriterion-referenced component of the as-sessment system is the Texas Assessmentof Academic Skills (TAAS) examination. TheTAAS examination assesses student corn-petencies in reading, writing, and math-ematics. The norm-referenced componentof the assessment system, the Norm-refer-enced Assessment Program for Texas(NAPT), measured student performance inreading, writing, mathematics, science, andsocial studies in the 1991-92 school year.

In the 1986-1990 Long-Range Plan of theState Board of Education for Texas PublicSchool Education, the board called for in-creasing the rigor of the statewide assess-ment program and incorporating additionalmeasures for judging student performance.Following board initiatives to upgrade theassessment program, the 71st Texas Legis-lature directed the board to develop assess-ment instruments that measure student prob-lem-solving and critical-thinking skills. Theboard approved implementation of the TAASexamination, which focuses on more ad-vanced competencies rather than m inim um-level skills and broadens the range of subjectareas tested.

House Bill 2885, passed during the 72ndTexas Legislature, shifted the emphasis ofthe state's student assessment program,directing the board, through Section 21.5512of the Texas Education Code, to create and

implement a performance-based assessmentprogram that ensures school accountabilityfor student actievement. Before adoptingrules relating to the performance-based as-sessment prowam, the legislation directedthe board to corlsider the comments of theLegislative Education Board, which is chargedwith oversight of theimplementation of leg-islative educational po:icy and the evaluationof program effectiveness, and the recom-mendations of the Committee on StudentLearning, which is charged with recommend-ing policy in such areas as assessment, es-sential skills, student competencies, and in-dicators of learning to the board.

NEW STATEWIDE STUDENTASSESSMENT SYSTEM

In January 1992, the commissioner of edu-cation presented the Plan for Improved Stu-dentAchievementAccountabilityto the board.To ensure accountability, the plan linked thestatewide assessment program, the Aca-demic Excellence Indicator System, and thesystem for accreditation of campus and schooldistrict performance. The commissioner out-lined five measures for increasing the scopeand efficiency of the assessment program.To increase scope, the commissioner recom-mended:

expanding the assessment programacross the full range of essential ele-ments; and

developing criterion-referenced, per-formance-based, and developmen-tally appropriate measures in all con-tent areas assessed.

To increase efficiency, the commissionerrecommended:

changing the grades at which TAAS isadministered from 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 to4, 8, and 10;

Goal I : Student Learning

27Page 3

moving the assessments to the endof the instructional periods they test;and

decreasing the number of studenthours spent in the state assessmentprogram from 77 hours for studentsin all grades tested during the 1991-92 school year to 48 hours for studentsin all grades tested by the 1994-95school year.

As specified in House Bill 2885, the Com-mittee on Student Learning and the Legisla-tive Education Board reviewed the Plan forImproved Student Achievement Account-ability. In February 1992, the Committee onStudent Learning made the following rec-ommendations in support of the plan to theboard:

base future assessment strategieson outcomes that summarize signifi-cant features of learning across all ofthe content areas and essential ele-ments assessed;

develop performance-based assess-ments;

conduct the state assessment pro-gram at grades 4, 8, and 10;

move the assessment to the end ofthe instructional year to enhance ac-countability and develop a transitionplan for end-of-course examinationsin selected high school subjects; and

reduce the amount of student hoursspent in the assessment program.

In March 1992, the Legislative EducationBoard approved the assessment programpresented in the Plan for Improved StudentAchievement Accountability.. In April theboard adopted the student assessment pro-gram proposed in the plan.

The assessment program adopted by the

board raises expectations of student perfor-mance and expands the range of contentareas assessed in the TAAS examination toinclude reading, writing, mathematics, socialstudies, science, second language profi-ciency, computer literacy, physical fitness/health, and fine arts, with future assessmentsin vocational education and business educa-tion. To assure that high standards of cur-riculum and instruction are maintained acrossdistricts and campuses, the board directedthe Texas Education Agency to develop end-of-course tests in selected high school sub-jects in the new assessment program.

In adopting the assessment program, theboard reduced the number of grades whichare assessed by TAAS from five to three. Tominimize time spent teaching to the test andto support a broad range of learning activitiesin the classroom, the assessments are toinclude measurement strategies that can beintegrated into sound instructional programs.

The board also addressed norm-referencedassessment in the plan which districts use tomeet federal Chapter 1 evaluation require-ments. The Norm-referenced AssessmentProgram for Texas (NAPT) was administeredfor the first time in April 1992 in five contentareas in grades 3 through 11: reading, lan-guage, mathematics, social science, and sci-ence. To reduce the time spent on testingunder the new assessment plan, the boardlimited the subjects tested in the NAPT in thestate assessment system to reading andmathematics, beginning with the 1992-93school year. However, this action alloweddistricts the option of continuing to adminis-ter the language, social science, and scienceNAPT tests.

The board's new system of student assess-ment includes an oral assessment of secondlanguage proficiency, emphasizing Spanish,in grade 8 or high school, depending on localinstructional programs, in the 1993-94 schoolyear and grades 4, 8, and high school, de-pending on local instructional programs, inthe 1994-95 school year.

Page 4 Long-Range Plan Interim Evaluation: 1991-1992

28

In approving the new assessment program,the board redefined the state's role withinthe newtesting schedule, directing the TexasEducation Agency to provide local schooldistricts with formative assessment strate-gies beginning at grade 2 as well as technical

assistance and staff development to helplocal districts integrate formative and diag-nostic assessments into their daily instruc-tional programs.

Exhibits 1 .1 and 1 .2 detail the transition of the

EXHIBIT 1.1Student Assessment Transition Plan

1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 ,1994-95

TAAS

Performance Tasksand/or MachineScorable Items

Reading, Writing, &Mathematics

Science andSocial Studies

Computer Literacy

End of Course

Algebra I

Biologyl

ComputerScience

5 More Tests

Physical Fitness/Health

Oral Proficiency ina 2nd Language

Grades 3,5,7,9,11(exit) - October &Grade 11 (exit) -Spring

-

Grades 3,7,11(exit)- Fall andGrades 4,8,10(exit) -Spring

Grades 4,8,10(exit) - Spring

Grades 4,8- Spring

Grade 8

High School

High School

Grades 4,8- Spring

Gracies 8, highschool inSpanish



Grade 8

High School

High School

High School *

High School

Grades 4,8- Spring

Grades 4,8, andhigh school *

NAPT

Reading,Mathematics

Writing, Science,Social Studies

Grades an- April

Grades 3-11- April

Grades 3-11- April

Grades 3-11April

Grades 3.11- April

The first year a new test is administered will be an optional (phase-in) year. Districts may choose toparticipate on a trial basis.

Districts may elect to participate at any or all levels (Grades 4, 8, and high school) to match the local .instructional program.

Norm-referenced tests will be included as long as federal evaluation regulations remain unchanged.

In addition to changing the grade levels at which students are tested, the state assessment plan moves thescheduling from fall to spring.

Goal I Student Learning 29Page 5

Grade

EXHIBIT 1.2Estimates of Assessment Time in Hours per Student

1991-92 1992-93 1993-94TAAS NAPT TAAS NAPT TAAS NAPT TAAS

1994-95NAPT TAAS

3 6 5 6 3 3 3

4 5 3 6 3 8 3 85 6 5 3 3 3

6 5 3 3 3

7 6 5 6 3 3 3

8 5 3 6 3 8 3 8

9 6 5 2 2 2

10 5 2 6 2 6 2 8

11 6 5 6 2 2 2

Subtotals 30 45 18 24 18 24 22 24 24

Annual TotalsAcross Grades 75 60 46 48

Within four years, the total testing time should be redurJd by about one-third over 1991-92 amounts.

new state assessment plan from 1991-92 to1994-95. Exhibit 1.1 illustrates the transitionschedule and Exhibit 1.2 details how time intesting will decrease.

ASSESSMENT PROGRAM PASSINGSTANDARDS

In July 1990, the board acted to establish apassing standard of 60 percent on any sec-tion of the TAAS for eleventh-grade studentsin the 1990-91 school year and 70 percent foreleventh graders in 1991-92. In May 1992,the board reviewed the performance stan-dards for the statewide student assessmentprogram.

There was considerable public pressure tolower the 1991-92 passing standard on theeleventh-grade TAAS test to the 1990-91level of 60 percent. The board chose tomaintain high standards of academic perfor-mance within the assessment system. Intaking this action, however, the board di-rected the Texas Education Agency to pro-

vide remediation and technical assistance todistricts to help prepare students for theTAAS examination. The technical assistanceplan developed by agency staff seeks toidentify and disseminate district practicesproven to be successful in remediating stu-dents needing these seMces; highlights theneed for institutional accountability for as-sessment through the school accreditationsystem; and advocates increased use of al-ternative TAAS administration procedures.

NONTRADITIONAL MEASURES OFSTUDENT PERFORMANCE

In October 1991, the board's Committee onLong-Range Planning requested a presenta-tion on student performance assessmentfrom Ed Roemer, an assessment specialistwith the Ccuncil of Chief State School Offic-ers. The presentation highlighted the impor-tance of using performance assessment toprepare students for real-world requirements.Texas has joined a consortium of 25 states todevelop performance assessments in math-


30

ematics, literacy, and workplace readiness.Texas has also joined with several otherstates to produce an end-of-course assess-ment in United States History that includestraditional performance testing and a portfo-lio assessment of ongoing student perfor-mance in the subject area.

With the adoption of the statewide studentassessment program in April 1992, the TexasEducation Agency has initiated developmentof nontraditional assessment strategies andmeasures, especially in such curriculum areasas fine arts, second language oral proficiency,computer science, and physical educationand health.

At its March 1992 meeting, the board invitedWilliam Spady, director of the High SuccessNetwork, to speak on outcomes-based edu-cation. Dr. Spady described outcomes-basededucation as a system that shifts schoolassessment away from seat time require-ments and rigid course sequences to a sys-tem that organizes all of a school's programsand instructional efforts around clearly de-fined demonstrations of content area mas-tery. The goal of an outcomes-based educa-tion system is to have all students success-fully accomplish these demonstrations ofmastery, in a schedule that is matched totheir own academic progress and goals.

SUNSET REVIEW OF ASSESSMENTRULES

As part of the sunset review of educationrules in the Texas Administrative Code calledfor in Senate Bill 1, passed in the Sixth CalledSession of the 71st Texas Legislature, theboard adopted new rules for Title 19, Chapter101, Assessment in June 1992. The newrules provide for a transition to the perfor-mance-based assessment system estab-lished by Section 21.5512 of the Texas Edu-cation Code, allow local districts greater flex-ibility in test administration, and reflect chang-ing expectations for Texas students.

ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE INDICATORSYSTEM

The Plan for Improved Student AchievementAccountability linked student achievementto institutional accountability. The AcademicExcellence Indicator System (AEIS) is thatlink between student performance and schoolaccreditation. It reports the measures bywhich state policy makers, district and cam-pus educators, and the public can evaluateprogress in student performance and plan forcampus improvement. Indicators in the sys-tem come from two sources: legislative man-date and board rule. The 1992-93 AE1S indi-cators are listed in Exhibit 1.3.

The first AEIS was adopted in June 1991. InOctober 1991, after the first reports had beenmailed to school districts, the board adoptedan improvement plan for the AEIS. This planincluded five goals for improvement:

review, expansion, and further de-velopment of indicators;

assurance of accurate data with ad-equate access for all entities;

development of analysis proceduresfor all needs;

provision of internal and external in-formation in a timely manner; and

evaluation of development of AEIS toensure highest quality.

The plan adopted by the board expanded theset of AEIS indicators from 8 to 10 to moreaccurately reflect the ability of schools toprepare students for real-world roles.

In January 1992, the commissioner proposedan expanded AEIS to include the broaderrange of curriculum measured in TAAS aswell as measures of proficiency in physicalfitness, computer literacy, and a second lan-guage. The commissioner's plan also estab-lished world-class standards of performance

Goal 1 : Student Learning Page 7

31

EXHIBIT 1.3ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE INDICATORS

Percent of Students Passing TAAS in reading, mathematics, writing, and all tests taken forall grades tested, as required by statute. The board established a state standard of 90 percentof students passing the tests.

Graduation Rate, as required by itatute. The board established a state standard of 12thgraders graduating from high school at 99 percent.

Enrollment in Advanced High School Courses, as required by statute.

Student Attendance, as required by statute. The board established a state standard of 97percent student attendance for the year.

College Entrance Examinations, as required by statute. The board established a statestandard of 70 percent of high school seniors taking these examinations and a state standardof 35 percent of graduating seniors scoring over the criterion, which is 1000 for the SAT and24 for the ACT.

Graduates Receiving Advanced Seals on Transcript, as recommended by the AEIS Advi-sory Committee and adopted by the board.

Annual Student Dropout Rate, as recommended bythe AEIS Advisory Committee and adoptedby the board. The board established a state standard of a dropout rate of less than 1 percentfor students, grades 7 through 12.

College Preparedness, as reflected by students attaining a score on the exit-level TMSequivalent to a passing scale on the Texas Academic Skills Program examination. This indicatorwas recommended by the AEIS Advisory Committee and adopted by the board.

Norm-referenced Assessment Program for Texas, as required by statute.

Retention Rate for grades kindergarten through 8, as recommended by the AEIS AdvisoryCommittee and adopted by the board.

Statute, relevancy, and data availability guided the board's choice of academic excellence indicators.

for indicators in the system and recommendedreporting formats.

In June 1992, the board adopted the 1993,1994, and 1995 AEIS. The plan approved bythe board added end-of-course test results inAlgebra I, Biology I, and physical fitness, aswell as student retention and promotionrates.

POLICY INITIATIVES

Creating a framework that state and localeducators can use to design developmentallyappropriate programs and foster high levelsof student achievement, engagement, andsupport is a board priority. In July 1991, theboard adopted the Policy Statement forMiddleGrade Education and Middle Grade Schools.The policy identifies academic excellence

Page 8 Long-Range Plan Interim Evaluation: 19914992

32

and personal and social growth as primarypurposes of education at the middle grades.It focuses on two major hindrances to achiev-ing these purposes: lack of interdisciplinarycurriculum and student tracking based ondemonstrations of prior academic perfor-mance and ability. The board's policy state-ment calls upon educators to develop teamsof heterogeneously-grouped students andteachers from several subject areas.

In November 1991, the board adopted apolicy cycle that included policy developmentactivities in four priority areas: high schooledudation, professional educator preparation,student outcomes goals, and vocationaleducation. In July 1992, the board adoptedthe Policy Statement on High School Educa-tion. This policy calls for creating communi-ties of learning on high school campuses inwhich every student has close ties to at leastone teacher. At the center of these commu-nities are individualized student educationplans, developed by the teacher, the studentand the family, that target attainment of ex-plicitly stated post-secondary goals. To fosteressential school-student relationships andensure learning for all students, the policyendorses greater flexibility of high schoolorganization, scheduling, hiring practices, andstaffing arrangements.

Progress reports from the Texas EducationAgency offices of elementary, middle, andhigh school education keep the board in-formed of the implementation of its grade-level policy initiatives. The first report on theimplementation of the middle school policyinitiative was given to the board in April 1992.Board committees heard presentations onrestructuring middle grade education by prin-cipals, teachers, and counselors from mentorschools in the Texas Middle School Network.Thirty-seven mentor schools, competitivelyselected on the basis of their leadership inrestructuring middle school education, an-chor the network.

EXPERT SPEAKER PRESENTATIONS

A number of expert speakers have addressedthe board's Committee on Long-Range Plan-ning on the subject of eliminating barriers tostudent achievement.

In September 1991, the committeerequested a presentation on acceler-ated instruction from Henry Levin, aprofessor of education at StanfordUniversity. Accelerated schools areguided by the belief that all studentsmust perform on grade level. Curricu-lum and instruction in these schoolsare enhanced and enriched in order toprovide all students with a grade-levelfoundation for achievement.

In January 1992, E. D. Hirsch, a pro-fessor of English at the University ofVirginia, spoke on core knowledgecurriculum for the elementary grades.The core knowledge curriculum, de-signed to occupy no more than 50percent of the total curriculum at theelementary level, is coherent, content-specific, and sequenced to developthe shared skills and knowledge thatall students need to succeed in thesecondary grades.

In June 1992, Jeannie Oakes, a pro-fessor of education at the Universityof California at Los Angeles, ad-dressed issues related to studenttracking and ability grouping. Dr.Oakes told the committee thattracking students based on priordemonstrations of ability promotesschooling inequalities and affects ac-cess to curriculum, teacher quality,and learning opportunities.

In July 1992, Fred Newrnann, pro-fessor of curriculum and instructionat the University of Wisconsin, Madi-son, spoke on restructuring highschools to promote student engage-ment and authentic achievement. Hedescribed a model which measures

Goal I: Student Learning Page 9

33

the extent of school restructuringacross six outcomes: authenticachievement, which involves consen-sus within the school community overwhat should be taught and how itshould be tested; equity; empower-ment of teachers in the decision-making process; communities oflearning; and accountability that rein-forces the achievement of the firstfive outcomes.

In addition to these speakers, the board hasexamined other issues related to impedimentsto student achievement, such as the gendergap in mathematics and science instructionand achievement.

TARGET SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS

The board has taken a number of actions toassist slower learners and special needsstudents in the full achievement of theirlearning potential. These actions recognizethe importance of high expectations for per-formance and encourage local districts todevelop a broad range of rigorous programsthat can best meet the varied needs andgoals of all the students they serve.

In July 1991, the board's Committee onStudents requested a report from TexasEducation Agency staff on changes in theadministration of the TMS examination todyslexic students. Included in that report wasa study of modifications in the statewidestudent assessment program for studentswith dyslexia, The Effects of Oral Reading ofMathematics Achievement Test Items onGrade 5 Student Performance. The studyidentified methods of addressing studentconditions but cautioned districts about theimplementation of these methods. The studyindicated that while reading mathematicstest items aloud to dyslexic students im-proved their scores, the oral reading of math-ematics test items hampered the perfor-mance of non-dyslexic students taking thetest.

In March 1992, the board requested a statusreport on the Texas Children's Mental HealthPlan, an interagency initiative with the pur-pose of developing and implementing anintegrated system of public, community-based mental health care and related ser-vices for children and their families. TheTexas Education Agency is one of nine stateagencies participating in the initiative, whichwas established by the 72nd Texas Legisla-ture. Key strategies in the plan seek to:

establish coordinated, community-based mental health services acrossthe state over a 10-year period;

support prevention and interventionthrough model programs; and

emphasize intensive mental healthtreatment for youth in the juvenilejustice system.

Each local program funded under the initia-tive is administered by an interagency com-munity management team.

In May 1992, the Committee on Studentsrequested an accountability report on thecollaboration between public and privateschools providing education services to deafstudents. The goal of this collaborative effortis to allow students who are deaf to attend, tothe greatest extent possible, regular educa-tion classes. A model for collaborative audi-tory-verbal service to deaf students is in placein the Dallas area.

In June 1992, the board approved changes inthe assessment rules that allowed for greaterflexibility in assessing students with specialneeds.

EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS

Expanding the Boundaries, the board's finalreport on pilot programs established by the71st Texas Legislature, includes descriptionsand evaluations of prekindergarten programsfor three-year-olds. The prekindergarten pro-


34

gram became a statewide program in 1991.Board rules related to the pilot evaluationrecognize that effective prekindergarten pro-grams can operate in schools, communityinstitutions, and homes.

In March 1992, the Committee on Long-Range Planning heard a presentation on thePreschool Education Program from Ralph B.Rogers, president of Public BroadcastingService station KERA in Dallas. The PreschoolEducation Program, a joint project of theChildren's Television Workshop and the Pub-lic Broadcasting Service, is a video- and text-based education program for children inpreschool, child development, and day carecenters.

Having authorized a longitudinal study ofTexasprekindergarten programs in 1989-90, theboard requested information on these pro-grams in September 1992. According to TexasEducation Agency staff, the preliminary re-sults of the five-year study indicate a need fora comprehensive state-level framework thatidentifies quality program standards, supportsa professional development network that isfocused on developmentally appropriatepractices, and disseminates information andtechnical assistance on exemplary practices.The board will develop a policy related toearly childhood and elementary education in1993.

DROPOUT PREVENTION

The board has actively participated in a numberof initiatives to increase the holding power ofTexas schools. In June 1990, the boardadopted dropout rate reduction goals throughthe 1997-98 school year. After determiningthe difference between the 1987-88 longitu-dinal rate and the statutorily-mandated goalof a five percent longitudinal rate by 1997-98,a projected annual rate of reduction andannual goals were calculated. Dropout raterequirements are stated in Section 11.205 ofthe Texas Education Code. The dropout ratereduction goals adopted by the board in 1990are listed in Exhibit 1.4.

EXHIBIT 1.4Dropout Rate Reduction Goals

1987-88 1997-98

YOE

ProjectedAnnual

Eate.

ActualAnnual

Ma

EstimatedLongitudinal

Rate

1987-88 6.70% 6.70% 34.03%

1988-89 6.05% 6.05% 31.25%

1989-90 5.47% 5.14% 27.16%

1990-91 4.89% 3.93% 21.39%

1991-92 4.31% 23.23%

1992-93 3.73% 20.39%

1993-94 3.15% 17.47%

1994-95 2.57% 14.46%

1995-96 1.99% 11.36%

1996-97 1.41% 8.17%

1997-98 0.85% 5.0%(Goal)

Although the annual dropout rate has been lowerthan projected, significant energy will be needed tomeet the 5% longitudinal rate goal by 1997-98. Thegoal is specified in statute.

The first State Plan to Reduce the DropoutRate was delivered by the board to the 72ndTexas Legislature in March 1991. That reportfocused on improving educational practicesrelated to high expectations for all students;teacher and administrator renewal; changinginstructional strategies; organizational impedi-ments to high student achievement; andparent and community support.

In June 1992, the board adopted the fourthReport on Public School Dropouts. The an-nual dropout rate for the 1990-91 school yearreported in that document was 3.93 percent.That rate is lower than the 4.89 percent rateprojected for 1990-91 in the annual dropoutrate goals adopted by the board in 1990. Thestate's annual dropout rate has declined 16percent per year. As in past years, the highestdropout rate is in the ninth grade.

Goal 1 : Student Learning

35Page 11

The dropout rate declined among all ethnicgroups. Reasons cited in the report for thisdecline include:

better state and local reporting andtracking of dropouts through the Pub-lic Education Information Manage-ment System (PEIMS);

increased accountability through theAEIS; and

implementation of a broad array ofdropout prevention and recoveryprograms, including the in-school GEDprogram.

Future Board Actions

The board's efforts to promote and improvestudent achievement at all grade levels andamong allTexas students have not succeededin closing gaps in academic performanceamong the state's demographic and specialstudent populations. White students out-perform their African-American and Hispanicpeers; economically disadvantaged studentsdo not perform at rates equal to studentswho are not impoverished; special needsstudents do not have achievement levelsequal to students in the educational main-stream. Board rules to implement grade-level and student policies must focus onachieving and sustaining high levels of aca-demic performance for all students if Texas isto successfully meet the challenges of adynamic future. In other actions over thenext biennium, the board will extend thestatewide assessment program to incorpo-rate a broader range of curriculum and mea-surements, expand its policy initiative to reachearly childhood, elementary education, andspecial education students, and incorporateeducational initiatives and legislative action inways that maintain the state's focus on ex-cellence and equity for all students.

Performance Measures

To measure state-level progress towardachieving Goal 1, Student Learning, in theLong-Range Plan for Public Education, theboard established the following performancemeasures:

the achievement of disadvantagedstudents compared to other studentsas measured by the academic excel-lence indicators; and

the number of districts coordinatingor providing needed services, includ-ing child care, health care, or othersocial services.

ACHIEVEMENT OF DISADVANTAGEDSTUDENTS COMPARED TO OTHERSTUDENTS

This measure focuses on closing theachievement gap between the various de-mographic groups in the Texas studentpopulation. The Academic Excellence Indica-tor System 1991-92 State Performance Re-port, indicating performance of student groupsacross the student performance indicatorswithin the AEIS is included as an appendix.The report compares 1991-92 results withdata from 1990-91 and shows the board-adopted state standard in parentheses nextto the indicator to which it applies.

The TAAS testing program, the foundation ofstudent performance data used in the AEIS,was adm inistered to Texas students in grades3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 in October 1991. The 1991-92 state AEIS report indicates the percent ofstudents passing and the percent masteringthe reading, writing and mathematics sec-tions of the TAAS test at each grade level,disaggregated by a number of categories,including ethnicity, race, gender, and eco-nomic status. These figures are compared toperformance, disaggregated in the same fash-ion, for the prior school year (1990-91). The


36

ensuing discussion compares 1990-91 to1991-92 performance, compares the perfor-mance of economically disadvantaged stu-dents with other students, and compares theperformance of African-American, Hispanic,and white students.

In the AEIS report, 1991-92 data for studentspassing each section of the TAAS at eachgrade level is listed above prioryear (1990-91)performance for the same grades. Whencomparing state-level data for g rade and TAASsection performance between the two years,the following must be considered. Given thelarge number of students in Texas schoolstaking the TAAS test at each grade level, aslight increase or decrease in the percent ofstudents passing a particular section of thetest may be statistically, but not education-ally, significant. Fluctuation between testsand grades from one year to the next may notconnote any real measure of improved ordecreased academic or instructional perfor-mance. The challenge to educators is toachieve consistent gains in student perfor-mance across administrations of the testover time.

Gaps in academic performance are apparentwhen analyzing the difference in TAAS scoresbetween student demographic groups. Stu-dents who are not identified as economicallydisadvantaged consistently outperform eco-nomically disadvantaged students. This pat-tern holds for every grade level and on everysection of the TAAS test.

Analysis of this performance measure yieldsother disturbing results. The state standardof performance (90% of all students passingthe test sections taken) was exceeded onlyone time, by one ethnic group, in 1991-92.92.3 percent of the third grade white studentspassed the mathematics section of the TAAStest. State performance, which combines allethnic and economic student groups, neverreached the board's standard. Indeed, thestatewide percent of students passing theTAAS test showed a general decline acrossthe grades spiking up only on the writing

section between grades 3 and 5 and thereading and writing sections of the test be-tween grades 7 and 9. To reach the board'sperformance standard of 90 percent of stu-dents passing all TAAS sections, educatorsand policy makers at all levels of public edu-cation in Texas must continue to seek innova-tive ways of reaching students and cultivat-ing their knowledge and skills in preparationfor the challenges of the world they will faceafter high school.

A comparison of the performance of thevarious ethnic and economic groups yields apicture of significant disparities in perfor-mance. In all cases, white students outper-form their African-American and Hispaniccounterparts. The performance of the threegroups is closest on the grade 3 mathematicstest. Even here, 16.9 percent more whitestudents (92.3 percent) passed that sectionof the TAAS than did African-American stu-dents (75.4 percent). The disparity betweenHispanic and white students was slightlyless, with 77.8 percent of Hispanic studentspassing the mathematics section of the test.,

The range in the performance gap increasesfrom grade 3. By grade 11, passing rates onthe mathematics section of the TAAS exittest show a 35 percent difference betweenwhite and African-American students, with69 percent of white students passing the testand only 34.1 percent of the African-Ameri-can students passing. On the exit levelmathematics test, 42.2 percent of Hispanicstudents passed.

TAAS EXIT-LEVEL REMEDIATIONEFFORTS

After the October 1991 TAAS administration,nearly 19,000 high school seniors had not yetpassed all sections of the exit level exami-nation. To enable school districts to helpthose students pass the examination in May,thc: last opportunity they would have to passthe test and still graduate with their peers,the agency launched a special initiative in

Goal I : Student Learning Page 13

37

January 1992, in cooperation with the re-gional education service centers (ESC's) andlocal school districts. School districts werepermitted to substitute mathematics or En-glish language arts courses specifically de-signed to correct weaknesses identified bythe exit-level test for some elective credits.TAAS data were analyzed to identify deficien-cies in mathematics, reading, and/or writingfor individual students. The agency alsoprovided ESCs with additional funding forexit-level TAAS activities; provided an analy-sis of performance on the writing portion ofthe test to those schools which had not yetreceived the information; and helped thecenters provide teachers and principals withsuccessful teaching strategies.

As a result of the initiative, almost 58 percentof these students tested in April 1992 passedthe TAAS. Almost 1,900 additional studentspassed the July 1992 examination. Finalresults for the senior class of 1992 showedthat of the original 174,871 students whotook the exit-level examination for the firsttime as juniors in 1990-91, 3,490, or 2.0percent, could not receive a high school di-ploma solely due to not paSsing the TAAS.

DISTRICTS COORDINATING ORPROVIDING NEEDED SERVICES,INCLUDING CHILD CARE, HEALTHCARE, OR OTHER SOCIAL SERVICES

In establishing this measure of performance,the board has challenged local districts toimplement the coordinated programs neededfor their students to achieve academic andsocial goals. Coordinated programs of edu-cation and social services are components ofthe school-age pregnancy and parentingprograms piloted by the 71st session of theTexas Legislature and subsequently expandedwith compensatory education funds; of pro-grams funded by Carl D. Perkins VocationalEducation Act funds; and of programs thatseek a coordinated approach to service deliv-ery established by House Bill 7, passed by the72nd session of the Texas Legislature.

SCHOOL-AGE PREGNANCY ANDPARENTING PROGRAMS

In the biennium ending in August 1991, therewere 51 state school-age pregnancy andparenting programs in districts across thestate. By the end of the 1992 fiscal year, 95of these programs were in operation. Ingeneral, a number of support services areimplemented by districts to help enrolledstudents achieve their academic goals.Component services include pre-employmenttraining, counseling by school counselors andsocial workers, child care and wellness carefor program participants, parenting educa-tion, transportation, and interagency coordi-nation of services. In many cases, thepopulation served by these programs is eli-gible for and served by programs funded bythe Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act.

Programs Funded with the Carl D. PerkinsVocational Education Act:

Adult Vocational Education Programs:District adult vocational education pro-grams funded by the Carl D. Perkins Vo-cational Education Act are required todescribe how the programs, services,and activities for adults are coordinatedwith relevant programs conducted underthe Job Training Partnership Act and theAdult Education Act. Texas EducationAgency staff monitor these programs toensure that coordination efforts succeedwith a minimum of service duplication.

Single Parents and Homemakers Pro-grams: During the 1990-91 program year,9,002 single parents, displaced home-makers and single pregnant women wereenrolled in secondary instructional pro-grams provided by school districts. Dis-tricts also served an additional 5,534 eli-gible single parents and homemakersthrough 57 federally-funded projectssponsored by the Texas EducationAgency. Of these programs, 37 werefunded in medium- and large-sized schooldistricts, serving 4,715 participants and20 in small and rural districts, serving 819


38

participants. Approximately $2.1 millionin federal funds were expended duringthe program year to support programs,services and activities for single parentsand homemakers.

During the 1991-92 program year, pro-grams for single parents and homemak-ers expanded to serve just over 18,000students. Districts also served an addi-tional 10,592 eligible single parents andhomemakers through 102 federally-funded projects sponsored by the TexasEducation Agency. Of these programs,62 were funded in medium- and large-sized districts, serving 9,065 participantsand 40 in small and rural districts, serving1,527 participants.

Each project is required to have an advi-sory committee that includes represen-tatives from education, business and in-dustry, the Texas Department of HumanServices, the Job Training PartnershipAct, and the Texas Employment Com-mission.

Program participants received a variety ofvocational education and support services,such as career guidance and counseling,day care for children, transportation, andsummer school tuition. Annual perfor-mance reports prepared by the TexasEducation Agency state that the mostneeded support services in these pro-grams are transportation and dependentcare.

COMMUNITY RESOURCECOORDINATION GROUPS

In 1987, the Texas Legislature mandated theestablishment of local interagency staffinggroups (referred to as Community ResourceCoordination Groups or CRCG's) in responseto increasing numbers of childrenunderserved by the state's human servicessystems. The mandate included the devel-opment of a Memorandum of Understandingbetween the Texas Education Agency and anumber of other state agencies.

CRCG's consist of local decision-making staffrepresenting each participating state agencyand up to five representatives of the privatesector, which may include local agenciesserving youth, including programs address-ing substance abuse.

The local interagency teams coordinate ser-vices to children and youth in need in the localcommunity, pool resources to ensure thatthe needs of the community's children aremet, and develop community-level programs.Any CRCG member can present for consid-eration any child or youth who is less than 22years old and has needs that cannot be metwithout interagency coordination. CRCG'shave been implemented in 70 counties.Eighty-five percent of the children in Texasreside in these counties.

Goal I: Sludge Loraine

39Page IS

GOAL 2

Goal Summary

CURRICULUM ANDPROGRAMSA well-balanced and appropriatecurriculum will be provided to allstudents.

STATE-LEVEL ACTIONS SHOULD STRENGTHEN THE STATE

CURRICULUM, PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR SCHOOLS TO INSTRUCT

STUDENTS IN NONTRADITIONAL WAYS, PROMOTE PROGRAMS TO

HELP SLOWER LEARNERS, AND REVISE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

FOR STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS.


2-1 Strengthen the state core curriculum, especially the areas of language arts, mathematics,science, and social studies.

2-2 Raise promotion and graduation requirements.

2-3 Increase instructional time by a lengthened school day and school year.

2-4 Develop students' citizenship skills, self-esteem, and respect for others.

2-5 Incorporate developmentally appropriate higher-order thinking skills, for example, critical-thinking and problem-solving skills, throughout the curriculum.

2-6 Provide career opportunities through vocational education.

2-7 Provide special education services to meet individual educational needs in the least restrictiveenvironment.

2-8 Provide appropriate language and content-area instruction to limited-English proficient students.

Goal 2: Curriculum and Programs Page 17

4 0

2-9 Provide enriched and advanced curricula for gifted and talented students.

2-10 Encourage healthy lifestyles and meet students' health needs through the curriculum andappropriate programs.

2-11 Implement appropriate and challenging programs for students with multiple learning needs.

2-12 Provide increased emphasis on the role of homework in the instructional process.

State -Level Actions Specified in the Long-Range Plan

1. Review and revise the state curriculum, including the essential elements, subject/course require-ments, requirements for promotion and graduation, and other policies and practices. Particularactions will include:

a. Develop curriculum policies to promote literacy and communications skills so that students canspeak well, analyze what they read, and write persuasively.

b. Restructure the science curriculum to prepare all students to understand and apply scientificconcepts and investigative techniques.

c. Develop strategies for improving students' mathematical competence. Encourage female andminority students to prepare for and excel in mathematics and the sciences.

d. Promote strategies to help students build creativity, critical-thinking ability, problem-solvingskills, citizenship skills, self-esteem, and self-responsibility. Integrate these strategies into thestate curriculum, textbooks, and electronic and other instructional materials.

e. Disseminate guidelines for planning and implementing programs that improve students' lifelonghealth and increase their environmental awareness.

f. Encourage the assignment of homework to build students' independent study skills and furthertheir learning.

Revise vocational education courses so they reinforce basic and academic skills, reflect the latesttechnological developments in business and industry, give information about emerging careeropportunities, and reflect regional planning for occupational education and training.

g.

2. Provide incentives for districts to offer nontraditional instruction. Examples include:

extended school day or school year;

year-round calendar;

ungraded curricula at the elementary level;

alternative times such as evening classes and different sites such as a library or communitycenter; and

restructured middle schools.

3. Revise policies, curricula, and programs for students with special needs in various ways, including:

a. Emphasize placing children with handicaps in the least restrictive environment.


b. Monitor remedial and compensatory programs for effectiveness and monitor districts for thenumber of students who continue to be served by such programs for a prolonged time.

c. Develop transition programs for students who are not proficient in English so they can movemore easily into English classrooms. Issue textbook proclamations that will provide instructional

materials for these students.

d. Increase funds for gifted education to an amount comparable to the funding set aside for other

special populations.

4. Provide computer-assisted learning modules, computer networking capability, video disks, coursesbroadcast by satellite and other technological innovations so that all students have access to a broad

and well-balanced curriculum. Promote technology that allows teachers to tailor instruction tostudents' needs, monitor students' progress, and increase efficiency.

5. rs.00rdinate the elements of the state curriculum, the statewide testing program, textboaks andelectronic materials and state-level staff development. Ensure that the curriculum, metarials andmethods are appropriate to students' needs and abilities at different ages.

Goal 2: Curricsdion and Programs 42Pap 19


LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

Two measures in statute guide the StateBoard of Education's oversight of the curricu-lum. The first, found in the Texas EducationCode Section 21.101, empowers the boardto designate the essential elements of a well-balanced curriculum for gradesprekindergarten through 12 and to requiredistricts to provide instruction in these ele,ments. Subjects constituting the well-bal-anced curriculum are listed in Exhibit 2.1.The board has defined the essential ele-ments as the knowledge, skills, and compe-tencies taught by schools and learned bystudents. Within each of the subjects of thestate curriculum, the essential elements listthe learning opportunities that will be pro-vided students at each grade level. The rulesdeveloped by the board state that all stu-dents, regardless of identified need or condi-tion, will be provided instruction in the well-balanced curriculum, with presentation ofthe essential elements adapted for studentswith special needs.

The second measure, found in the TexasEducation Code Section 21.5511, links indi-vidual student learning to statewide educa-tion goals and directs the board to establishthe essential skills and knowledge all stu-dents should learn as a result of theirprogress through Texas public schools. Theseskills and knowledge may be detailed in theessential elements, but the focus of thissection of the law is on the results of educa-tional performance that students shouldachieve in order for the state to meet itspublic education goals. The state's goals forpublic education, found in the Texas Educa-tion Code Section 2.01, parallel the goals ofthe Long-Range Plan for Public Education,1991-1995.

In an August 1991 presentation to the board,the commissioner of education describedthe territory demarcated by these two mea-sures, stating that the essential elements

EXHIBIT 2.1Well-Balanced Curriculum

Grades Prekindergarten - Twelve

English language arts

2. Other languages, to the extent possible

3. Mathematics

4. Science

5. Health

6. Physical education

7. Fine arts

8. Social studies

9. Economics, with an emphasis on thefree enterprise system and itsbenefits

10. Business Education

11. Vocational education

12. Texas and United States history asindividual subjects and in readingcourses

The legislature empowered the board to define thestate curriculum in the early 1980's. The board hasreviewed the curriculum most recently through thesusnset process of board rules.

constitute courses of study that are offeredto students rather than a set of outcomes tobe demonstrated by them. The essentialelements are course-specific: they provide astep-wise sequence of learning opportuni-ties for students enrolling in a particularcourse. The commissioner told the boardthat outcomes, on the other hand, are dem-onstrations of knowledge required of all stu-dents: the essential skills and knowledgethat propel an outcomes-based system mustreflect world-class requirements and stan-dards of equity that assure all students willachieve them. The commissioner mappedout a system that sets expected benchmarks

Page 20

43Long-rZange Plan Interim Evaluation: 1991-1992

of student performance and uses the essen-tial elements to link curriculum, student as-sessment, and school accreditation to assurethat all Texas students are prepared to meetthe challenges they will face upon graduationfrom high school.

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS ANDTEXTBOOKS

The essential elements are closely tied to thetextbook adoption process and the studentassessment system. The board is requiredby Section 12.34 of the Texas EducationCode to develop a textbook adoption cycle.Textbook adoption occurs in a six-year cyclefrom proclamation by committee to class-room implementation. In July 1992, theboard approved a textbook adoption cyclethat included a textbook proclamation ofmore than $131 million for the fiscal yearending August 1993.

In 1989, 1990, and 1991, the board revisedthe essential elements to refl6ct changes inthe content of the textbooks recommendedfor adoption by the advisory committees. InJune 1991, the board upended this sequenceand increased emphasis on the essentialelements by requiring that the essential ele-ments for any subject in the well-balancedcurriculum be reviewed and updated prior tothe beginning of work by the textbook advi-sory committees, rather than after the com-mittee recommendations have been ap-proved. This change placed the content ofthe essential elements at the head of thetextbook adoption cycle.

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS ANDASSESSMENT

The essential elements are the foundation ofthe specifications in the student assessmentprogram. In August 1991, the commissionerrecommended that the board redesign andbroaden the assessment program to test innew areas, establish student achievementgoals, incorporate performance measures,

and expand the scope of student outcomesto better reflect real-world requirements. InApril 1992, the board adopted a statewidestudent assessment program that includesa redesigned TAAS examination and end-of-course tests in selected high school sub-jects. That program:

expanded the range of essential ele-ments tested to encompass 11 sub-ject areas;

set a schedule for phasing in end-of-course tests in selected high schoolsubjects; and

focused accountability for studentassessment on grades 4, 8, and 10.

The subjects and schedule for the new as-sessment system are listed in Chapter Oneas Exhibits 1.1 and 1.2.

CURRICULUM REVIEW

Title 19, Texas Administrative Code Chapter75, Curriculum, directs the board to reviewthe essential elements every five years be-ginning in 1990-91. As a result of that review,the board adopted changes in the curriculumrules in November 1991. The curriculumchanges adopted by the board enhance thedevelopmental appropriateness of instruc-tion, integrate activities within and acrosssubject areas; and support skills for lifelonglearning.

English Language Arts: Curriculumchanges in English language arts empha-size subject integration with all aspects ofreading, language, handwriting, spelling,composition, and literature addressedduring instruction.

Mathematics: In mathematics, newessential elements emphasize problem-solving skills, provide a foundation ofmathematical concepts rather than roteclassroom procedures, and call for in-creased use of calculators and comput-ers as problem-solving tools.

Goal 2: Curriculum and Progrants 4 4Page 21

Prekindergarten/Kindergarten: In thecurriculum for prekindergarten and kin-dergarten, the board:

placed the essential elements withinfour developmental domains:

social/emotional;

intellectual;

aesthetic; and

physical.

integrated curriculum across subjectsto better fit the developmental stagesof children in these grades.

Social Studies: Board activity related tothe state social studies curriculum wasadvised by the Task Force for the Reviewand Revision of Social Studies, appointedin June 1991. The task force was chargedwith reviewing the scope and sequenceof social studies essential elements toestablish student outcomes and elimi-nate redundancies and duplications. In aNovember 1991 report requested by theboard's Committee on Students, the taskforce stated that it had established goalsand student outcomes in the social stud-ies and determined a scope and sequencefor grades 1 through 12. The task forcedeveloped essential elements for grades1 through 6 and course titles for grades 7through 12. These revisions reflect agreater multicultural and international fo-cus in- social studies.

Science: The board adopted a proposalto restructure the state science curricu-lum in November 1990. That action wasaccompanied by a timetable: textbookproclamations for grade 7 science in 1991and grade 8 science in 1992, with imple-mentation of the new grade 7 curriculumin 1994 and the new grade 8 curriculum in1995. This action also gave school dis-tricts the alternative of remaining with

the traditional science courses taught inthese grades, life science and earth sci-ence. In November 1991, the boardapproved essential elements for restruc-tured science education in seventh andeighth grades.

Science I, grade 7, and Science II, grade8, present a coordinated sequence ofedi th science, space science, life sci-ence, physics, and chem istry. The es-sential elements for these two coursesfocus on skills that support lifelong learn-ing such as:

manipulating materials and equip-ment;

acquiring and classifying scientific dataand information;

communicating scientific data andinformation;

inferring, generalizing, and predict-ing; and

formulating and testing hypotheses.

Content that may be included in thecourses is part of the specifications listedin the textbook proclamations. In adopt-ing the restructured science curriculum,the board directed Texas EducationAgency staff to develop course guidesthat provide direction to classroomteachers in determining specific contentand level of instruction.

In September 1992, the board requestedtwo reports evaluating pilot implementa-tion of the restructured science program.One, evaluating the pilot in Fort WorthISD, compared the restructured programto the traditional science program in fourschools, offering the followirg conclu-sions:

average student scores wem signifi-cantly better in me restructured sci-ence courses; and

Page 22 Long-Range Plan Intenm Evaluation: 1991-1992

45

scores still improved when the analy-sis controlled forethnicity and income.

A second report, comparing restructuredto traditional science instruction in 11classrooms statewide, found differencesin both instructional practice and studentperformance between traditional andrestructured science courses. The reportrecommended enhanced science teachertraining to address teaching within acoordinated and thematic science cur-riculum.

Vocational and Applied TechnologyEducation: The board adopted four com-ponents of state vocational and appliedtechnology education policy in October1991, in response to recommendationsmade by the Texas Council on VocationalEducation in its June 1991 evaluationreport. The board's actions sought fur-ther incorporation of vocational and ap-plied technology education into such ini-tiatives as core proficiencies, restructur-ing the school day and year, and results-based education. The four elements in-cluded:

Developing and implementing a com-prehensive career assessment, guid-ance, and counseling program thatreaches all students from grades 6through 12;

Developing and implementing a rigor-ous core proficiencies program forhigh school graduates, preparingthese students for success in highereducation and/or the workplace;

Providing greater access to educa-tion and training through extendedschool days and year-round school-ing; and

Implementing performance stan-dards, such as employment, wages,and preparation for further educationand training, that evaluate secondary

EXHIBIT 2.2Goals for the Improvement of Higher

Education in the Master Plan forVocational and Technical Education

1991 UPDATE

1. Improve statewide communicationsabout the relevance of technicaleducation and training for economicdevelopment and suc ...essful studentoutcomes.

2. Provide flexible and timely technicaleducation and training to meet theneeds of employers for an employable,skilled work force.

3. Improve and expand technicaleducation and training to ensuresuccessful educational andemployment outcomes of the diversestudent populations within Texas.

4. Improve the quality of technicaleducation instruction, counseling,management, and leadership,resulting in increased successfulstudent outcomes.

5. Provide support services to Texascommunities to help them remainviable and competitive in theinternational economy of the 1990's.

6. Increase funding and support fortechnical education and training inTexas resulting in increasedsuccessful student outcomes.

and post-secondary institutions onpost-program outcomes.

The board also approved the 1991 updateto the 1987 Master Plan for Vocationaland Technical Education in October 1991.The plan has three parts: secondary edu-cation, post-secondary education, andquality work force planning. The updateincluded six goals for post-secondaryeducation which target career adaptabil-ity and technological training. Theupdate's goals are listed in Exhibit 2.2.

Goal 2: Curriculum and Programs 4 6 Page 23

RAISING ACADEMIC STANDARDS

In June 19911 as part of a review of the statecurriculum, the board requested a reportfromTexas Education Agency staff on eliminatingbelow-grade level high school coursesin English language arts, reading, mathemat-ics, and science. As the board worked toincorporate the commissioner's Plan for Im-proved Student Achievement Accountabilityinto education rule, it recognized that thestate could not meet its performance stan-dards by offering courses below high schoolgrade level for high school credit. Staff cau-tioned the board that successful eliminationof below-grade level courses depended onthe disposition of mandated reading improve-ment courses, school district flexibility inachieving student outcomes, and the qualityand availability of professional developmentfor teachers.

In July 1992, the board approved the emer-gency adoption of a schedule for phasing outgraduation credit for Fundamentals of Math-ematics, Consumer Mathematics, AppliedBiology, and Introductory Physical Scienceafter the 1992-93 school year and for Pre-

algebra after the 1995-96 school year. Ex-hibit 2.3 presents this schedule. The boardalso directed the Texas Education Agency toprovide districts with professional develop-ment on successfully integrating studentswho had planned to enroll in these classesinto grade-level courses.

STUDENT OUTCOME GOALS

The board established an Ad-Hoc Committeeon Student Outcome Goals in November1991. The ad-hoc committee was chargedwith initiating the process of identifying thecompetencies expected of high school gradu-ates and exploring objectives in the board'sLong-Range Plan for integrating real-worldcompetencies and the essential elements.The ad-hoc committee has provided a bridgebetween the work of the Committee onStudent Learning and the board. By law, theboard must consult with the Committee onStudent Learning prior to establishing theessential skills and knowledge required ofTexas students and before adopting rulesrelated to a performance-based assessmentsystem.

EXHIBIT 2.3Proposed Below-Grade Level Courses Phaseout Schedule

(The school year indicates the last year the courses can be offered for graduation credit.)

Subiect Areas 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96

EnglishLanguageArts .

CorrelatedLanguage

Artsl

CorrelatedLanguageArts II - IV

Mathematics

Fundamentalsof

Mathematics

ConsumerMathematics

Pre-algebra

ScienceIScience

IntroductoryPhysical

AppliedBiology

Eliminating low-level courses as acceptable graduation credits is another board strategy aimed at raisingperformance expectations for students.

Page 24

4 7Long-Range Plan Interim Evaluation: 1991-1992

The ad-hoc committee worked with the StateBoard of Education Task Force on High SchoolEducation to develop recommended coreproficiencies for all Texas high school gradu-ates. The proficiencies are defined by a rigor-ous academic core program and sequencesof specialized training. In developing theseproficiencies, both the ad-hoc committee andthe high school task force emphasized flex-ibility and demonstrations of mastery throughcontinuous progress within broad fields ofstudy over classroom seat time and othertraditional forms of high school organizationand instruction. The proficiencies were en-dorsed by the board in July 1992. They arepresented in Exhibit 2.4.

In November 1992, the board approved astatewide process for developing student

EXHIBIT 2.4Core ProficienciesRecommended for

All High School Graduates

Time needed to achieve core proficienciesdepends on the individual student

The Ad-Hoc Committee on Student Outcome Goalsand the High School Education Task Forceemphasized flexibility and demonstrations of masterythrough continuous progress within broad fields ofstudy.

outcome goals that will drive the system ofcore proficiencies. The formulation of thegoals will be based on input from each regionin the state, gathered through 1994. At itscompletion, the process will yield a frame-work for developing a results-based curricu-lum.

RESTRUCTURED MIDDLE SCHOOLS

The 1991-92 school year marked a water-shed of board activity related to restructuringmiddle grade education in Texas. In Septem-ber 1991, the board approved the PolicyStatement on Middle Grade Education andMiddle Grade Schools, which called for middlegrade educators to focus on the academic,personal, and social growth of their students.The board's policy development and approvalactivities were fundamental to the success-ful application for a Middle Grade SchoolState Policy Initiative Grant from the CarnegieCorporation, which was used to fund a state-wide middle school network. That networkprovides a school-to-school forum for profes-sional development and the exchange ofideas related to more effective education inthe early adolescent years.

In May 1991, the board's Ad-Hoc Committeeon Middle Grade Education requested greatercoordination between the textbook adoptionprocess and research-based findings on bestmiddle grade education practices, recogniz-ing that district efforts to implement theinterdisciplinary instructional units suggestedin the development of the middle schoolpolicy statement might be hampered by cur-riculum rules and textbook adoption cycles.The commissioner's Reorganization Plan forthe Texas Education Agency, approved bythe board in October 1991, established anOffice of Middle School Education. Thatoffice is charged with providing leadership inthe implementation of the board's middleschool policy statement and technical assis-tance in implementing restructured middleschool practices.

Goal 2: Curriculum and Programs

48Page 25

ELEMENTARY CURRICULA

In March 1991, the board amended Title 19,Texas Administrative Code Chapter 75.195,Alternatives to Social Promotion to allowretention with parental consent inprekindergarten, kindergarten and first grade.In amending this rule, the board stipulatedthat no student could be retained more thanone time in grades prekindergarten through 4and one time in grades 5 through 12.

In the legislative recommendations approvedin January 1991, the board supported thecreation of model early childhood programsfor four- to eight-year-old children. In May1991, the board acted to encourage districtsto develop mixed-age elementary instruc-tional strategies. The board approved changesto Title 19 Texas Administrative Code Chap-ter 75.141, Descriptions of a Well-BalancedElementary Curriculum to provide guidanceto districts implementing mixed-age and otherflexible learning arrangements in gradesprekindergarten through 6. The change in therules encourages districts to use interdiscipli-nary approaches to instruction in ungradedclassrooms by combining two or more sub-ject areas.

CURRICULUM AND PROGRAMS FORSPECIAL POPULATIONS

In April 1991, the board approved changes toTitle 19 Texas Administrative Code Chapter75.4, Special Populations and Programs. Therule directs districts to develop programs forproviding students with special needs fullopportunity for learning. The programs caninclude modifications in instructional meth-ods, pacing, or materials. Districts are alsodirected to maintain procedures for referringidentified students to appropriate programsand, to the extent possible, to coordinate andintegrate these programs with the total in-structional program. The board supportedthe use of the restructured middle gradeeducation program, articulated in its middleschool initiative, as a means for serving thesestudents. Following adoption of the rule,

Texas Education Agency staff developedguidelines for providing services to specialpopulations within a variety of broad-basededucational methods, including restructuredmiddle grade education programs.

This rule also encourages districts to modifythe delivery of instruction for gifted and tal-ented students by accelerating instruction,providing greater depth of instruction, andexpanding the essential elements taught incourses for gifted and talented students. InJuly 1991, the board approved changes in theidentification of gifted and talented studentsand training for educators working with thesestudents. The board action alters The TexasState Plan and Guidelines for the Educationof the Gifted and Talented and amends Title19 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 89,specifying the areas in which students mayshow giftedness; providing information onthe use of student talent pools as a means ofassessing gifted and talented students; andrequiring a minimum of 30 hours of profes-sional development for teachers working withthese students.

In May 1991, the board approved changes toTitle 19 Texas Administrative Code Chapter89, Subchapter A State Plan for EducatingLimited English Proficient Students. Thechanges extend the program to pre-kindergarten; permit cooperative bilingualeducation or English as a Second Languageprograms; extend eligibility of these stu-dents for other compensatory education pro-gram; and support the use of developmen-tally and linguistically appropriate instructionalmaterials for these students.

TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION

As a result of board action in Novembei 1990,Texas was the first state in the nation toincorporate the call for electronic instruc-tional media systems into textbook procla-mations. Upon recommendation by the board,the 71st Texas Legislature created a technol-ogy equipment allotment as part of Tier I

funding of the Foundation School Program.


49

The board has provided leadership across awide range of technology initiatives as de-tailed in its Progress Report on the Long-Range Plan for Technology, published in May1991. The long-range technology plan, firstadopted by the board in 1988, addresseshardware, courseware, and training compo-nents.

The board requested an update on technol-ogy initiatives from Texas Education Agencystaff in November 1991. That report citedtwo major initiatives, TENET and T-STAR, askey components of a statewide technologysystem that uses electronic media to bothdeliver instruction and prepare students fortechnology-rich working environments.TENET is a dial-access electronic networkservice that provides more than 2,000 mem-bers access to electronic mail and bulletinboard services, wire services from newsorganizations, and gateway services to data-bases and information networks around thecountry. T-STAR, the Texas State Telecum-munications Access Resource, is an inte-grated telecommunications service deliver-ing two-way audio, one-way video, and fulldata service. Next steps cited in the updatereport include expanding training, increasingthe number of districts using the services,and making more information services avail-able through these technologies.

RESTRUCTURING THE SCHOOL YEAR

The board has provided districts with theflexibility to design and implementnontraditional education programs by em-phasizing policy goals and recommendationsrather than requirements of rule. It hasestablished an incubator for new opportuni-ties in education with such measures as theInnovative Education Grants Program, waiv-ers, the sunset review of administrative rules,and grade-level policy statements that urgedistricts and campuses to set local goals tomeet local needs. Board recommendationsto the legislature have supported restructur-ing the schoo! year, with a call for creating aset of financial incentives for the implemen-

tation of year-round education programs in1990; extending the school year and day in1991; and extending the school year to pro-vide compulsory remediation for studentsneeding this service in 1992.

The 71st Texas Legislature established ayear-round system of education. In responseto this legislation, the board adopted Title 19

of the Texas Administrative Code Chapter61.21 in April 1991. The rule encouragesdistricts to operate year-round programs andcharges the commissioner with approvingdistrict year-round education plans in April1991.

Year-round education plans are voluntary.The board, however, is committed to providesmooth implementation of these programsthrough an ongoing review of rules, adminis-trative policies, and agency guidelines in suchmatters as attendance, assessment, trans-portation, food service, participation in Uni-versity Interscholastic League activities, andprofessional development. As a result ofstate board and legislative action, the num-ber of districts offering year-round educationprograms has increased dramatically.


Over the second biennium covered in thisLong-Range Plan, the board will articulateoutcome goals for Texas students, devel-oped through a statewide process that in-volves educators, policy makers, and thepublic. It will ensure that the state's curricu-lum anchors the development and adoptionof textbooks used in Texas schools. Theboard will be challenged to rewrite the essen-tial elements to support a state curriculumthat is both well-balanced and results-based.Imbedded in that reworking of the essentialelements is the second challenge facing theboard: developing a curriculum that is notonly results-based, but interdisciplinary anddevelopmentally appropriate. In other ac-

Goal 2: Curriculum and Programs 5 0Page 27

tons, they will develop policies for specialeducation students and for vocational andapplied technology education over the nexttwo years.


Three performance measures were de-fined to gauge progress in implementingthe board's goals and objectives in theLong-Range Plan:

promotion and retention rates;

number of districts and schools thatimplement nontraditional programsor request waivers and use alterna-tive programs, including extendedschool day or year, restructuredmiddle schools, evening programs,and off-campus programs; and

rate of drug and alcohol abuse byschool-age children.

PROMOTION AND RETENTION RATES

The 72nd Texas Legislature directed the TexasEducation Agency to collect grade retentioninformation, beginning with the 1991-92school year. Grade retention informationwas reported in the Public Education Infor-mation Management System for the firsttime in the fall of 1992. That information willbe included in the 1992-93 Academic Excel-lence Indicator System Performance Report.

Preliminary retention data available at publi-cation of this report indicate that approxi-mately 2.5 percent of all 1991-92 students ingrades kindergarten through 8 did not ad-vance to the next grade.

This data provides a picture of just one year;the cumulative effects of grade retention canbe approximated through analysis of the stu-dent data base for overage students. Stu-

dents are considered overage if their birthdate occurs prior to September 1 of the yearappropriate for their grade cohort. Exhibit 2.5illustrates the percentage of 1991-92 non-special education students in each gradewho are overage by one or more years.Exhibit 2.6 illustrates the same informationfor those overage by two or more years. In1991-92, more than 640,500 students wereoverage for grade by one or more years, andalmost 121,000 were overage by two ormore years.

The shapes of the graphs are similar acrossethnicity, although the slopes vary in degree.Minority students, particularly Hispanics, areoverage in greater percentages than theirwhite classmates. Grades 9 and 10 have thehighest incidences of grade retentions. Bygrade 9, over half of all Hispanics are at leastone year overage for grade, and almost 22percent are two or more years overage forgrade. The figures for African Americanstudents are only slightly better.

Since 1989-90, the firstyear that student datawere analyzed for the condition of beingoverage, the percent of overage students inkindergarten and :first grade has declinedsignificantly. On a percentage basis, overagestudents have declined at all elementarygrades. However, the percent of studentsoverage in high school has increased.

This high incidence of grade retention threat-ens the board's goal of academic achieve-ment for all students. Research shows thatbeing retained in one grade increases theprobability of dropping out by 40 to 50 per-cent and being retained two grades increasesthe probability by 90 percent. The typicalretainee is male, poor, and from a minorityethnic group. A student's ethnicity is morepredictive of being retained than the percent-age of a district's students who are classifiedas low income.

Board rules limit the number of retentionsallowed. No student may be retained morethan one time in grades prekindergarten

Page 28Long-Range Plan Interim Evaluation: 1991-1992

51

EXHIBIT 2.5Percent of 1991-92 Students 1 or more Years Overage for Grade

by Grade and Ethnicity60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0 00

2 3 4 6 7 10 11 12

*Whits +Hispanic 4 AlricarvArnerican O'Cither X State Average

In Texas, as in the nation, minority students are more likely to be overage than their white classmates. Bygrade 9, over half of all Hispanics enrolled are at least one year overage for grade.

EXHIBIT 2.6Percent of 1991-92 Students 2 or more Years Overage for Grade

by Grade and EthnicityPercent

25.00

20.00

15 00

10.00

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

*White *Hispanic * Al mon Amencan C. Other X Stat. Average

For students already overage for grade, it appears that grade 9 is the year where most second retentions occur.

Comparison of Exhibits 2.5 and 2.6 indicates that students two or more years overage are leaving the schoolsystem at a higher rate than are those overage by one year.


52Page 29

through 4, nor more than one time in grades5 through 8, except under exceptional cir-cumstances. The rule passed in March 1991requires parental consent in order for stu-dents in prekindergarten and kindergartento be retained. District transition programsdeveloped for students not considereddevelopmentally ready for first grade are de-fined as retentions by this rule and, therefore,require parental consent for placement.

Other board action has increased the flexibil-ity for teaching these early grades. Trainingfor early childhood teachers has beenstrengthened and the board removed therequirement for numerical grading beforegrade 2. In addition, the board has encour-aged mixed-age settings for elementarygrades and the development of individualizedstudent plans in its Policy Statement on HighSchool Education.

WAIVERS AND RESTRUCTURINGEDUCATION

Section 11.273 of the Texas Education Codeallows districts and campuses to seek waiv-ers of state statutes and rules of the board.The commissioner of education is authorizedby law to grant waivers for a period of nomore than three years, with an option forextending the waiver if the program showsimproved student achievement results. In-formation regarding the type and number ofwaivers granted by the commissioner in the1990-91 and 1991-92 school years will bepresented to the board in early 1993.

YEAR-ROUND SCHOOLS

Year-round education programs are increas-ing at a rapid rate across the state. In the1990-91 school year, only one school districtoffered a year-round education program. In1991-92, the number of districts grew to 22serving 25,000 students. Forty-five districts,serving 60,000 students on 155 campuseshave submitted applications to operate theseprograms beginning in the fall of 1992.

RESTRUCTURED MIDDLE SCHOOLS

Implementation of the board's Policy State-men ton Middle Grade Education and MiddleGrade Schools has been supported throughthe Texas Middle School Network, a grassroots t achnical assistance and professionaldevelopment initiative funded through aMiddle Grade Schools State Policy InitiativeGrant from the Carnegie Corporation. TheTexas Middle School Network is recognizedas one of the leading middle grade restructur-ing efforts in the nation. It is led by 37 mentorschools, competitively selected for theirprogress in restructuring their educationalprograms and their ability to sustain the ac-tivities of the network. Since January 1992,more than 500 schools have joined the middleschool network. Exhibit 2.7 is a map of themiddle school network, showing participa-tion in this initiative across the state.

DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE

The Texas Commission on Alcohol and DrugAbuse publishes the Texas School Survey ofSubstance Abuse which assesses the useof alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs amongTexas students in grades 7 through 12. Themost recent survey, published in October1990, showed a decline in student use ofillicit drugs from 1988 to 1990, but an in-crease in the use of alcohol and tobaccoover that same period. Comprehensive infor-mation on the years since 1990 has not beenpublished, but selected data have been pro-vided by the commission.

The most-used substance, and the substanceshowing the greatest increase in use amongTexas students, was tobacco. Thep rcent ofstudents who had ever used tobacco in-creased from 39.3 percent in 1988 to 56.2percent in 1990. Use over the month beforethe survey was conducted increased from16.6 percent in 1988 to 22.9 percent in 1990.

Stimulants were the least frequently usedsubstances and also showed the greatestdecline in use among Texas students. The

Page 30


EXHIBIT 2.7Texas Middle School Network

Members as a percentageof all middle level schoolsin each ESC region

12 1% to 10%

11% to 20%

21% to 30%

31% to 40%

M 41% to 50%

51% to 60%

III 61% to 70%

III Over 70%

IC

kg

**do§ '

avaaanaEIG0212012NIGNNIS6101501:654EiSNSISIM

W'.81110111110

swat,ftsok,

M44,

%

35% of all Texas middle level schools were members of the network as of December 1, 1992.

percent of students who had ever used stimu-lants declined from 17.1 percent in 1988 to7.2 percent in 1990. Use over the monthbefore the survey was conducted decreasedfrom 5.8 16ercent in 1988 to 2.1 percent in1990.

Among the three largest ethnic groups inTexas, the survey found that African Ameri-cans had the lowest use of virtually all illicitdrugs. This group did, however, show thegreatest increase in the percent of studentsconsuming alcohol over the two-year surveyperiod. In fact, the percent of lifetime alcoholprevalence among African American studentsincreased from a state low of 64 percent in1988 to 83 percent in 1990. The TexasCommission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse re-ports that this rate, slightly higher than thewhite student rate of 82 percent and Hispanicstudent rate of 81 percent, did not decreasebetween 1990 and 1992.

White students were reported to have thehighest use of hallucinogens, stimulants, thedrug ecstasy, and steroids. Hispanic stu-dents were reported to have the highest useof cocaine and marijuana.

A summary analysis of the survey data bygender indicates that, with a 10 percent in-crease in alcohol use among female studentsbetween 1988 and 1990, males and femaleswere virtually identical in their rates of use ofthat substance. Females showed greaterdecreases in use of all illicit substances,with the exceptions of inhalants, stimulants(which showed an equal decrease in bothgenders), and hallucinogen use (which de-creased more rapidly among males).

Exhibit 2.8, Comparative Data - Texas SchoolSurvey of Substance Abuse, 1988-1992, indi-cates decreasing rates of alcohol and druguse by Texas students in grades 7 through12. Alcohol use among students in these

Goal 2: Curriculum and Programs5 4

Page 31

grades increased between 1988 and 1990. A5.4 percent decrease between 1990 and1992 however, returned the percent of stu-dents who have ever used alcohol to 1988levels. The percent of Texas students usingan illicit drug has declined steadily since 1988.

The Texas Education Agency and the TexasCommission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse creditteachers, counselors, and substance abuseeducation programs as instrumental in de-creasing the number of students who experi-ment with and use alcohol and illicit drugs.

EXHIBIT 2.8Comparative Data - Texas School Survey of Substance Abuse

1988 - 1992, Grades 7 through 12

% OF TEXAS STUDENTS WHO HAVEEVER USED ALCOHOL

% OF TEXAS STUDENTS WHO HAVEUSED ALCOHOL IN THE PAST MONTH

100.0% 100.0%

90.0% . 90.0% .81.0%

80.0% . 75.5% 75.6% 80.0% -, .

70.0% . 70.0% .

60.0% 60.0% .

50.0% . 50.0% .42.8% 43.6%

40.0% . 40.0% . ,..., 3.,..- 37.0%

30.0% . 30.0% '''"'

20.0% . 20.0%1.

,10.0% '

1988 1990 1992 1988 1990 1992

5.4% decrease between 1990 & 1992 6.6% decrease between 1990 & 1992

% OF TEXAS STUDENTS WHO HAVE % OF TEXAS STUDENTS WHO HAVE USEDEVER USED AN ILLICIT DRUG AN ILLICIT DRUG IN THE PAST MONTH

100.0% 100.0%

90.0% 90.0%

80.0% . 80.0%

70.0% . 70.0%

60.0% . 60.0%

50.0% . 50.0%

40.0% .39.1%

40.0%

30.0% . 25.1% 22.4%30.0%

20.0% 20.0% 17.1%

10.0% 10.0%9.5% 8.4%

0.0% ,0.0%

1988 1990 1992 1988 1990 1992

I2.7% decrease between 1990 & 1992 1.1% decrease between 1990 & 1992


55

A point of underlying concern should beraised in the analysis of the comparativesurvey data, however. There is a gap in de-creasing rates of substance abuse amongTexas students when compared across eth-nic groups. African American students ingrades 7 through 12 are now estimated tohave the highest lifetime prevalence rates ofalcohol use. In addition, while student use ofillicit drugs has generally decreased in Texas,Hispanic use of these substances has de-creased at a less rapid rate than white stu-dents' use. These data, along with data thatindicate that Texas minority students gener-ally have lower rates of academic achieve-ment and higher dropout rates, raise seriousconcern not only about academic perfor-mance, but about social engagement as well.

LegislativeRecommendations

The State Board of Education has developeda number of recommendations for the 73rdTexas Legislature to empower campuses tobuild programs that provide improved stu-dent achievement and school safety. Theyinclude:

Redefining the Compulsory Atten-dance Law. This recommendation seeksa change in the compulsory attendancelaw to require extended year attendanceby students who would otherwise beretained. A second aspect of this recom-mendation seeks to provide a fundingmechanism to enable school districts tovoluntarily extend school year programs,allowing schools to:

earn up to 210 days of ADA for stu-dents in grades kindergarten through8 who are in danger of being retained;

allow local flexibility in programmingto accommodate accelerated instruc-

tion and the use of Saturday, sum-mer, or intercession periods forschools on year-round schedules; and

provide developmentally appropriateprogramming, including the phasingout of early grade retention. Thedefinition of the school year would bechanged in the compulsory atten-dance law.

The board recommends phasing in thechange in the compulsory attendancelaw, with implementation for grades kin-dergarten through 4 in 1993-94, and ex-panding to kindergarten through 8 in1994-95.

Providing Additional Regulatory Re-lief. This recommendation seeks to re-vise the 80-day attendance requirementin Section 21.041 of the Texas EducationCode to allow the board to set minimumstudent attendance requirements foreachdefined attendance period. The boardalso recommends deleting the prohibi-tion in Section 21.723 of the Texas Edu-cation Code against allowing student ex-emptions to final exams to enable localboards of trustees to develop final exampolicies to enhance student achievementin their districts.

Recommendations in this area also haveimplications for year-round schools. Theboard seeks a redefinition of the bilingualsummer program specified in Section21.458 of the Texas Education Code toallow local boards of trustees in districtsoperating on a year-round calendar to seta schedule for offering the 120 hours ofinstruction mandated for these programsthat is independent of the summermonths. In addition, the board requestsflexibility in contract renewal dates forteachers operating under a year-roundschool calendar.

Implement School Safety Initiatives.This recommendation seeks the full imple-


5 6Page 33

mentation of the recommendations ofthe School Safety Round Table and in-cludes establishing model programs atregional and other levels to help studentsexpelled from school, students who havedropped out, and students ages 17 to 21who have five or fewer credits gain skillsand knowledge needed to succeed in thereal world.

Other recommendations related to safetyseek to require a juvenile court to informdistricts when a child has committed adrug orviolent offense; dedicate a portionof drug forfeiture and seizure proceeds tohelp prevent gangs and school violence;establish drug-free zones within 1,000feet of school property; and developweapons safety programs.

Page 34

57


GOAL 3

Goal Summary

PERSONNELQualified and effective personnelwill be attracted and retained.

STATE-LEVEL ACTIONS SHOULD HOLD HIGH STANDARDS FOR

TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS, INCREASE TEACHER SALARIES

AND CAREER LADDER FUNDING, PROVIDE UNIFORM HEALTH

BENEFITS TO ALL SCHOOL PERSONNEL, STRENGTHEN TEACHER

EDUCATION PROGRAMS, AND INCREASE RECRUITMENT.


3-1 Set standards for the profession and ensure that all personnel demonstrate competence inprofessional skills.

3-2 Establish extended personnel contracts for increased instructional time and enhanced profes-sional training.

3-3 Ensure adequate and competitive compensation commensurate with responsibilities.

3-4 Provide effective, professional working environments.

3-6 Provide training in alternative methods and techniques of instruction to meet students' varyingabilities and learning styles.

3-7 Increase the number of qualified minority teachers and administrators to reflect the ethniccomposition of the state.

3-8 Provide a variety of management systems to assist personnel in teaching and managinginstruction.

3-9 Review and refine teacher and administrator appraisal policies and procedures.

Goal 3: Personnel Par 355 8


1. Strengthen programs that prepare teachers and administrators by working with the Texas HigherEducation Coordinating Board and by monitoring and evaluating all certification programs. Methodsinclude:

a. Develop and implement indicators to measure the quality and success of teacher preparationprograms.

b. Establish certification standards and endorsement procedures for middle school teachers,teachers of kindergarten children, and other early childhood education staff.

c. Review certification standards for principals and other administrators to include training in mediaand community relations so they can better communicate with the public about their schools'needs and progress.

2. Provide for increased teacher salaries and career ladder funding. Provide for increased staffdevelopment and inservice training as well as sabbatical, research, and other developmental leave.

3. Provide uniform statewide health benefits for school personnel.

4. Provide for expanded staff time in schools having a lengthened school day or year.

5. Enhance working environments by supporting technology systems, staff development programs,increased teacher and campus decision making, and improved facilities and security measures.

6. Revise certification standards of teachers and administrators to reflect increased teacher participa-tion in decision making and greater local autonomy.

7. Provide for comprehensive staff development, technical assistance, and inservice programs throughthe Regional Education Service Centers.

8. Develop strategies to recruit qualified individuals into teaching, administration, counseling, librarianship,and other needed areas. Give priority to eliminating gender and racial inequities in job responsibilitiesand advancement. Use such recruitment methods as scholarships, tuition waivers, loan forgivenessprograms and sabbaticals and collaborate with professional associations in developing a statewidejob vacancy network and cooperative recruitment programs.

9. Implement the induction program for beginning teachers through school districts, local cooperativeteacher education centers, Regional Education Service Centers, and institutions of higher education.

10. Improve teacher and administrator evaluation systems to enhance classroom instruction. Stepsinclude:

a. Expand the Texas Teacher Appraisal System, the process used to evaluate a teacher's classroomperformance, to include a teacher's ability to teach critical thinking and other high level skills.

b. Implement the Master Teacher Program for exemplary teachers. Develop criteria and providetraining to assure reliable assessment and improved teaching.

c. Implement a system for evaluating administrators.


59

Evaluation of State -Level Actions

THE DEMAND FOR TEACHERS

Texas public education is challenged by themismatch between teacher demand andteacher supply. In July 1991, the boardrequested a presentation from Texas Educa-tion Agency staff on future directions inteacher education. Conclusions from thatpresentation indicate that, despite the mul-tiple avenues of teacher education and certi-fication available in Texas, three major im-pediments to meeting the full demand forteachers continue 'to exist.

The number of candidates attractedto teacher preparation programs hasdeclined. -

The number of minority candidatesenrolled in teacher preparation pro-grams declines each year.

Training opportunities available to pro-spective teachers in their preparationprograms do not reflect the culturallydiverse classrooms in which the ma-jority of them will work.

The board seeks to attract and retain qualifiededucation personnel through a number ofactions that impact teacher quality and sup-ply. Since 1991, it has acted to enhance theprofessional status of teachers through rec-ommendations contained in the Policy State-ment on Professional Preparation; toimprove teacher preparation programsthrough Centers for Professional Develop-ment and Technology; and to increase thediversity of the teacher work force throughsuch measures as alternative certification.The board will complete the sunset review ofTexas Administrative Code rules related tothe professional preparation, certification, anddevelopment of educators in early 1993.

PROFESSIONAL EDUCATORPREPARATION

The Texas student population is becomingmore .diverse each year. In 1991-92, 51percent of students were from minority eth-nic groups and 42 percent were classified aseconomically disadvantaged. With the num-ber of minority and disadvantaged studentsincreasing at a faster rate than total studentgrowth, the need for well-prepared new andveteran teachers is greater than ever. Theboard is equally concerned with strengthen-ing initial preparation, or preservice, and ex-panding continuing education for all educa-tors.

Three routes for initial teacher preparationexist in Texas today. They are:

completion of one of the 66 approvedteacher education programs offeredby Texas colleges and universities;

completion of one of the 22 approvedalternative certification programs of-fered by colleges of education, re-gional education service centers, orschool districts; and

completion of a teacher preparationprogram offered by one of the eightCenters for Professional Developmentand Technology established by theboard in 1992.

Exhibit 3.1 maps the locations of all of thesepreparation programs. Historically, whilepreparation of teachers has been conductedwithin colleges and universities, on-goingprofessional development of educators hasbeen the responsibility of school districts.

Preparation programs through colleges anduniversities now operate under the 1987Standards for Teacher Education. The stan-dards are process-driven, basing programapproval on course descriptions, faculty vi-

Goal 3: Personnel GO Page 37

EXHIBIT 3.1Map of Professional Educator

Preparation Programs, 1991-92

ossommillscalle1114i11111111:11111POIWeintigcumimmk* 1140101wri

AledeotridivireititIra* wammoot. **-17:44100,maw

1111rlosProfessional Educator PreparationPrograms (Colleges and Universities)

+ Centers For Professional Developmentand Technology

Education Service Center AlternativeCertification Programs

* School District Alternative Certification Programs

University Alternative Certification Programs

tae, and semester hours rather than the dem-onstrated outcomes of graduates fromteacher education programs. Alternativecertification programs and programs at theCenters for Professional Development andTechnology are governed by different stan-dards under other sections of board rule.

In November 1991, the board appointed theTask Force on Professional Preparation andDevelopment to develop a policy and makerecommendations concerning teacher and

administrator preparation and continuing pro-fessional development. The board approvedthe policy recommendations of the task forcein September 1992.

The task force found that the separation ofteacher preseivice from ongoing profes-sional development has created a division ofroles and responsibilities between universi-ties and school districts that has benefitedneither teachers nor their students. Policyrecommendations in the task force docu-


61

ment envision professional preparation anddevelopment programs that:

reflect state-of-the-art teaching andlearning practices based on currentresearch;

respond to current and emergingneeds in areas such as technology,the arts, and the affective needs ofstudents;

provide educators with knowledgeand experience to work effectivelywith students in an ever-expandingdiverse culture;

are field-based and include inductionand internship experiences;

promote concepts and skills for site-based decision making and total qual-ity management;

include needs assessment, collabo-rative design and delivery, and evalu-ation; and

address the short- and long-rangegoals of their campus, their district,and the state.

Achieving high standards of professionalpreparation and ongoing development hasbeen a priority of the board. In January 1991,the board recommended that the legislatureestablish a statewide, state-funded profes-sional development program. The board hasalso addressed quality professional prepara-tion and development strategies in its grade-level policy initiatives. In the Policy State-ment on Middle Grade Education and MiddleGrade Schools, the board endorsed programsof professional growth that foster under-standing of the unique characteristics andneeds of students served in middle gradeschools, as well as organizational featuresand arrangements of these schools that maxi-mize the academic growth and personal andsocial development of these students. In the

Policy Statement on High School Education,the board advocates standards of profes-sional growth that establish high school cam-puses as centers of excellence and advance-ment of the art of teaching, sustain lifelonglearning, and recognize teachers as expertsin their fields of study.

With the support of policy initiatives and ad-vice from acknowledged experts, the boardplans to develop an outcomes-based approvalsystem for professional preparation programs.The new process is expected to encouragegreater collaboration between university fac-ulty and public school educators; establishcommon standards for preparation programs,irrespective of the route chosen for certifica-tion; and redefine relationships and responsi-bilities.

CENTERS FOR PROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

In June 1992, the board approved a new rule,Title 19 Texas Administrative Code, Chapter149, Centers for Professional Developmentand Technology, which opens a new avenueof professional growth. The purpose of theCenters for Professional Development andTechnology is to provide professional prepa-ration and development to educators thatintegrates technology, research, and innova-tive teaching practice. The centers, autho-rized by Section 13.050 of the Texas Educa-tion Code, were competitively selectedthrough a process developed jointly by theboard and the Texas Higher Education Coor-dinating Board.

Board members characterize the centers asone of the most ambitious initiatives of theboard, fostering collaboration and account-ability for results across a wide range ofteacher preparation models and programs.According to the rule, Centers for Profes-sional Development and Technology will beestablished in colleges of education througha collaborative process that involves publicschools, Regional Education Service Cen-ters, community organizations, and busi-

Goal 3: Personnel

62Page 39

nesses. The centers are required to imple-ment programs and services in school set-tings that are culturally diverse and to provideprograms that enhance student and teacheroutcomes by linking student achievement,teacher performance, and campus improve-ment plans. The rule authorizes the centers:

to establish field-based teacher edu-cation programs designed on the ba-sis of current research on effectiveteaching practice;

to establish, in conjunction with aschool district, laboratory schools thatserve as demonstration sites for tech-nology and effective teaching; and

to recruit and train teacher candidates,including minority teacher candidates,in subject areas in which teacher de-mand outpaces supply.

Eight centers were selected to receive fullfunding. The other 60 funding applicantsreceived seed money to continue planningand development. The board approved fund-ing the centers in September 1992, usingprofessional development funds approvedby the legislature. The centers are listed inExhibit 3.2.


In anticipation of the sunset review of theprofessional preparation and developmentrules scheduled for early 1993, the boardrequested a presentation from Nicholas Hobarin SepteMber 1992 on outcomes-basedteacher education and certification programsand standards. Dr. Hobar, president ofWorkforce 2000, defined outcomes as dem-onstrations of learning across the range ofactivities that make up teacher roles, not thenames of teaching specializations,content ofuniversity courses, or instructional practices.Demonstrations of outcomes of teachereducation programs occur on the job, in pub-lic school settings that create their own con-

EXHIBIT 3.2Centers for Professional

Development and Technology

East Texas State UniversityCommerce

Laredo State UniversityLaredo

Southwest Texas State UniversitySan Marcos

Stephen F. Austin UniversityNacogdoches

Texas A & M UniversityCollege Station

Texas Tech UniversityLubbock

University of North TexasDenton

University of Texas at San AntonioSan Antonio

Eight sites were approved by the board in 1992 toreceive full funding as Centers for ProfessionalDevelopment and Technology.

ditions and challenges to teacher effective-ness. By establishing standards of teacherproficiency and sucess, outcomes not onlyset standards of classroom performance, theyreflect the effectiveness of the curriculardesigns and delivery systems employed inprofessional preparation programs.

In October 1992, the board requested a pre-sentation from Ronald Ferguson, a professorof public policy at Harvard University whohas studied the impact of resources such asmoney and personnel on educational qualityin Texas schools. Dr. Ferguson found thatproblems of teacher supply are exacerbatedby interdistrict competition over potentialcandidates. Some districts are in an inher-ently better position to attract and retain abetter and more qualified teacher work forcedue to their demographics and wealth.


63

CERTIFICATION

To earn Texas certification as a professionaleducator, individuals must successfully com-plete an approval preparation program andpass state-developed examinations. Thereare provisions for permitting teachers andother education professionals to performtasks for which they are not fully licensed.Board rules governing certification require-ments and permits have been administeredat the state level.

The Examination for the Certification of Edu-cators in Texas (ExCET) is a series of content3nd pedagogy tests developed and approvedby the board. Passing rates forthe 64 adoptedtests vary by test and preparatory institUtion.The testing program will respond to modifica-tions in expectations for teacher candidates.

All certification and assessment rules will beincluded in the 1993 sunset review of boardrules.

In October 1990, the Texas PerformanceReview of Texas Educal,on Agency functionsand activities conducted by the comptrollerof public accounts recommended movingtraining, coordination, and programming func-tions in the Texas Education Agency closer tolocal districts. In October 1991, the boardapproved the commissioner of education'sReorganization Plan for the Texas EducationAgency, which included a transfer of agencypositions to the 20 Regional Education Ser-vice Centers. As part of this reorganization,each service center received funding in Janu-ary 1992 for one half-time position to providecertification services, including processingregular teaching permits, to districts in theirregions.

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OFEDUCATORS

In January 1991, the board recommendedthat the legislature develop methods to in-crease the number of minority teachers in

Texas schools and recruit teacher in critical

shortage areas. The 72nd Texas Legislatureappropriated funds to provide professionaldevelopment training. In March and April,1992, the board approved funding of projectsfor 1991-92 targeting:

minority teacher recruitment and train-ing;

recruitment and training of teachersin critical shortage areas;

alternative certification programs toaddress the need for teachers in ar-eas impacted by the restructuring ofthe military;

site-based decision-making training:

training for the Partnership SchoolsInitiative;

training to enhance school capacityfor instruction and reduce barriers toeducational equity; and

accelerated schools training.

In September 1992, the board approved con-tinuation-year funding for these projects andapproved project funding for recruiting highschool students into teaching.

The professional preparation and develop-ment task force policy statement also em-phasizes teacher recruitment and retention,calling for the development of a variety ofprograms to identify, recruit, prepare, induct,and retain qualified teacher candidates, withparticular emphasis on minorities,underrepresented groups, and teacher criti-cal shortage areas.

Since 1986, the state's alternative certifica-tion programs have proved to be one of themost successful tools for recruiting thesetargeted populations into the teaching pro-fession. According to a July 1991 report tothe board, more than 1,200 minority candi-dates entered the profession through theseprograms between 1989 and 1990.

Goal 3: Personnel

64Page 41

Central to the ability of Texas public schoolsto attract and retain qualified educators arethe salaries and benefits offered to teachers,administrators, and support staff over thecourse of their careers. The board's 1990package of legislative recommendations in-cluded a call for provision of health and lifeinsurance for public school employees. HouseBill 2885, passed by the 72nd Texas Legisla-ture, amended the Texas Employees GroupInsurance Benefits Act (Article 3.50-2,Vernon's Texas Insurance Code) by addingSection 13C, which paves the way for dis-tricts to provide cafeteria-style health andwellness plans for their employees.

The Task Force on Professional Preparationand Development requested the Texas Leg-islature to declare funding of the Texas publiceducation system the state's highest priority.The task force also advocated increasing theaverage teacher salary in Texas to the na-tional average by 1995, with a continuingincrease to place Texas teacher salariesamong the top ten states in the nation by theyear 2000. This call for competitive teachercompensation was echoed by the board'sTask Force on High School Education, whichrecommended increasing Texas teacher sala-ries to at least the national average, with theultimate goal of raising the average salary ofTexas teachers to first in the nation.

EDUCATOR APPRAISAL

The 1993 sunset review will also includerules relating to teacher and administratorappraisal. Appraisal is linked to campus per-formance and on-going professional growth.Through Texas Education Code Section13.354, performance of campus administra-tors is tied to campus performance on thestate Academic Excellence Indicators andthe campus improvement plan. Current boardrules forge a stronger link between adminis-trator appraisal and campus performance withthe new system of school accreditation. Thesystem, outlined in the commissioner's Plan

for Improved Student Accountability, tiescampus performance on the state's academicindicators to a district's accreditation rating.


Redefining the roles and expectations for allplayers in professional development will be aprimary board concern over the second bien-nium covered by this Long-Range Plan. Theboard has recommended to the legislaturestrategies to enhance training and profes-sional development opportunities for teach-ers. As it reviews the rules related to theprofessional training and development ofteachers and administrators in 1993, the boardwill address outcomes-based standards ofprofessional preparation and training, the in-corporation of campus planning and improve-ment into the professional development pro-cess, and standards of professional assess-ment and growth.


To measure state-level progress towardachieving Goal 3, Personnel, in the Long-Range Plan for Public Education, the boardestablished the following performance mea-sures:

average teacher salaries;

teachers' satisfaction with the work-ing environment;

minority and gender distribution ofeducators;

retention rate of beginning teachers;and

number of teachers on permit.


65

AVERAGE TEACHER SALARIES tion of the past five years may yield clues tosuch an assessment.

The National Education Association (NEMreported that Texas ranked 34th in teachersalaries in 1990-91, with an average annualsalary of $28,321, 85.5 percent of the na-tional average. Average salaries reported byNEA are not adjusted to improve comparabil-ity between states. For 1990-91, the re-ported top 10 states in average teacher salarywere Connecticut, Alaska, New York, Califor-nia, the District of Columbia, Michigan, Mary-land, NewJersey, Massachusetts, and Penn-sylvania. These states paid their teachers atleast 108.9 percent of the national average.

In the 1991-92 school year, the Texas Educa-tion Agency reported that the average teachersalary in Texas increased to $29,041, whilethe national average salary for teachers in-creased by 2.6 percent to $34,693. In spite ofthis salary increase, Texas' relative rankingamong the states declined to 35th nation-wide. Bringing the average salary of Texasteachers up to the projected national averagesalary by 1996-97 is one of the board's rec-ommendations to the 73rd Texas Legisla-ture.

LEVEL OF TEACHERS' SATISFACTIONWITH THE WORKING ENVIRONMENT

Teacher recruitment and retention is morethan a compensation issue; the personal jobsatisfaction of educators is equally critical.Certainly anecdotal evidence of teacher stressand frustration is in ample supply. In additionto being appropriately trained for the job theyare asked to perform, opportunities for greaterflexibility in the classroom and having moretime to devote to teaching rather than admin-istrative duties can positively affect teachersatisfaction with their profession. The boardis cognizant of these incentives as it ad-dresses its personnel rules and issues suchas site-based management.

No specific studies of teacher satisfactionhave been conducted by the Texas EducationAgency. However, analysis of teacher reten-

RETENTION RATE OF BEGINNINGTEACHERS

Many recognize that the first year experiencecan affect both the length and success of ateaching career. Although some strategiesfor improving teaching are outside the con-trol of districts and campuses, several arenot. District administrators and campus prin-cipals are implementing induction and men-tor programs to help young teachers as theyput their skills into practice. These may takesuch forms as collaboration with more expe-rienced teachers, principal involvement, andfrequent classroom observation. Additionaltraining opportunities targeted at teacherneeds have traditionally been the responsibil-ity of the district.

Whether as a result of such professionalsupports, the general condition of theeconomy, or both, the percentage of firstyear teachers returning for a second year hasincreased each of the lastfour years. In 1988-89, 72.4 percent returned for a second year;in 1989-90, the figure was 72.6; in 1990-91, itwas 76.2; and in 1991-92, it was 78.4. Theincreases apply to ethnic minorities as well aswhite teachers.

After five years, it is more difficult to assessa true retention rate. Analysis of PublicEducation Information Management Systemdata shows that a significant number ofteachers do not have a continuous teaching

career. Comparing 1991-92 records with1987-88, 94.7 percent of fifth-year teachershave taught in Texas public schools withinthe past five years. However, only slightlyover half of new teachers in 1987-88 werereported as fifth-year teachers in 1991-92.Since 1987-88 is the first year for whichindividual staff data are available, additionalfive-year analyses will be possible as data for1992-93 and subsequent years become avail-able.

Goal 3: Personnel

6 6Page 43

The success of teacher preparation, induc-tion programs, professional supports, andcontinuing education will affect teacher re-tention. In national surveys, teachers havecited deficiencies in their own training whichaffect their success in the classroom. Theseinclude having a student teaching experiencewhich has little resemblance to actual jobassignment, having inadequate training incontent, implementing cooperative and in-terdisciplinary learning, and teaching higher-order skills. Retention rates should improveas preparation programs respond to thesekinds of challenges.

MINORITY AND GENDER DISTRIBUTIONOF TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS

In the 1991-92 school year, approximately 33percent of all staff employed in Texas publicschools were minorities: 21.6 percent His-panic, 11.2 percent African American, and0.6 percent Asian and Native American.

Among teachers, minorities accounted for22.6 percent of Texas' 212,578 teachers.Over 77 percent were white, 13.7 percentHispanic, and 8.5 percent African American.That year, 76.7 percent of the state's 13,367new teachers were white, 16.3 percent His-panic, and 6.1 percent African American.

Over 75 p -nent of teachers were female andover half were white females. Exhibit 3.4disaggregates 1991-92 professional staff bygender and ethnicity.

Teachers are not evenly distributed amongdistricts by ethnicity and gender. Elementaryschools have an even larger proportion offemale teachers; high schools have moremale teachers. Districts in which half of thestudents are African American or Hispanichave a teaching force that is almost halfAfrican American or Hispanic, respectively.The percentage of minority teachers declinesquickly as the percentage of minority stu-dents decreases. In districts with a 30 to 50percent Hispanic student population, for ex-ample, less than 10 percent of the teachersare Hispanic. Exhibit 3.5 illustrates this distri-bution.

NUMBER OF TEACHERS ON PERMIT

Teachers, counselors, principals and certainadministrators who have not yet earned theappropriate certification may be granted oneof five types of permits in order to performtheir duties. A permit must be acquired for anon-certified person to teach, for a teacher toundertake counseling or administrative du-ties, or for a teacher to teach out of field.Statewide, 4.1 percent of all Texas teachers

RetentionEXHIBIT 3.3

Rates for First Year Teachers: 1988 to 1992

Group 88 / 89 B9 / 90 90 / 91 91 / 92

Total 72.4% 72.6% 76.2% 78.4%

Male 69.7% 68.6% 74.8% 75.3%

Female 73.1% 73.7% 76.8% 79.3%

Native American 63.2% 82.4% 33.3% 72.7%

Asian 67.6% 63.9% 63.2% 67.2%

African American 55.4% 49.6% 61.7% 63.0%

Hispanic 64.6% 68.4% 75.4% 78.4%

White 74.9% 75.5% 77.3% 79.6%

First year teachers have increasingly returned for a second year in Texas public schools. This trend generallyholds true across ethnic groups and gender.

Page 44


EXHIBIT 3.41991-92 Professional Staff by Gender and Ethnicity

Teachers

Niacin MarianFon* 6.8%

Hispanic Haig 3.6%

Hispanic NTS%10.1%

Nrican knorican INN 1.7%

1

Other lassthan I%

Mite Maim16.0%

Mae Female61 4%

Support and Administrative Staff

White females comprise the largest subgroup of all teachers and other professional staff.

EXHIBIT 3.5Comparison of Percent Hispanics: 1991-92 Students and Teachers

District PercentHispanic Teachers

45%

40%-

35%

30%-a--

25%.

20%.

15%

10%

5%.

0%

Undof 5% 5% to 10% 10% to 20% 20% to 30% 30% to 50% 50% and Owr

District Percent Hispanic Students

Only districts whose Hispanic students comprise under 5% or over 50% of all students employ a Hispanicteaching force reflective of the student body.

Goal 3: Personnel 68 Page 45

EXHIBIT 3.61991-92 Secondary Teacher Counts and Incidence of Permits

Subject

English Language Arts

Mathematics

Science

Social Studies

Physical Ed. & Health

Foreign Language

Fine Arts

Computer Science

Business Education

Vocational Education

Teacher

fl Ls

26,907

15,060

12,412

12,552

13,306

3,230

10,731

1,614

2,492

9,108

Percent withpermits

4.8%

3.8%

4.9%

3.7%

4.2%

5.2%

2.9%

6.7%

4.9%

6.2%

Almost 3,000 secondary teachers assignet. .o teach the core subjects of English language arts, mathematics,social studies, and science are not fully certified in the assignment field. This number represents 4.4% of thoseteachers.

held an active permit in 1991-92. This figurehas remained relatively stable over the pastthree years. The content areas with thehighest percentage of teachers on permit arecomputer science, with 6.7 percent, and vo-cational education, with 6.2 percent. Exhibit3.6 presents information on secondary levelteachers and permits for 1991-92.


The board has made a number of recommen-dations to the 73rd Texas Legislature to en-hance the professional performance of teach-ers. Among them are:

1 . Provide time for effective campus-based and focused professional devel-opment and staff collaboration. Extenditeachercontracts to increase professionaldevelopment time by 5 days per year untila total of 20 days is reached in FY 1997.This increase in professional develop-

ment time would not decrease the num-ber of instructional days.

The board recommends that staff partici-pating in professional development ac-tivities be compensated at no less thanthe average daily salary rate for Texasteachers.

2. Provide appropriate teacher compen-sations. Raise the average Texas teachersalary until it meets the projected nationalaverage salary in the 1997-98 school year.

3. Eliminate the career ladder. Teachersreceiving a career ladder level incrementwould continue to receive a salary sti-pend until the average salary of teachersin Texas reaches the national average.

The board endorses a continuing man-date for teacher appraisal, but recom-mends that districts be given opportunityto apply for alternatives to the currentteacher appraisal system.

4. Develop expertise in campus staff.Educators should plan, implement, andfollow up on their professional develop-ment programs.


69

A A ORGANIZATIONANDMANAGEMENTThe organization and managementof all levels of the educationalsystem will be productive, efficient,and accountable.

Goal Summary

STATE-LEVEL ACTIONS SHOULD PROVIDE LEADERSHIP TO THE

EDUCATIONAL PROCESS STATEWIDE, COORDINATE STATE POLICIES,

INCREASE LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR MAKING DECISIONS, PROVIDE

INCENTIVES FOR DISTRICTS THAT GREATLY IMPROVE STUDENT

PERFORMANCE, AND ACCREDIT SCHOOLS BASED ON PERFORMANCE.


4-1 Review and redefine the responsibilities of the State Board of Education, the Texas EducationAgency, and Regional Education Service Centers, and reorganize to ensure efficient andeffective leadership and management.

4-2 Implement performance-based accreditation linked to effective schools research and attend, ona priority basis, to those districts most in need of technical assistance.

4-3 Provide an efficient and effective system to ensure compliance with rule and law.

4-4 Ensure that the training of school board members strengthens their abilities to provide policydirection to the educational process.

4-5 Coordinate statewide and local educational planning.

4-6 Implement the Public Education Information Management System.

Goa14: Organization and Management Page 4770

4-7 Strengthen coordination among the Texas Education Agency and other state agencies, collegesand universities, employment training programs, and the private sector.

4-8 Enhance local responsibility for quality educational programs.

4-9 Implement methods to improve the ability of small districts to use funds efficiently and to delivera well-balanced curriculum of high quality to all students.

4-10 Provide services at the state level to ensure effective management of the public educationsystem.

4-11 Implement site-based management and other systems to support campus decision-making.

4-12 Strengthen coordination among the Central Education Agency, the Legislative Budget Board,and the Educational Economic Policy Center.

State -Level Actions Specified in the Long-Range Plan

1. Provide efficient and effective leadership to the educational process statewide.

2. Delineate the roles and responsibilities of the State Board of Education, the Texas Education Agency,and Regional Education Service Centers.

3. Implement a performance-based accreditation system. In this system, the state grants accreditationto districts according to known traits of effective schools. The focus is on student outcomes, notprocess, and on quality and equity. Implementation steps include:

a. Review district and ochool performance as shown by student test scores, graduation rate,attendance, and other factors. Make on-site accreditation visits as necessary.

b. Establish a five-level accreditation system, with levels ranging from "exemplary" to "academi-cally unaccredited."

c. Develop levels of monitoring and sanctions that will vary according to a district's performanceand accreditation level. In other words, high-performing districts will have less state regulationthan low-performing districts.

d. Assess the effectiveness of the performance-based accreditation system in improving schoolsand modify procedures accordingly.

4. Review and revise monitoring procedures to ensure that districts and schools comply with state andfederal law and regulations and that they offer effective programs. Procedures will emphasize thefollowing actions:

a. Improve allocation of state and federal funds to eligible recipients.

b. Improve coordination of private and public educational programs.

c. Monitor district compliance with state standards through a computer-based performanceindicator system.

5. Revise school board member training requirements. Adapt training so that long-term members, forexample, receive advanced training on specific topics.


71

6. Implement this Long-Range Plan. Every two years evaluate and revise action to reflect redefinedinstitutional roles and research findings on improved performance and efficiency. Implementationincludes:

a. Derive legislative requests, budgets, and policies from the Long-Range Plan.

b. Support state, regional, and local efforts to meet the goals and objectives of the Long-Range Plan.

7. Collect and analyze data from school districts through the Public Education Information ManagementSystem (PEIMS). Achieve annual gains in data quality, reliability, and timeliness. Steps include:

a. Add statewide student identification, student attendance, course schedules, demographicinformation, enrollment, special programs, facilities updates, standardized test data, and otherquality performance indicators to the PEI MS data base.

b. Incorporate other data sets, such as annual performance indicator data, the annual performancereport, and relevant higher education test data into the PEIMS integrated data base.

c. Evaluate the effects of PEIMS on agency, district, and other state users of public schoolinformation.

d. Improve data editing, data delivery, training, communications, and other services to provide localdistricts assistance in the PEI MS process.

8. Coordinate statewide policy development and implementation among state agencies, the legisla-ture, and institutions of higher education. Coordinate statewide program planning through interagencycoordinating councils, statewide record keeping, and other cooperation and information sharing.

9. Expand local authority for making decisions and setting policies. Aspects include:

a. Review all existing rules of the State Board of Education and revise or eliminate those rules thathamper local authority.

b. Review and revise standards to reflect increased school and district authority.

c. Encourage districts to apply for waivers and to develop alternatives to rules and procedures thatwill yield improved student performance and administrative efficiency.

d. Provide monetary incentives to districts that have either successfully implemented innovativeprograms or have significantly improved student performance.

10. Implement methods to improve the quality of curriculum and services in smaller districts. Methodsinclude:

Cooperatives;

Telecommunications;

Regional planning;

Assistance from Regional Education Service Centers;

Consolidation.

11. Expand effective management services. Methods include:

a. Conduct an annual review of districts' applications for funds to eliminate nonessential informa-tion. Coordinate and consolidate agency requests for data to reduce paperwork burdens ondistricts.

Goal 4: Organization and Management Page 49

72

b. Enhance the management audit process and revise school district audit procedures to includedata required by the performance indicator system and management audit elements.

c. Redesign the accounting system used by school districts to accommodate automation, toprovide accountability with appropriate local flexibility, and to ensure availability of financialinformation.

d. Automate methods of collecting data. Provide uniform data definitions and specify uniformsoftware to improve the reliability of information and facilitate its collection.

e. Provide capabilities for financial modeling and simulations to assist school districts and thelegislature.

f. Implement automated fund flow systems including electronic data collection, software for localapplications, and hardware and software for processing.


73


LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

The State Board of Education, the commis-sioner of education, and the Texas EducationAgency comprise the Central EducationAgency. The roles and responsibilities of theunits within the Central Education Agencyhave been the subject of a great deal of stateand local review. In October 1990, the Text'comptroller of public accounts released Break-ing the Mold, a report from the Texas Perfor-mance Review of the activities and functionsof state government agencies. The comp-troller's report made specific recom-mendations to restructure the Central Educa-tion Agency, based on such state and na-tional trends as deregulation, transfer of au-thority for program implementation to thelocal leve/, and a greater emphasis on stateagency leadership through service rather than

control. The recommendations made inBreaking the Mold are listed below.

Restructure the delivery of educationservices to better support a local ap-proach to educational programmingand quality, with a delegation of re-sponsibilities from the Texas Educa-tion Agency to the Regional Educa-tion Service Centers.

Establish priority goals within the StateBoard of Education's Long-Range Planfor Public Education,

Transfer non-TEA functions to otheragencies.

The recommendations from the comptroller'sreport were incorporated into legislationpassed by the 72nd Texas Legislature. HouseBill 1, passed in the First Called Session,required that a new organizational structureof the Texas Education Agency be imple-mented by January 1, 1992. The legislationdirected that the new organization reducethe number of operating units within theagency, streamline decision-making, use a

system of management accountability, andprovide for consolidation of existing func-tions from administrative services, policydevelopment activities, and educational sup-port.

A number of other bills passed by the 71stand 72nd legislatures altered the powers andduties of the board and the commissioner.Senate Bill 1, 71st Texas Legislature, SixthCalled Session; Senate Bill 351, 72nd TexasLegislature; and House Bill 2885, 72nd TexasLegislature, First Called Session, transferredauthority from the board to the commis-sioner ;(1 several areas, including approvingannual program and operating budgets, ap-proving waivers and exemptions, and revok-ing a school district's accreditation. HouseBill 2885 transferred the selection of schoolsrecognized and awarded through the TexasSuccessful Schools Awards System from theGovernor's Office to the commissioner.

Educational Leadership

ROLES OF THE BOARD ANDCOMMISSIONER

In October 1991, board members reviewedthe roles and responsibilities of the boardand the commissioner. The board's role wasidentified as exercising leadership and policydirection for public education, making legisla-tive recommendations, and adopting rules toclarify legislative action and intent. The roleof the commissioner included adopting andadministering the Texas Education Agency'sprogram and operating budgets after boardreview, raising student achievement, admin-istering programs and monitoring compliancewith board rules, and recommending poli-cies, rules, and regulations.

The board has been active in areas of policydevelopment and educational leadership,adopting a policy cycle in November 1991.

Goal 4 : Organization and Managemeru7 4

Page 51

Collaboration has been at the center of eachof these policy efforts; task forces made upof board 'members, educators, parents, andrepresentatives of professional organizationsand state agencies developed each of thepolicy statements. The policies emphasizeeducational outcomes over routines and pro-cesses and encourage districts and schoolsto develop and implement programs thatreflect policy goals and address local condi-tions.

The board adopted:

the Policy Statementon Middle GradeEducation and Middle Grade Schoolsin September 1991;

the Policy Statement on High SchoolEducation in July 1992;

Roles of theState Board of Education

Board members characterize their role asproviding visibilityl and access -to theeducation policy making process. In fulfillingthis role, the board:

AdvocaWt% for children;

Builds consensus regarding educationin Texas;

Reports on the progress of educationin our state;

Seeks to increase studentachievement;

Fine-tunes legislation;

Provides a forum for publictestimony;

Adopts rules to implement educationpolicies and initiatives; and

Acts a a liaison between educators,parents, and state leaders.

a policy for professional educator de-velopment in October 1992; and

a state plan for gathering informationon student outcome goals in Novem-ber 1992.

The board's Committee on Students wasassigned the task of defining the board'sresponsibilities for vocational education, withthe goal of working with other state agenciestoward a coordinated vocational system.

REORGANIZATION OF THE TEXASEDUCATION AGENCY

In October 1991, the board approved thecommissioner's Reorganization Plan for theTexas Education Agency. The reorganizationplan, developed by the commissioner and aneight-member advisory committee of busi-ness professionals and educators, fulfilledthe requirements of House Bill 1 and, re-sponding to the recommendations of thecomptroller's report, sought to transfer func-tions closer to school districts.

In January 1992, the board approved amend-ments to Title 19 Texas Administrative CodeChapter 53 Regional Education Service Cen-ters, to move selected functions closer toschool districts. The amendments approvedby the board give the commissioner greaterauthority to direct the focus of service centeractivities in three areas. The rule directs:

the commissioner to select the ex-ecutive directors of the Regional Edu-cation Service Centers;

the executive directors to be heldaccountable to the commissionerthrough annual performance reviews;and

annual service center operating bud-gets to be approved by the commis-sioner before expenditures can bemade.

BESTCOPYMEARII 75


University., 'Jane Stalling.,College .0e Education it Texasscribed efforts toincorporateprofessional devekipmeliteffective mialegade educatiou ita Cam.pus in a district working closet), with theuniversity. Thisinteractionof bowl policy,site demonstration, current research, andprofessional development is a cornerstoneof the Centerbf Professional DevelopMentand Technoloory at Texas A&M, whichwas approved by the_board in September1992.

In April 1992, the board requested a pre-sentation on professional preparation ac-tivities related to the middle grade schoolinitiative at the University of Houston atClear lake. The university is workingwith local school districts to developcourses in the College of Education thatdraw upon current middle graC4 educa-tion research and reflect the board's policyinitiative.

LONG-RANGE PLAN FOR PUBLICEDUCATION

As it has implemented the Long-Range Planin the 1990 - 1992 biennium, the board hasemphasized student achievement and ac-countability issues echoed in Goal 1, StudentLearning, and Goal 4, Organization and Man-agement. Through a number of actions toimplement and support the commissioner'sPlan for Improved Student Achievement Ac-countability, the board has taken action to:

raise expectations and support highlevels of student achievement throughimprovement in the statewide as-sessment system and amendmentor abolition of rules hindering studentperformance;

strengthen district accountability forstudent outcomes through a restruc-tured accreditation system; and

measure student progress and insti-tutional accountability through theAcademic Excellence Indicator Sys-tem.

The board has also given high priority to theobjectives in Goal 3, Personnel, establishingCenters for Professional Development andTechnology, approving policy recommenda-tions on professional educator preparationand development, funding professional de-velopment programs, and laying the founda-tion for a results-based review of the rulesrelated to the preparation, performance, andcontinuing education of teachers and admin-istrators.

PERFORMANCE-BASEDACCREDITATION

The board is directed to adopt rules for aschool district accreditation system in Sec-tion 21.753 of the Texas Education Code.School districts can earn a rating of exem-plary, recognized, accredited, accredited ad-vised, and academically unaccredited.

Goal 4 : Organization and Management

76 BESTCOR

As part of the Plan for Improved StudentAchievement Accountability, the commis-sioner presented recommendations to theboard on the criteria and process to be usedin the restructured accreditation system.

The commissioner recommended focusingthe accreditation system on student perfor-mance outcomes rather than state-mandatedinstructional and administrative procedures.The Academic Excellence Indicator System(AEIS) and other results-based informationthat indicate the success of districts andcampuses in achieving the educational out-comes and state performance standards isemphasized in this system over cornpIiancewith procedures. Exhibit 4.1 illustrates a flowchart of the accreditation process. The com-missioner recommended that the accredita-tion process follow four steps:

Conduct an annual desk audit of crite-ria gathered through the AcademicExcellence Indicator System, compli-ance visits, and performance reports;

Establish a preliminary accreditationrating, based on the desk audit, ofaccredited, accredited advised, orunaccredited;

Conduct an on-site investigation,which is optional for accredited dis-tricts seeking a higher rating of exem-plary or recognized and mandatory fordistricts rated as accredited advisedor unaccredited; and

Finalize an accreditation rating, lead-ing to the following actions:

Publically acknowledge ratings ofexemplary or recognized;

Take no further action for ratingsof accredited;

Intervene and provide technicalassistance for ratings of accred-ited advised or unaccredited.

As part of the sunset review of Title 19 of theTexas Admin istrative Code, the board's Com-mittee on Personnel completed the review ofChapter 97, Accreditation and Planning. inApril 1992. The new rules incorporate legis-lative requirements and accommodate therecommendations in the Plan for ImprovedStudent Achievement Accountability for arestructured accreditation system.

The Texas Education Agency piloted the re-structured accreditation system in 16 low-performing school districts during the firsthalf of 1992. The new system was imple-mented in October 1992.

Enhanced Responsibility

SUNSET REVIEW OF EDUCATIONRULES

Legislation, board rule, and initiatives fromthe commissioner have echoed the trend ofplacing responsibility for delivery of educa-tion services closer to districts and cam-puses. Underlying the process of restructur-ing education service delivery has been thesunset review of Title 19 of the Texas Admin-istrative Code. The sunset review has al-lowed the board to rapidly incorporate ele-ments of policy and law that strengthen thenew relationship between state and localeducators. The sunset review is a three-yeareffort required of the board by Senate Bill 1,passed in the Sixth Called Session of the 71stTexas Legislature. Throughout the sunsetprocess, the board has amended the rules inthe code to:

reduce unnecessary or pi.escriptivedirectives;

provide increased flexinty for meet-ing rule requirements;

remove rules that repeat statute anddo not impact school district opera-tion;


77

EXHIBIT 4.1Revised Accreditation Process

AEIS Performance Analysis 1__Cdmpliance and Other DataReview (Non-ASS Information)

Performance Analysis: Analysis of performance related to state standards and stateaverages, annual gain/loss, and equdy of performance among student groups; review ofcompliance with respect to equity, safety and civil rights; and outcomes for special population&

Low Performance, overall loss inperformance, and large gaps in equity

On-site Peer Review to determinequality and effectiveness of planning,offcision making and improvementinitiatives

)1VAcceptable Performance with Irespect to state standards, overall gain,small (and decreasing) equity gaps

Exemplary: If very highperformance and very low equitygaps exist, optional on-site reviewmay be requested to determinerecognized or exemplary rating.

Establish Final Ratings and Take Appropriate Actions:

Accredited:

Exemplary/Recognized:

Accredited Advised/Unaccredited:

Acknowledge rating, and encouragecontinued improvement inperformance and closing equity gaps

Provide recognition

Provide technical assistance/intervention as warranted

This accreditation process will focus on student performance rather than on monitoring strict compliance withrules and regulations. The performance of different types of students, as well as overall performance will beexamined.

Goal 4: Organization and Management

78Page 55

simplify language to enhance under-standing of state expectations; and

reorganize the code to improve itsuse.

In June 1992, the board requested a statusreport on the results of the first and secondyears of the sunset review. Texas EducationAgency staff reported that during these yearsthe board has reviewed 557 rules, eliminat-ing 247 of them. This reduction in the num-ber of education rules prescribed by the boardis particularly significant because it occurredduring a time when the Texas Legislaturepassed major omnibus education bills n 1989(Senate Bill 417), 1990 (Senate Bill 1), and1991 (Senate Bill 351 and House Bill 2885).Exhibit 4.2 charts the sunset review action.

FLEXIBILITY WITH ACCOUNTABILITY

As the state's education system becomesless prescriptive, there is increasing empha-sis on student outcomes of education. Therestructuring of responsibility for educationservices has resulted in greater flexibility atthe local level. It has also been accompaniedby a charge for greater local accountability forschool performance and student achieve-ment. The standards to which accountabilityfor student performance are measured arearticulated in the Academic Exceilence Indi-cator System (AEIS).

The AEIS is the foundation of the state ac-creditation system. Each year, the perfor-mance of every school in the state is com-pared to a group of 100 peer schools. Districtperformance is compared to similar districtsin the state. Districts are required by boardrule to make their annual AEIS reports public.Annual school performance, as reported inthe AEIS, is used in local appraisal of schoolprincipals. The board anticipates a broaden-ing role for the AEIS as a resource for schoolimprovement, extending from reporting re-quirements and accreditation to campus per-formance recognition, compliance assurance,technical assistance, and policy development.

EXHIBIT 4.2Sunset Review of State Board of

Education RulesYearly Comparison

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

424

261

133

49

1991 1992

1111 Reviewed/Scheduled

, Readopted

During the firs! two years of sunset review, theboard eliminated 247 rules, or 44 percent of thosereconsidered.


SITE-BASED DECISION MAKING

As the board has taken action to move ac-countability for education to those closest tostudents, the legislature has directed schoolsto organize committees for site-based deci-sion making. Legislation passed by the 72ndTexas Legislature required the commissionerto provide training in site-based decisionmaking and districts to submit site-baseddecision making plans to the commissionerby September 1992. Site-based decisionmaking in Texas is closely tied to the AEIS.According to Section 21.7352 of the TexasEducation Code, campus decision makingcommittees, made up of the school principal,school staff, parents, and community mem-bers must establish performance objectivesfor each AEIS indicator. In addition to estab-lishing performance objectives, the commit-tees are responsible for school curriculum,budgeting, staffing patterns, and school or-ganization. The dec;sions made by the cam-pus committees must be approved by localboards of trustees.

In January 1992, the board requested a pre-sentation on the site-based decision makinginitiative from the commissioner and TexasEducation Agency staff. The presentationdescribed the work of the commissioner'sState Advisory Committee on Site-BasedDecision making and reviewed the ResourceGuide on Site-Based Decision Making andDistrict and Campus Planning, a training tooldeveloped to assist districts in implementingthe site-based process.

WAIVERS

Concomitant with the increased authorityprovided by site-based decision making andstrengthened accountability provided by theAEIS is the use of waivers to enhance schooland district flexibility for the delivery of edu-cation services. The purpose of these waiv-ers from rules established by the board is toset aside requirements that may inhibit stu-dent achievement. The structure of this

initiative encourages local identification andproposed solutions to problems of studentperformance. As part of the sunset process,the board approved changes to Title 19 of theTexas Administrative Code Chapter 61,School Districts in April 1991, incorporatinglegislation that strengthens thecommissioner's ability to grant waivers fromboard rule. The changes enable the commis-sioner to grant waivers to campuses and/orschool districts for a three-year period. Ifstudent achievement on the campus or inthe district granted the waiver improves, thewaiver may be extended.

Waivers and exemptions are central to theInnovative Education Grants Program, a jointinitiative of the board and the Education Eco-nomic Policy Center (EEPC). Innovative Edu-cation Grants Program projects provide waiv-ers from board rule across a broad range ofinstructional arrangements and programs.Proposals from schools seeking either waiv-ers or grants under the program are competi-tively selected and schools receiving grantsare required to report on the progress madein implementing their project. A report on the1991-92 Innovative Education Grant Programwas submitted to the board in November1992.

Partnership Schools are part of a state initia-tive established by the commissioner to im-prove student achievement. Schools se-lected to participate in the initiative collabo-rate with the Texas Education Agency andRegional Education Service Centers to elimi-nate barriers to high levels of achievementand close the performance gap that existsbetween different groups in the student popu-lation. Since February 1992, 83 campuseshave been selected as partnership schoolsthrough an intensive screening process de-veloped and implemented through the Re-gional Education Service Centers. Campuseswork with the Texas Education Agency, theservice centers, parents, and businesses. Allparties have made a three- to five-year com-mitment of involvement in the initiative.

Goal 4: Organization and Management8 0

Page 57

Planning Coordination andGovernance

PLANNING COORDINATION

The board has worked to coordinate stateand local educational planning in two broadareas, policy development and the AE1S. Thepolicy development task forces charged bythe board to develop policies for its approvalpublish recommendations for all levels of theeducation system to achieve the board's.policy goals. By reporting school and districtperformance, the AEIS is designed to assurestudent achievement and hold educatorsaccountable across a wide range of indica-tors. The commissioner, in recommendingstate standards of performance for approvalto the board, has requested that the successof Texas Education Agency leadership in rais-ing student achievement, as reflected in stateindicators, be held to the same standards aslocal districts and schools.

The board works closely with the LegislativeEducation Board (LEB) and the Committeeon Student Learning. The LEB is authorizedto oversee and review the implementation oflegislative education policy, including policyrelated to fiscal matters, academic expecta-tions, and evaluation of program effective-ness. All actions and proposed actions of theboard are reviewed by the LEB. The Commit-tee on Student Learning makes recommen-dations to the board on a broad range ofissues related to student achievement andschool support. The relationship betweenthe Legislative Education Board, the Com-mittee on Student Learning, and the StateBoard of Education is outlined in the chart inExhibit 4.3.

Coordinating education, health, and socialservices hag been an area of concern of theboard. The board received presentationsfrom Richard Ladd, Commissioner of theHealth and Human Services Commission, inOctober 1992, and Burton Raiford, InterimCommissioner of the Texas Department of

Human Services, in June 1992. Mr. Ladddiscussed service coordination before theboard. Mr. Raiford presented information onproviding literacy services to welfare recipi-ents.

GOVERNANCE

The commissioner's Reorganization Plan forthe Texas Education Agency, approved bythe board in October 1991, restructured theagency to facilitate leadership services andstrengthen governance in school districtsacross the state. To further the goals of thereorganization and improve school gover-nance, the Tripartnership Governance Projectwas established by the commissioner in May1992. The project involves the Texas Educa-tion Agency, the Texas Association of SchoolAdministrators, and the Texas Association ofSchool Boards. The goals of the project,discussed before the board in October 1992,include:

clarifying the relationship betweenschool district superintendents andboard members, as defined by legis-lation, board rule, and effective prac-tice;

identifying elements of legislation andrule that inhibit effective practice;

developing criteria for identifying gov-ernance problems that require stateintervention;

recommending procedures for in-volving superintendents and boardmembers in technical assistanceroles; and

exploring joint legislative initiativesregarding superintendent and boardroles.

Project committee members are addressingissues related to the quality of the trainingthat school board members receive.

Page 58 Long-Range Plan Interim Evaluation: 1991.1992

61

EXHIBIT 4.3Relationship Among the Committee on Student Learning,

the Legislative Education Board, and the State Board of Education

LEGISLATIVEEDUCATION

BOARD

REPORTS PROGRESSAT EACH REGULARMEETING OF LEB(TEC 21.5513 (g))

IN/

Technical AdvisoryCommittees .

(appointed by CSL)

composed of professionals inthe field of education at thestate and local levels

assist the CSL in theperformance of its duties

PROVIDES COMMENTS THATSBOE MUST CONSIDER INWRITING RULES RELATING TOESSENTIAL SKILLS ANDKNOWLEDGE ANDPERFORMANCE-BASEDSTATEWIDE ASSESSMENTPROGRAM

(TEC 21.5511(B))

STATEBOARD OF

EDUCATION

COMMITTEE ONSTUDENT LEARNINGgovernor (appoints 4)It. governor (appoints 4)speaker (appoints 4)commissioner of educationcommissioner of highereducationchair. State Board of Educationrepresentative of teachereducation programs

Governor appoints chair

Responsible for evaluating,developing, and recommending:

O essential skills and knowledge inreading, writing, speaking, math,and critical thinking

co definition and use of statewideassessment program

op legislative recommendations

co core competencies

CO college entrance requirements

00 time, support, and resourcesthat schools need

co indicators

SENDSRECOMMENDATIONS

THAT SBOE MUSTCONSIDER BEFORE

ADOPTING RULES(TEC 21.5513)

adopts rules to establishthe essential skills andknowledge that allstudents should learn

adopts rules to creataand implement a state-wide performance-basedassessment program

Once the board adopts theseassessment rules, TEC 21.551,which describes a requiredstatewide assessment program,is repealed.

Through this collaboration. the State Board of Education has gained additional flexibility, particularly inregards to defining the state assessment system.

Goal 4: Organization and Management

82Page 59

EducatiOn'Informition

PUBLIC EDUCATION INFORMATIONMANAGEMENT SYSTEM

The Public Education Information Manage-ment System (PEIMS) was developed in 1986to support greater accountability in educa-tion. PEIMS is a database that provides astructure for the information, analysis, anddecision making required by management oflocal school districts, the Texas Education.Agency, the board, the legislature, and otherstate policy makers. The PE1MS databaseincludes extensive information on studentenrollment and demographics, district per-sonnel, and facilities. It can be used tosupplement the client information collectedand used by state and local social serviceagencies whose roles and responsibilitiesimpact students. Assessment data used inthe Academic Excellence Indicator Systemare not part of PEIMS.

As part of the sunset review of the educationrules in the Texas Administrative Code, theboard approved Title 19 Texas AdministrativeCode Chapter 61.11 in April, 1991. That ruledirects the commissioner to establish a sys-tem specifying all Texas Education Agencyinformation requirements for school districts,including PEIMS requirements, annually byApril 1.

In April 1991, board members expressedconcern about PE1MS requirements faced bydistricts. In July 1991, the commissionerreported to the board that districts voiced agreat deal of concern about the data require-ments and responsiveness of PEIMS. Thecommissioner appointed the Policy Commit-tee for Public Education Information to de-velop a plan to address policy issues andinformation needs related to public educationinformation. The committee developed avision for an ideal education information sys-tem, based on strengthening the PEIMS da-tabase and streamlining procedures associ-ated with state and local data collection andmanagement. The committee recom-mended:

establishing a 'review mechanism.for.all PEIMS data elements, withchanges resulting from the review tobe incorporated in the 1992-93 PEIMSData Standards;

eliminating the spring PEIMS datacollection;

providing greater access to the Per-son Identification Database withinPEIMS; and

collecting individual-level student at-:tendance data, beginning in 1992-98and assisting all districts in the auto-mation of their attendance account-ing functions.

In January 1992, agency staff presented areport to the board on the advisorycommittee's improvement plan for PEIMS.That report outlined improvements andagency efforts to increase system respon-siveness in five areas:

data processing and turnaround timefor providing information in the sys-tem;

increased training for clients at alllevels;

implementation of the policycommittee's recommendations;

strategic planning and development;and

future plans to increase access andeffective use of PEIMS data.

Initiatives for Small Schools

The Reorganization Plan for the Texas Educa-tion Agency includes a Field Services Unitwith the responsibility for directly linkingschool districts and the commissioner and

Page 60 Long-Range Plan Intedin Evaluation: 1991-1992

providing assistance to small school districts.The Small Schools Division in the Field Ser-vices Unit coordinates assistance to smallschools through regional Education ServiceCenters and assists small schools in theareas of collaborative planning, instructionalcooperatives, facilities planning, communityand business partnerships, staff develop-ment, and conflict mediation.

The Long-Range Plan for Technology of theState Board of Education, adopted in Novem-ber 1988, calls for expanding distance educa-tion, a resource that can supplement thecurriculum offered in small school districts.In February 1991, the board authorized thecommissioner to enter into contracts to ini-tiate an Integrated Telecommunications Sys-tem that will, in its first phase, provide schoolsin 180 districts with comprehensive accessto a broad range of telecommunications ser-vices that enable delivery of curriculum,inservice training, technical assistance, in-structional software, and other text and graph-ics applications.


The period covered by this evaluation saw arestructuring of the Texas Education Agencyto make it more responsive to the state'schanging educational environment, increasedauthority for decision making at the campuslevel, and the initiation of a performance-based system of school accreditation. Thesecond biennium covered by this Long-RangePlan will see refinement in the agency'sorganizational structure as it responds tochallenges faced by educators in districts andcampuses across Texas. Board action overthis period must strengthen and support thenascent system of campus-based planningand decision making in the state. The boardwill also monitor and evaluate the effective-ness of the campus and district accountabil-ity system for school performance.


To measure state-level progress towardachieving Goal 4, Organization and Manage-ment, in the Long-Range Plan for Public Edu-cation, the board established the followingperformance measures:

number of schools implementingsite-based decision making; and

number of high- and low-performing,districts.

SCHOOLS IMPLEMENTING SITE-BASED-DECISION-MAKING

Section 21.931 of the Texas Education Coderequired each school district to develop andimplement a plan for site-based decision-making and submit that plan to the commis-sioner by September 1, 1992. The law statesthat each district's plan shall establish schoolcommittees and outline the role of thesecommittees regarding decision making iv-fated to goal setting curriculum, budgeting,staffing, and school organization. The corn-m issioner extended to January 1993 the Sep-tember 1 deadline, in order to accommodatedistricts with new superintendents and-cen-tral office staff. As of December 31, 1992,1,015 of Texas' 1,064 school districts hadsubmitted plans for implementing site-baseddecision making on their campuses. Of thbtgsubmitted, 933 have been approved by theTexas Education Agency.

The Texas Education Agency approval pro-cess for these district site-based decisionmaking plans focuses on the information thatmust be contained in the plan and require-ments of documented support for site-baseddecision making in the district. The agencyworks with the regional education servicecenters to assist districts in submitting and,as necessary, correcting their plans. Qualityissues related to implementation and effec-tiveness of site-based decision making in

Goal 4 : Organization and Management

84Page 61

Texas school districts will be addressed dur-ing on-site reviews by accreditation teams.

NUMBER OF HIGH-PERFORMING ANDLOW-PERFORMING DISTRICTS

The Texas Education Agency has developedan indrix for determining high-performing andlow performing school districts in the state,based on whether they perform in the top 25percent or bottom 25 percent of three out offour accreditation criteria in the 1991-92 schoolyear. The four accreditation criteria used inthis index are listed below.

Performance compared to state stan-dards adopted by the board for theAEIS. The AEIS standards are pro-vided in Exhibit 1.3 of Goal 1.

Pace, defined as the rate of improve-ment in performance a district willhave to achieve to meet the statestandards in five years;

Equity Gap, determined by compar-ing the Texas Assessment of Aca-demic Skills performance of AfricanAmerican, Hispanic, and white stu-dents; and

Equity Gain, defined as the rate ofimprovement in performance amongthe student population groups in adistrict to close the equity gap in fiveyears.

The index.found that 69 school districts acrossthe state performed in the top 25 percent onthree of the four accreditation criteria, but100 districts were in the bottom 25 percentof statewide performance on three of thefour criteria. Districts within the low-per-forming group were selected for on-site ac-creditation visits during the 1992-93 schoolyear.


The board has made a number of recommen-dations to the 73rd Texas Legislature to im-prove organization and management at alllevels of the Texas system of public schools.The recommendations include:

1.

2.

Provide additional regulatory relief byreducing planning and reporting re-quirements. Allow districts to submit asingle comprehensive district and cam-pus improvement plan, developed in ac-cordance with board rules. The compre-hensive plan would cover campus perfor-mance objectives, provision of servicesto students in at-risk situations, educa-tion of dropouts, provision of technologyservices, and implementation of profes-sional development.

In addition, the board recommends delet-ing redundant posting requirements ofinformation already disseminated in theperformance report and permitting dis-tricts to submit student level data to theTexas Education Agency electronically,eliminating F.,e daily maintenance of at-tendance registers by teachers.

Link site-based decision making andprofessional development. The boardrecommends requiring site-based deci-sion making committees, as They de-velop campus improvement plans, to tar-get professional development to improv-ing student achievement, through col-laboration, training, campus planning, andresearch-based activities.


GOAL 5

Goal Summary

FINANCEThe financing of public educationwill be adequate, equitable, andefficient.

STATE-LEVEL ACTIONS SHOULD PROVIDE FUNDING TO ENSURE

THAT ALL STUDENTS IN ALL DISTRICTS RECEIVE AN ADEQUATE

EDUCATION, BUILDING A FOUNDATION SO ALL STUDENTS WILL

HAVE ACCESS TO A QUALITY EDUCATION BASED ON LOCAL TAX

EFFORT. STATE-LEVEL ACTIONS SHOULD ALSO FINANCE PROGRAMS

FOR STUDENTS WITH VARYING EDUCATIONAL NEEDS, PROVIDE

FUNDING FOR FACILITIES, AND MANAGE THE PERMANENT SCHOOL

FUND FOR THE BENEFIT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION.


5-1 Provide adequate and equitable funding levels for education.

5-2 Provide funding to ensure adequate school facilities.

5-3 Fund necessary variations in program and service costs among districts on a continuous basis.

5-4 Establish an efficient education system in which funding supports effective programs andstudent progress.

7,-5 Administer and manage the Permanent School Fund for the optimum use and benefit of publicschool students and public education.

5-6 Adopt efficient and effective financial and business practices.

5-7 Develop a management and financial reporting system that will provide meaningful and timelyinformation at the state, district, and campus levels.

Goal 5: Finance 8 6 Page 63


1. Fund the Foundation School Program at sufficient levels to ensure that all students in all districtsreceive an adequate education and that students have access to revenues needed for a qualityeducation depending on local tax effort. Use an accountable costs process, i.e., a legal processutilizing an advisory committee, to determine how much it costs to provide an adequate educationas well as a qualitY educatiori.

2. Provide sufficient program funds, equitably disiributed, and necessary agency administrationsupport to implement the Long-Range Plan.

3. Provide funding for facilities and repayment of bonded indebtedness through a guaranteed yieldformula, i.e., a method of supplementing local tax revenues when the local tax base yields aninadequate amount. Provide additional funding for emergency aid and maintain the guaranteed bondprogram that allows the Permanent School Fund to guarantee school district bonds and thus earn ahigher credit rating and lower interest rate than might be possible otherwise.

4. Adjust the basic allotment per pupil in financing programs for special populations or programs usingnontraditional instructional arrangements. Make this adjustment by means of funding differentialsor weights.

5. Provide financial incentives to encourage implementation of efficient programs that meet students'educational needs. For &ample, the state might offer a one-time cash payment in return for suchefficiencies as consolidating small districts or operating on a year-round calendar.

6. Revise funding formulas to provide efficient operation of programs and eliminate financial rewardsfor inefficiencies due to size or other factors.

7. Ensure the integrity of the Permanent School Fund and continue sound management of itsinvestments.

8. Coordinate funding from federal, state, and local sources to support effective instructional programs.


6 7


SEEKING A CONSTITUTIONALFUNDING SYSTEM

Actions of the State Board of Education toensure an adequate, equitable, and efficientsystem of public education, financing haveoccurred under the shadow of the ongoingEdgewood v. Kirby court case. The statesystem of school finance has been signifi-cantly revised during regular and special leg-islative sessions over the past six years asthe Texas. Legislature has worked to meettests of constitutionality established by courtdecisions on the case. The board supportsthe provision of a stable, constitutional sehoolfunding system that satisfies the decisions ofthe court, accomplishes student and tax-payer equity, and provides all students ac-cess to quality education programs. Toachieve this goal, the board anticipates adecreasing reliance on the property tax; main-taining current and future revenue levels es-tablished by Senate Bill 351, passed by the72nd Legislature; and meeting the nationalaverage for per pupil revenue by 1997.

The state's current finance system has beenshaped by Senate Bill 351, which establisheda structure of funding for Texas schools,allocated revenue levels, and amended theFoundation School Program, which is thesystem of formulas established to distributestate funds for public education to schooldistricts. The bill contained many of theboard's legislative recommendations for en-suring quality, equity, and accountability inthe state's system of public school finance.These recommendations included:

measures to ensure program ad-equacy through the Foundation SchoolProgram and provisions for emer-gency and long-term support forschool facilities and district capitalcosts;

measures to ensure equity throughthe system of guaranteed yields and

provisions for enhanced district taxcollection;

measures to increase efficiencythrough the restructuring of schoolorganizations, calendars, and pro-grams; and

measures to increase accountabilityat the district and campus level.

The finance system created by the bill wasbased on three sources of revenue: local,state, and county education districts. InFebruary 1992, that part of the finance sys-tem funded through the county educationdistricts was struck down by the state Su-preme Court. The court found the taxationpowers of the county education districts tobe unconstitutional on two grounds: first,they amounted to a state property tax; sec-ond, they were levied without voter approval.

The Foundation School Program consists oftwo funding tiers. The first tier guaranteessufficient financing for all school districts toprovide a basic education program that meetsstate accreditation and other legal standards.The basic allotment that the state provideddistricts in the 1991-92 school year was $2,200per pupil in average daily attendance. Thisamount marks an increase of nearly $1,000per pupil since the basic allotment began in1984-85. The second tier establishes a guar-anteed yield system of financing, providingall school districts with substantially equalaccess to funds to support an enriched pro-gram and additional funds for facilities. Thesecond tier enables low wealth districts toearn additional state aid by setting their localtax rates above the level necessary to sup-port first tier funding.

To assure greater stability of the state sys-tem of school finance, the board recom-mends eliminating the prorated system ofschool appropriations. Under the present

Goal 5: Finance Page 65

88

system, if the state level of education f undingcalculated for a given year through the for-mulas and allotments of the FoundationSchool Program exceed the state's appro-priation for public education in that year, theamount of state money available for the sys-tem is reduced to equal the appropriation.The reduction in funds is prorated in a mannerthat reduces the funds available to districtson the basis of their wealth. The boardadvocates a system of school finance inwhich funding levels calculated with stateformulas are matched to the state appropria-tion, with the state appropriation increasing,as needed, to meet the amounts calculatedby the formulas.

Board actions and recommendations in thearea of school finance target high levels ofstudent excellence and achievement within aconstitutional funding system that allows allstudents access to .quality education pro-grams. Within the constraints posed by ashifting system of school finance, the boardhas worked to clarify and implement legisla-tive mandates in education programs andservices and school facilities. The board hasalso taken a number of steps, through sunsetreview of Title 19 of the Texas AdministrativeCode, to assure the adequacy of local districttax collection, and implement standardizedbusiness and accounting practices.

PROGRAMS AND SERVICES

In January 1991, the board approved a legis-lative recommendation that clarified the useof compensatory education funds. Legisla-tion passed by the 72nd Texas Legislatureshifted the focus of the compensatory edu-cation allotment away from supplementingprograms for students not succeeding in adistrict's regular education programs to im-proving and enhancing a district's regularschool program. The board addressedchanges in the Compensatory Education Al-lotment and Compensator,' and RemedialInstruction rules in Title 19, Texas Adminis-trative Code Section 89.41 in October 1991.The Compensatory Education Allotment is a

formula within the Foundation School Fro-gram that increases the basic per pupil allot-ment available to school districts, on a per-pupil basis, ID(.4sJd on the number of identifiededucationally disadvantaged students thatthe districts serve. School districts mustoffer programs funded with the Compensa-tory Education Allotment to students whoseachievement test scores are below a stan-dard established by the board or identified asbeing at risk of dropping out of school.

The legislative shift from "supplement" to"improve and enhance," originally made toclarifythe role and use of state compensatoryand federal compensatory education funds indistrict programs, puts greater emphasis onincorporating programs serving identified stu-dents into the total education program of adistrict. In July 1991, the commissioner ofeducation told the board that their efforts toamend the rule addr.,sed the goal of closingthe achievement gal. between studentsserved by compensatory ar,:: remedial pro-grams and students succeeding in regulareducation programs.

Language in the rule approved by the board inOctober 1991 focuses these programs onstudent achievement, outcomes, and schoolaccountability. By conforming the rule to thechange in the,language of the law, the boardshifted the philosophical underpinning ofthese programs, focusing them on improvingand enhancing the educational offerings of adistrict so that identified students can achievesuccess in school and meet desired studentoutcomes. Their objectives are to close theachievement gap between students and pro-vide a unity of purpose toward a common setof educational goals.

To enhance accountability for the ways inwhich the compensatory and remedial pro-gram funds were spent, the board directeddistricts to restructure the instruction sup-ported with these funds if desired studantoutcomes were not achieved. School ac-countability is further increased through pro-visions of law that direct the commissioner to


89

withhold compensatory education funds froma district if it does not fulfill the reportingrequirements for these programs and funds.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

The Texas Supreme Court's decision in theEdgewoodcase that the state must equ,alizefunds for capital outlay and debt service pro-pelled the state into the realm of financingschool facilities. Senate Bill 351, passed bythe 72nd Legislature, directed the board toestablish procedures for awarding grants toschool districts to alleviate emergency facili-ties needs during the 1992-93 school yearand to develop school facilities standards.The legislation appropriated $50 million forthe school facilities grants. The board di-rected the Texas Education Agency to con-duct an inventory of the state's school facili-ties and educational technology and to de-velop a formula, based on district wealth,historical tax effort, and growth rates to allo-cate grant funds. According to the formula,125 districts were eligible.for facilities funds.In June 1992, the board requested a report onschool facilities, which provided memberswith an opportunity to discuss four broadpolicy issues related to school facilities:

the appropriate state and local roles inestablishing construction standards;

the degree to which districts can bemade to meet court-mandated equityrequirements;

the types of construction projectswhich can be addressed in board rule;and

the impact of these options on theTexas Education Agency and theTexas Legislature.

In July 1992, the board approved new facili-ties rules, Titie 19 Texas Administrative CodeChapter 61.101. The rules established publicschool facilities standards for space, educa-tional adequacy, and construction quality.

The rules define the circumstances underwhich the standards apply, specify require-ments for square footage in instruction ar-eas, outline the procedures for professionalcertification of design and construction, andestablish requirements for educational ad-equacy. They also authorize the commis-sioner to make recommendations concern-ing the best practices for facilities construc-tion in relation to educational adequacy.

SUNSET REVIEW OF THETEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

As part of the sunset review of the educationrules in the Texas Administrative Code, theboard approved changes to Title 19 TexasAdministrative Code Chapter 105 Founda-tion School Prograrrt in January 1992. Thechanges conformed the rule to the statutoryprovisions of the finance system. The majorchange in this chapter was in the definition oftax levy and tax collection. In approving therule, the board allowed districts that col-lected delinquent taxes in excess of theircurrent year total levy to apply those amountsto their tier two funding ievel.

In January 1992, the board approved changesto Title 19 Texas Administrative Code Chap-ter 109, Budgeting. Accounting. and Audits,that implemented minimum standards forfinancial accounting systems. In the ruleapproved by the board, districts are requiredto implement an accrual system of budget-ing, accounting, and reporting that reflectsgenerally accepted accounting practice.

ADMINISTRATIVE EFFICIENCY

Rider 24 of the 1992 General AppropriationsAct requires the commissioner to define ad-ministrative costs, determine student costsin each district, calculate the state average ofadministrative costs per student cost, andidentify those districts which exceed 110percent of this average. In the event of prora-tion, the rider requires the commissioner tonotify these districts that the legislature in-tends these costs to be reduced.

Goal .5: Finance Page 67

In October 1991, the commissioner's Advi-sory Committee of Superintendents, in con-sultation with a task force from the TexasAssociation of School Administrators, beganwork on a definition of district administrativecosts. In February 1992, the board requesteda report from the advisory committee. Theadvisory committee made the following rec-ommendations to the board:

focus the definition of administrativecosts primarily on those functions.performed by central office adminis-trators;

do not include costs of campus ad-ministrators in the definition of ad-ministrative costs; and

compare district administrative coststo a group average that is based onsize.

The board's legislative recommendations tothe 73rd Texas Legislature build upon thework of the committee. The recommenda-tions seek an increase in administrative effi-ciency by direczing the commissioner to sys-tematically determine appropriate adminis-trative costs; identify inefficient administra-tive operations within school districts; andimplement a plan to reduce excessive admin-istrative costs in school districts.

PERMANENT SCHOOL FUND

The board oversees management of the Per-manent School Fund, a trust fund with aNovember 1992 market value of more than$10.9 billion. Rated in the top 5 percent oftrust funds in the nation, the fund has postednearly a 16 percent annualized total rate ofreturn for the last nine calendar years. TheTexas Performance Review, an audit of stateagencies conducted in 1991 by the StateComptroller of Public Accounts, found thereturn on the fund to be the highest of tstate's major trust funds. Exhibit 5.1 pre-sents the balance of the fund as of August 31,1992.

The investment earnings of the PermanentSchool Fund provide major support to thestate's Available School Fund, which is thebasis for tier one in the Foundation SchoolProgram. In January 1992, the commis-sioner estimated that more than $1.5 billionin Permanent School Fund income would becontributed to the Available School Fund overthe biennium ending in August 1992. In1991, the fund contributed an amount equalto $227 per student, a major part of the $322per student apportionment approved by theboard in September of that year.

The principal of the Permanent School Fundcan be used to guarantee the bonded indebt-edness of school districts in an effort to helpdistricts attain the most favorable financingand interest rates on their locally-issued newand refunded bonds used for construction. InOctober 1991, the board broadened the scopeof Title 19 Texas Administrative Code Chap-ter 33.105 to align rule provisions with legis-lation passed by the 72nd Texas Legislature.The change in the rules that stipulate theguarantee program for school bonds will saveschool districts partial costs of interest andthe costs of private bond insurance. In the fallof the 1992-1993 school year, 548 schooldistrict bond issues were guaranteed by thefund, in an amount exceeding $3.5 t'llion.

In June 1991, the board approved an invest-ment of $15 million of the Permanent SchoolFund in the Texas Growth Fund. The purposeof the Texas Growth Fund is to promoteeconomic growth in the state while providinginvestment opportunities for the state's pub-lic funds by making capital available to Texascompanies. Investment of the PermanentSchool Fund in the Texas Growth Fund wasapproved, subject to subsequent board over-sight of the fund, and approval of the staffingand organization of its executive directorship.In June 1992, the board moved to tableparticipation in the Texas Growth Fund, dis-approving elements of the executive directorfunction carried forward to the board's Com-mittee on the Permanent School Fund.


91

EXHIBIT 5.1Status of the Permanent School Fund

as of August 31, 1992

Investmentsnook Value

Percent off und Tota(

Governments $1,733,429,645 21.49%Corporate Bonds 2,154,364,060 26.71%Collateralized Mortgage Obligations 1,995,141,032 24.73%Corporate Stock 1 868 975 356 22.17%TOTAL INVESTMENTS $7,751,910,093 96.09%

Short Term InvestmentsBond Maturities due within 12 months $ 86,632,819Commercial PaperTreasury Bills and NotesSecurity Transactions in Transit:Purchases in Transit (119,425,527)Maturity in Transit 16,273,976Cash in Treasury 331.630.169TOTAL SHORT TERM INVESTMENTS 5 315.111.437

FUND TOTAL 58 067 021 530

.19.1%

100 00%


Of primary importance to the goals and objec-tives of the Long-Range Plan is the imple-mentation of a public education finance sys-tem that is adequate, efficient, equitable, andconstitutional. As the state frames a consti-tutional school funding system, the board willwork to ensure that the Permanent SchoolFund supports quality education for everystudent in Texas schools.

Funding to support the state's critical educa-tion initiatives will be articulated through theboard's policy initiatives and earmarked in itslegislative recommendations. Securing fund-ing may be difficult, given the many compet-ing demands on the state budget for publiceducation.

Performance Measured

To measure state-level progress towardachieving Goal 5, Finance, in the Long-RangePlan for Public Education, the board estab-lished the following performance measures:

amount of revenues available for anadequate instructional program for allstudents and for a quality programdepending on local tax effort;

percent of equalized revenues in thesystem; and

principal value of the PermanentSchool Fund and annual rate of in-come deposited to the AvailableSchool Fund.


92

AMOUNT OF REVENUES AVAILABLEFOR ADEQUATE AND QUALITYPROGRAMS

A definition of adequacy is central to thequestion of the constitutionality of the Texaspublic school funding system. How to deter-mine the level of funding at which an ad-equate instructional program is provided toTexas students is a question whose resolu-tion hinges upon the outcome of legislativeefforts to make the state's school financesystem constitutional. Present levels of fund-ing are only marginally adequate. The pro-grams they support do succeed in deliveringan education to Texas students. The effi-ciency and effectiveness of that system ofeducation, however, is being contested.

Achieving the level of state and local fundingnecessary to provide students with a qualityeducation pi ogram is a board goal, expressedthrough its school finance recommendationsto the 73rd Texas Legislature. The board'ssuccess will be measured by legislative ac-tions on its recommendations.

PERCENT OF EQVALIZED REVENUES INTHE TEXAS PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCESYSTEM

In 1992, the percent of equalized revenuesin the system was 96 percent. In the TexasEducation Agency Strategic Plan, approvedby the board in November 1992, the percentof equalized revenues in the system is pro-jected to be 96 percent in 1993, 97 percent in1994, and 98 percent in 1995.

PERMANENT SCHOOL FUND PRINCIPALAND ANNUAL RATE OF INCOME

The book value of the Permanent SchoolFund on November 30, 1992, was more than$8.12 billion. Between September 1, 1992and November 30, 1992 the value of the fundincreased by 6 percent. Over the past nineyears, the annualized rate of return for thefund has been 16. percent.


The board has made a number of recommen-dations to the 73rd Texas Legislature to de-liver a stable, constitutional funding systemfor Texas public education. The recommen-dations include:

1. Achieve a permanent solution that sat-isfies all holdings in the Edgewoodcourt case.

ensure student and taxpayer equitywith a funding system that makesaccess to revenue independent ofstudent residence, decreases relianceon the property tax, includes all prop-erty fairly in the taxing system, andaffirms that a penny of tax in onedistrict raises the same level of rev-enues in all districts. Such a systemwould also increase flexibility for localdecision making;

achieve stability for a five-year period;

provide all students access to a qual-ity educational program, raising theaverage revenue per student to thenational average by 1997;

develop revenue formulas that recog-nize high-cost students; and

include facilities funding as an inte-gral component of a fully equalizedsystem for academic programs.

2. Eliminate proration. Return to estimatedschool finance appropriations to ensurethat the Foundation School Program re-ceives the total state revenue as deter-mined by statutory formulas.

3. Increase administrative efficiency. Al-low the commissioner to implement asystematic plan to ensure that school


93

districts maintain an adequate, but notexcessive, level of fund balance and toimplement procedures for determiningappropriate school district administrativecosts and operations. Provide training,development, and administration of astatewide system of budgeting, account-ing, and reporting. The board also recom-mends various consolidation incentives.

4. Preserve the long-term effective useof the Permanent School Fund. Main-tain statutory and constitutional provi-sions which preserve the integrity of theprincipal of the fund.


94

GOAL 6

Goal Summary

PARENTRESPONSIBILITYParents will be full partners in theeducation of their children.

STA-FE-LEVEL ACTIONS SHOULD COORDINATE STATE SERVICES FOR

PARENTING TRAINING, EARLY CHILDHOOD, AND FAMILY LITERACY.


6-1 Encourage parental participation in all facets of the school program, including homework.

6-2 Increase interaction between school personnel and parents regarding the performance anddevelopment of students.

6-3 Provide educational programs that strengthen parenting skills.

6-4 Coordinate, strengthen, and expand adult literacy programs to help parents provide educational

assistance to their children.


1 . Develop a state plan for involving parents in their children's education. The plan will outline activitiesthat include not only supervising homework and attending holiday music programs but also takingpart in making decisions about what and how their children learn and how the schools are governed.

2. Coordinate state services for parent training and family literacy. The priority will be on programsthattarget teen-age parents and those who are least educated, including migrants, bilingual parents, andothers whose children are in some way at risk of failing or dropping out of school.

3. Incorporate parent training for teenage students into the curriculum to prepare them to become

competent and effective parents.

Goal 6: Parent Responsibilio Page 73

95

4. Encourage employers to provide release time so parents can take part in school activities, such asparent-teacher conferences. Encourage employers to offer supportive programs - for example,information about where to find care for sick children or counseling for family problems.

5. Seek ways to coordinate state programs for early childhood education. A school district, for example,might coordinate its half-day prekindergarten program with a half-day Head Start program, thusproviding eligible children a full day of education and social services in one location.

6. Support programs for latchkey children, i.e., child care and after-school enrichment for children whomight otherwise be unsupervised while their parents are working.

Page 74



The board has sought to enhance the role ofparents and families as partners in theirchildren's education through policy develop-ment, support of pilot and innovative pro-gram initiatives, and continuing support ofadult literacy programs. The establishmentand state suppor ( of parent involvement andfamily literacy programs was a priority rec-ommendation the board approved for legisla-tive consideration in January 1991.

POLICY DEVELOPMENT

Increasing support for parent and familyinvolvement in the academic performanceand personal and social development of stu-dents is embodied in the board's policies forpublic education. The Policy Statement onHigh School Education, adopted by the boardin July 1992, envisions individualized educa-tion plans for student success. These plansare created by a high school teacher, a stu-dent, and the student's family. The threework together to delineate and accomplish acourse of study to achieve post-high schoolgoals valued to the student and family. Rec-ommendations for implementation of thehigh school policy recognize that effective-ness of the individualized education plan de-pends on the extent to which the student,family, and teacher act together to continu-ously monitor the student's progress.

PILOT PROGRAMS

In September 1992, the board published Ex-panding the Boundaries, the final report onpilot programs established by the 71st TexasLegislature. Among the initiatives describedand evaluated in the report were parent edu-cation and parent involvement programs,school-age parenting and pregnancy pro-grams, and prekindergarten programs forthree-year-olds.

Parent Involvement and Education Pro-grams. Established on the premise thateducated and informed parents tend to bemore involved in their children's education,these programs nurture and expand the linkbetween parent education and involvementby encouraging parents to become part of theschool-based planning and decision makingprocess.

Ten pilot sites serving young, low-incomeand/or minority families began operation in1990 and extended through the end of the1991 fiscal year. The programs all includedfamily resource centers and developmentalscreening, parent education and literacyclasses, and parents' group meetings.

All programs made available learning materi-als and resources, such as educational toysand games, instructional kits and videotapes,and computers and software for the partici-pants. Often the programs extended specialservices to participants, such as employmentand social services. The programs werefavorably evaluated by the participating par-ents, teachers, and staff. Conclusions abouttheir effects on student achievement werelimited by the short time between implemen-tation and evaluation stipulated in legislation.

School-age Parenting and Pregnancy Pro-grams. Beginning as pilots in 1990,.theseprograms were subsequently establishedacross the state by Texas Education CodeSection 21.114. By the end of the 1992 fiscalyear, 95 programs were in operation state-wide . Supported by the state CompensatoryEducation Funding Allotment, these programsprovide coordinated education and socialservices to participants, including necessaryacademic course work, child care for childrenof participants in the program, counseling,case work, transportation, and pre-employ-ment training. The programs are open toboth male and female students, althoughthey serve a predominantly female clientele.

Goal 6: Parent Responsibility Page 75

97

Evaluations find that these programs are ef-fective in affording parenting students thesupports that enable them to continue andcomplete their education.

Prekindergarten. The prekindergarten pro-grams also began as pilots in 1990 but nowprovide education services to three- and four-year-olds statewide. These programs targetlimited English proficient children and chil-dren from low income families and provideinstructional and support services through.school, community, and home-based arrange-ments. The effect of the programs on stu-dent achievement has not yet been fullyassessed. They have proved effective, how-ever, in recruiting and retaining parental sup-port.

INNOVATIVE EDUCATION GRANTPROGRAMS

Parent and family involvement is an impor-tant component of the Innovative EducationGrant Program projects approved by theboard. The board received a Report on theInnovative Education Grant Program,1991-92 ,which evaluated the effectivenessof these programs in November 1992. Ofthe 33 projects evaluated in the report, fourprograms explicitly encouraged parent par-ticipation in school, coordinated parent in-volvement and literacy training, and weresupported by local adult literacy councils.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL-AGE CHILDCARE PROGRAMS

In November 1991, the board approved theTexas Education Agency entering into a con-tract with the Texas Department of HumanServices to fund elementary school-age childcare programs in year-round schools. Fund-ing for these programs came from a federalChild Care and Development Block Grantreceived by the Department of Human Ser-vices. The grant targeted low-income elemen-

tary campuses that had encountered prob-lems related to child care in implementingyear-round education programs. Applicationswere to be submitted by the school districtand a licensed child care facility. The fundswere designated to support planning andstart-up costs of these programs.

ADULT LITERACY

Beyond the parent literacy components inboth the pilot and innovative programs, theboard has provided long-term support foradult literacy councils across the state andhas sought to mobilize private sector capac-ity to assist the state's system of adult edu-cation in locating, counseling, and teachingadults in need of literacy services. In March1992, the board approved amendments tothe Texas State Plan for Federal Adult Educa-tion Funding which, in response to federalpassage of the National Literacy Act of 1991,expand the provision of literacy services andenhance the focus of these programs onadult student outcomes and results.


The success in meeting its Long-Range Planobjectives depends upon the board's abilityto communicate the idea that meaningfulparent and family involvement energizes stu-dent achievement. One avenue for articulat-ing this idea is the development of a state-level plan and policy statement for encourag-ing parent and family involvement in educa-tion. Facilitation of site-based planning anddecision making is a second promising av-enue of increasing parental involvement ineducation. Parents and families, workingwith teachers, administrators, and commu-nity members on these committees can ac-tively plan campus improvement across arange of instructional, organizational, and fam-ily and suppor sues.


98

Petformance Measures

To measure state-level progress towardachieving Goal 6, Parent Responsibility, inthe Long-Range Plan for Public Education,the board established the following perfor-mance measures:

adult literacy rate in Texas; and

number of districts implementingparenting skills or community volun-teer programs.

ADULT LITERACY RATE

The Texas Literacy Council in the state De-partment of Commerce estimates that oneout of three Texans are functionally illiterate.Using that estimate, current resources allowthe Texas Education Agency to serve anestimated five to 10 percent of the state'starget population for adult literacy services.To achieve a more defindve rate of adultfunctional illiteracy in the state, Texas is par-ticipating in the National Adult Literacy Sur-vey being conducted by the U.S. Departmentof Education's National Center for Educa-tional Statistics. The Texas adult literacy ratedetermined by that survey will be available in1993.

DISTRICTS IMPLEMENTING PARENTINGSKILLS OR COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERPROGRAMS

The Texas Education Agency coordinated theimplementation and evaluation of 10 pilotparent involvement and parent education and95 school age pregnancy and parenting pro-grams implemented from 1990 through theend of the 1992 fiscal year. Section 21.114 ofthe Texas Education Code states that schooldistricts may provide integrated programs ofeducational and support services for preg-nant and parenting students if, as deter-mined by board rule, at least 30 percent of the

students in a district considering programimplementation are of low socioeconomicstatus.

Otherorganizations are involved with imple-menting parenting skills program.

The Practical Parenting Program is adistrict-wide program coordinated bythe Texas Association of SchoolBoards that serves families with chil-dren from birth to high school. SinceOctober 1989, the program has ex-panded from 15 to 189 Texas schooldistricts.

The Parents as Teachers Program, acampus-based program that servesfamilies with children from birth toage three, has been implemented in40 Texas communities.

Goal 6: Parent Responsibility9 9

Page 77

GOAL 7

Goal Summary

COMMUNITY ANDBUSINESSPARTNERSHIPSBusinesses and other members ofthe community will be partners inthe improvement of schools.

STATE-LEVEL ACTIONS SHOULD ENCOURAGE EXTENSIVE

PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND COMMUNITY

ORGANIZATIONS, DEVELOP MODEL PROGRAMS TO ENCOURAGE

BUSINESS PEOPLE AND OTHERS TO SERVE AS MENTORS FOR

STUDENTS AND IMPROVE ADULT AND COMMUNITY EDUCATION

PROGRAMS.


7-1 Seek extensive and varied participation by the private sector in public education.

7-2 Coordinate, strengthen, and increase adequate literacy and secondary education programs forout-of-school youth and adults.

7-3 Encourage the full use of school resources and facilities for community lifelong learning.

7-4 Develop mutually beneficial partnerships between schools and community-based organizations.

7-5 Promote the establishment or expansion of school volunteer programs.

7-6 Increase the public's awareness of the role of public education in the state's economicdevelopment.

Goal 7: Community and Business Partnerships1C 0

Page 79


1. Encourage schools and businesses to form partnerships to improve education. Encourage otherforms of mutual exchange between public education and the private sector through such means asforming a state advisory body and sharing information about effective programs.

2. Develop cooperative educational internship programs for students interested in professional careerssuch as accounting, medicine, law, and engineering.

3. Develop a state plan for adult and community education. The plan will include provisions for out-of-school youths and adults, requests for adequate state start-up funds, coordination of state andfederal funds, use of school facilities, and other measures to improve adult literacy, schoolcompletion, and job training.

4. Expand partnerships between schools and community-based organizations by offering financialsupport, setting up pilot programs, identifying effective programs, and providing staff development

5. Support school volunteer coordinators at the state and regional levels. Establish formal partnershipswith appropriate organizations such as the Kiwanis, Rotary, and retired professionals to strengthenthe state's capacity to increase school volunteer programs.

6. Develop model programs to encourage persons from business, the professions, communityorganizations, and the community to serve is mentors for students.

7. Research the relationship between labor market and economic trends in the state and theirimplications for public education.

z


101


POLICY INITIATIVES

The board, recognizing that community part-nerships can enhance both the quality oflearning experiences and social supports of-fered to students and the quality of the pro-fessional environment in which teachers,administrators, and support staff work, hasdeveloped policy initiatives that encourageschools to actively cultivate business andcommunity support for education. The per-spective that representatives of state andcommunity agencies and the private sectorbring to the process of education can providea valuable clarity to discussions of educa-tional goals and student achievement. Theboard has sought the active participation ofthese representatives on advisory commit-tees and policy development task forces.

The board's policies on middle and high schooleducation assign critical importance to ex-panded community and private sector in-volvement. As stated in the Policy Statementon Middle Grade Schools and Middle GradeEducation, this involvement supports stu-dents' academic and social growth and isreciprocated by student involvement in com-munity service activities and educationprojects. At the high school level, communityand business involvement not only supportsstudent learning but also clarifies transitionsfrom school to work and higher education.


In November 1991, the board's Committeeon Long-Range Planning discussed work forcepreparation with Ray Marshall, professor ofeconomics and public affairs at the LyndonBaines Johnson School of Public Affairs atthe University of Texas at Austin. Among themost salient of Dr. Marshall's recommenda-tions concerning the interaction of publiceducation policy and employment were:

developing uniform exit standards forhigh schools;

allowing students to enter work forcetraining at age 16 if they are not doingwell in school;

expanding training and apprenticeshipprograms;

providing bettercoordination betweenschool and work: and

providing four years of post-second-ary education through a surtax ongraduates' later earnings.

PROGRAM PARTNERSHIPS

The State Board of Education Task Force onHigh School Education drew upon the exper-tise of community and business representa-tives as it developed the Policy Statement onHigh School Education. Both the task force,in February 1992, and the board's Committeeon Long-Range Planning, in March 1992,heard presentations on the Texas ScholarsProgram, a collaborative effort that grew outof a partnership between Longview ISD andthe Greater Longview Chamber of Com-merce. The Texas Scholars Program hasbeen adopted by the Texas Business andEducation Coalition for statewide imptemen-tation. The program provides opportunitiesand support for students to complete a rigor-ous high school education program in orderto be better prepared to meet the require-ments of work and higher education. Theprogram embodies high expectations. It isestimated that, in 1992, only 10 percent ofthe state's graduating high school seniorscompleted an academic regimen equivalentto the one it outlines.

Goal 7 : Community and Business Partnerships 1n2Page 81

In September 1992, the Texas Scholars Pro-gram acknowledged its support for the board'saction to phaseout of graduation credit forlow-level high school courses. Representa-tives from the program tied their support tothe recommended proficiencies for Texashigh school graduates endorsed by the boardin July 1992.

Business and community involvement wasalso an important component of 1991-92Innovative Education Grant Program projects.approved by the board. Many of these projectsdrew upon community and business supportto expand the range of educational opportu-nities offered to students, increase studentachievement, and bolster student supports.

WORK FORCE PLANNING

In an effort to improve the responsiveness ofthe state system of public education to thechanging conditions of the labor market, theboard establishes a priority list of occupa-tions each year. This priority list aids regionalwork force planning and is used to directvocational and applied technology educationacross the state. The occupations on the list,reviewed by a panel of labor market experts,are selected on the bases of job growth to theyear 2000, hourly wage, and training require-ments.

ADULT EDUCATION SERVICES

In its January 1991 legislative recommenda-tions, the board supported usingstate fundsto sponsor cooperative projects betweenschool districts and business. The goal ofthese projects is to increase work force pro-ductivity through the provision of adult lit-eracy services, secondary education training,support services, and basic skills instruction.

The Texas system of adult education io ;(11.,e

in its delivery of services through a network

of adult education cooperatives. Adult edu-cation in Texas provides literacy, English lan-guage skills for limited proficient adults, basicacademic and vocational skills, and second-ary level competencies for youth and adultswho are beyond the age of compulsory schoolattendance but who function at less than asecondary completion level.

Volunteerism is a vital component of thestate's system of adult education and, inalmost every county in the state, adult educe-tior ilas strong community ties. The boardhas provided long-term support for the devel-opment of community literacy councils tobuild local capacity for serving people in needof literacy services.

A policy statement on adult and communityeducation, slated for completion in 1993, ispart of the policy development initiative thatwas approved by the board in November1991.

In March 1992, the board approved theAmendments to the Texas State Plan forFederal Adult Education Funding for FiscalYears 1990-93. The amendments adoptedby the board correspond to changes in thefederal adult education system specified inthe National Literacy Act of 1991. Changes inthe system expand adult education and lit-eracy services and focus service providers onprogram goals and outcomes.

The Texas Education Agency Strategic Plan,approved by the board in November 1992,calls for building an equitable adult educationand literacy program within the public educa-tion system. The adult education and literacysystem envisioned in the plan increzises ac-cessibility to services through free equiva-lency examination testing, flexible sched-ules, more service sites, a management in-formation system, and improved referral pro-cedures.


103


The second biennium covered in this Long-Range Plan will see further implementationof school, business, and community partner-ships across the state. In many areas, thesepartnerships will extend beyond a close fo-cus on academic enrichment to supportingimproved academic performance with school-based or school-linked community and socialservices. In this view, full educational suc-cess for all students involves a community-wide effort that draws upon the resources,services, and activities of a range of organiza-tions, agencies, businesses, and institutions.The board will be challenged to develop acomprehensive strategy for community andbusiness partnerships in education that en-compasses a range of educational, health,and social services in the support of qualityand equity in education.


To measure state-level progress towardachieving Goal 7, Community and BusinessPartnerships, in the Long-Range Plan for Pub-lic Education, the board established the fol-lowing performance measure:

number of districts implementing busi-ness partnership programs.

DISTRICTS IMPLEMENTING BUSINESSPARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS

According to the 1992 Annual Report of theTexas Business and Education Coalition, thereare 89 business-education-community coali-tions in Texas. These coalitions, increasingfrom 57 at the beginning of 1992, are in allmajor urban areas of Texas and are findinggreater implementation in suburban areas,smaller cities, and towns. When Texas initia-tives organized under the banner of the

America 2000 national education goals pro-gram are included in estimates of businesspartnership programs in Texas, the numberof business - education - communitycollaboratives increases to 180. Accordingto the Texas Business Education Coalition, allof these coalitions are autonomous. They areunified, however, by a common commitmentto making a more effective connection be-tween education and the real world, withconcomitant support for high studentachieve-ment, school change, and community andstate recognition of school success.

It is important to note that business partner-ships in education are not limited to theextensive Texas Business and EducationCoalition network. Business, community,and university involvement in developing in-novative strategies for increasing studentachievement is critical to the success of thecommissioner's Partnership Schools Initia-tive. Districts across the state actively culti-vate community and business involvement ina number of ways, including adopt-a-schoolprograms, mentoring programs, partners inliteracy, and a number of other initiatives thatseek greater support, along with high com-munity expectations, for Texas students. .

Site-based decision making is another av-enue for active business and communityinvolvement in Texas education. The cam-pus planning committees mandated by thelegislature must include community repre-sentatives among their members.

Goal 7: Community and Busbies; Partnerships

104Page 83

Goal Summary

RESEARCH,DEVELOPMENT,AND EVALUATIONInstruction and administrationwill be improved through researchthat identifies creative andeffective methods.

STATE-LEVEL ACTIONS SHOULD IDENTIFY AND INVESTIGATE

CRITICAL ISSUES FOR RESEARCH, SUPPORT INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS

TO DETERMINE THE MOST COST-ElikthCTIVE WAYS OF ACHIEVING

RESULTS, DEVELOP AND EVALUATE STATEWIDE EDUCATIONAL

TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, AND ESTABLISH MULTIPLE MEASURES OF

STUDENT LEARNING AND SCHOOL E14±,CTIVENESS.


8-1 Develop and administer a comprehensive, coordinated plan for statewide educational research.

8- Apply research results to improve all facets of public education.

8-3 Institute and maintain a research clearinghouse.

8-4 Develop demonstration programs and encourage local initiatives for new instructional arrange-ments and management techniques.

8-5 Use technology to increase the equity, efficiency, and effectiveness of classroom instruction,instructional management, and administration.

Goal 8: Research, Devekftnent, and Evaluation

105Pp 85

8-6 Establish systems of multiple measures and indicators in program and campus evaluation.

8-7 Investigate options for parental choice in educational programs and school sites.

State-Level Actions Specified in the Long-Range Ptan

1. Develop and implement a comprehensive plan for educational research. Identify critical researchissues, assign priorities, and allocate funding according to those priorities in an effort to make the bestpossible use of limited resources.

2. Support cooperative research among districts, the Texas Education Agency, the EducationalEconomic Policy Center, colleges and universities, and other organizations. Support may includefinancial support, waivers of rules, and cooperative staff development plans.

3. Study selected samples of students over the next 20 to 25 years to obtain longitudinal data about theeffects of different educational experiences.

4. Communicate research findings and information about effective programs to educators andresearchers throughout the state. Methods include a state research clearinghouse, telecommuni-cations, presentations at conferences, and technical assistance.

5. Conduct short-range and long-range pilot programs to determine the most cost-effective ways ofachieving results, such as preventing at-risk students from dropping out of school. Provide supportthrough the Public Education Development Fund for innovative programs. Establish guidelines topromote programs that demonstrate high quality and show promise for wide application.

6. Conduct studies to determine the costs of current and new programs, fiscal neutrality of the publicschool finance system, efficiency of the system in which districts report and monitor allocatedresources, costs of providing programs to students under varying conditions, effects of deregulatingexemplary schools and other topics. Share research findings with the Educational Economic PolicyCenter. Use data from pilot studies and other research to determine funding requests and otherrecommendations to the legislature.

7. Implement the Long-Range Plan for Technology of the Texas State Board of Education, a 12-year planfor providing hardware, software, and telecommunications capabilities to schools, districts, andRegional Education Service Centers. Evaluate and revise th a plan to ensure equitable district accessto electronic equipment and materials, provide training in technology integration, expand telecom-munications systems and encourage research and devetopment.

8. Implerrrent the Academic Excellence Indicators, a set of performance measures that will be used inrating schools.

9. Research the issue of allowing parents to choose which school their child will attend.


106


RESEARCH ISSUES

The board's policy development activitiesand the incorporation of education initiativesand legislative action into state educationrules have driven research and investigationof a number of critical education issues. Re-search in these areas has focused on creatingconditions for student success and formulat-ing indicators by which it can be measuredand evaluated. Significant areas of researchin support of board policy and rule haveincluded:

early childhood, elementary, middle,and high school education to sup-port policy development in thesegrade-level areas;

the impact of education reform onstudents in at-risk situations todetermine the effectiveness of legis-lation and rule on an identified groupof students;

the transition from special educationto evaluate the success of pro-

grams in preparing their students tomeet real-world challenges;

the Academic Excellence IndicatorSystem to measure student per-formance across a range of measuresand hold schools accountable for thatperformance;

professional preparation and devel-opment to support policy develop-ment and the sunset review of educa-tion rules; and

teacher supply and demand toanalyze critical teacher needs acrossthe state.

In addition to these issues, the commis-sioner of education has called for research tosupport education initiatives in the areas of:

support for students to evaluatethe implications and effectiveness ofcoordinating education and social ser-vices;

closing the achievement gap amongthe ethnic and racial groups in theTexas student populationto inves-tigate the strategies and practicesthat can create a system of publiceducation that is both excellent andequitable;

school safety and violence to as-sure that all students and educatorshave safe working and learning envi-ronments; and

bilingual educationto identify policyissues and present successful prac-tices in these programs.


Expert speakers appearing before the board'sCommittee on Long-Range Planning haveserved as primary sources of information oncritical research issues and innovative pro-grams and practices. Topics on studentlearning, curriculum and programs, and pro-fessional preparation presented in the expertsessions have been discussed in Chapters 1,3, and 7 of this report. Other areas of specialfocus by the board have included:

urban education and deregulation,presented by Ted Kimbrough, gen-eral superintendent of the ChicagoPublic Schools in April 1991;

delivery of education services in pub-lic housing facilities in Dallas, byAlphonso Jackson, executive direc-tor of the Dallas Housing Authority inMay 1991;

Gadd 8: Research, Development, and Evaluation

1 0 7Pat* 87

changing demographics of the Texaspopulation, by Steve Murdoch, headof the Department of Rural Sociologyat Texas A&M University in February

1992;

restructured middle grade education,by Linda Sheehan, principal of 01 leMiddle School in Alief ISD in April1992; and

professional development and em-powerrnent of educators throughcampus-based planning, by SteveBarone, a consultant from the School-Based Support Network in May 1992.

POLICY RESEARCH CLEARINGHOUSE

A Policy Research Clearinghouse, institutedwithin the Texas Education Agency in July1990 and merged with the Division of PolicyPlanning and Evaluation in July 1991, ischarged by the board with three functions:

responding to the commissioner'srequests for research and analysis;

reviewing implications of selectednational and regional studies; and

developing contacts with the exter-nal research community.

Staff performing policy research functionshave investigated a number of research is-sues, including:

calculating graduation rates for incor-poration into the AEIS;

professional preparation and devel-opment of educators, in support ofpolicy development and sunset re-view in these areas;

teacher shortages and critical needs;and

parental choice of schools.

From July 1990 through February 1992, thePolicy Research Clearinghouse administeredthe Middle Grade School State Policy Initia-tive grants awarded to Texas by the Carnegie

Corporation.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH INITIATIVES

In support of cooperative research, the Texa-Education Agency is participating in the PolicyResearch Exchange Program developed by

the Office of the Comptroller and the LyndonBaines Johnson School of Public Affairs. Inaddition, the board has worked with theTexasHigher Education Coordinating Board to es-tablish Centers for Professional Developmentand Technology. The centers, led by collegesof education and involving public schools,regional education service centers, and com-munity organizations, are in the process ofcreating a system of teacher preservice edu-cation and professional development that is

research-based, enriched by an emphasis onfield experiences, collaborative, and technol-ogy-focused. Eight Centers for ProfessionalDevelopment were competitively selectedamong 68 applicants and funded by the boardin October 1992. Exhibit 3.2 identifies thecenter sites.

LONGITUDINAL RESEARCH STUDIES

Three longitudinal research studies evaluat-ing the effectiveness of prekindergarten pro-grams, impact of education reform on stu-dents in at-risk situations, and transitionfromspecial education are in continuation years.These studies are investigating the impact ofeducation laws, rules, and programs uponselected groups of students over Aime.

Prekindergarten:This study is an evaluation of the effects ofprekindergarten experiences on subsequentacademic achievement. Major componentsof the study are the investigation of thedevelopmental appropriateness ofprekindergarten instruction and the studentassessment methods used in these . pro-

Pagi 88 Long-Range Plan interim Evaluatidn: 1991-1992

.108

grams. The study, which began in 1989, willhelp provide a framework for the State Boardof Education policy initiative in early child-hood and elementary education. In 1993, thestudy will yield baseline data for students asthey enter elementary school. Preliminaryfindings from the study were presented tothe board's Committee on Long-Range Plan-ning in November 1991. An interim report ofthe study was published in November 1992.

The longitudinal component of the study isscheduled for completion in August 1994.Researchers may seek a one-year extensionof the study, however, to accommodatechanges in the state student assessmentplan approved by the board in April 1992,which moves the elementary grade TexasAssessment of Academic Skills examinationfrom grade 3 to grade 4.

Impact of Educational Reform on Studentsin At-Risk Situations:This study has investigated how the term "at-risk" has been defined through law and ruleand addressed by local programs. The studyfocuses on the local consequences of fourstate policies targeting students in at-risksituations.

Attendance, which requires studentsto attend class at least 80 days duringa semester to receive course creditand directs districts to appoint at leastone attendance committee to hearpetitions for credit from students withless than 80 days' attendance.

No pass/no play, which requires stu-dents to pass every course during asix-week grading period in order toparticipate in any extracurricular ac-tivity during the following six-weekgrading period.

The TEAMS/TAAS examination - thestatewide student assessment whichall students must pass at the exitgrade in order to graduate. The stateassessment program has changed

twice during the period of Me study:in content, from TEAMS, focusing onbasic skills, to TAAS, focusing onhigher-order skills in a greater rangeof subjects; and in the grades duringwhich it is administered to students,from grades 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 (exit)under the old plan to grades 4, 8, and10 (exit) under the plan approved bythe board in April 1992.

The driver's license law, which re-quires anyone under the age of 18either to have a high school diplomaor its equivalent, or to De currentlyenrolled in either a high school or highschool equivalency program for a pe-riod of time prior to the issuance of adriver's license.

The study began in 1988 and is funded through1993. It has three components:

a longitudinal investigation, com-pleted in 1992, of the impact of thefour policies on high school studentsin at-risk situations;

case studies of the impact of thepolicies on regular and identified stu-dents;

a statewide questionnaire distrib-uted to high school principals in 1990on the impact of the policies.

Preliminary findings from this study werepresented to the board in January 1991. Aninterim report was presented to the board inJuly 1992. The board incorporated findingsfrom this study into the development andconsideration of its recommendations to theTexas Legislature.

Transition from Special Education Pro-grams:This study was mandated by Senate Bill 417,passed by the 71st Texas Legislature. Itfocuses on the transition of students fromspecial education programs to the world

Goal 8: Research, Development, and Evaluation

109Page 89

awaiting them after high school. The study,which began in 1990, is charged with evalu-ating the effecdveness of special educationprograms in developing life skills studentsneeded after leaving the public school sys-tem; developing methods of monitoring theeffectiveness of special education programs;and determining the appropriateness of es-sential elements for a special education cur-riculum and the design of a state assessmentforthese programs. It is scheduled forcomple-tion by December 1994, with a possible ex-.tension to 1996 through funding from theTexas Developmental Disabilities Council.

The longitudinal component of the study,which follows a sample of special educationstudents before and after leaving high schoolto analyze program effectiveness, is sched-uled for completion in December 1994. Thefamily/community case study component ofthe study, which gathered information onparental and employer satisfaction with theprograms, was completed in July 1992. Thetransition planning component of the study,which includes research reviews and pro-gram investigation in school districts of vary-ing sizes, is scheduled for completion in June1994.

PILOT PROGRAMS

The 71st Texas Legislature established pilotprograms in seven areas:

prekindergarten for three-year-olds;

academic programs for students be-low grade level;

in-school high school equivalencyexamination;

elementary students in at-risk situa-tions;

school-age pregnancy and parenting;

parent involvement and parent edu-cation; and

technology demonstration.

Funding for the programs exceeded $13 mil-lion. The state Compensatory EducationAllotment and funds specially appropriatedfor the pilot programs made up programfunding.

During the 1989-90 school year, 82 pilot sitesbegan operation in 58 school districts andone regional education service center. Thesesites served 7,000 individuals. Through thespring and summer of 1990 the number ofpilots grew to more than 151 sites in 108districts and one service center. The ex-panded programs served more than 23,000participants, including 13,000 students, 7,000parents, and 3,600 children of students en-rolled in the programs. The pilot programsextended through the 1991 fiscal year.

Expanding the Boundaries, the board's finalreport on these pilot programs, was pub-lished in September 1992. That report con-tained descriptions of the programs, evalua-tions of program activities, and analyses ofthe implementation costs in the various pilotsites.

Three of the pilot initiatives have expandedinto statewide programs due to legislativeaction in 1991:

prekindergarten for three-year olds;

high school-based equivalency; and

school-age pregnancy and parenting.

The board applied several lessons learnedfrom the pilot programs to its oversight ofthese statewide programs.

In the areas of prekindergarten pro-grams, board rules recognize that ef-fective prekindergarten programs canoperate not only on school campusesbut also in community sites and inhomes.


110

Access to in-school high schoolequivalency programs has been in-creased.

The need to serve both pregnant andparenting students, the importanceof child care, and the critical role oftransportation have been incorporatedinto the administrative proceduressupporting services to parenting stu-dents funded through the state Com-pensatory Education Allotment.

The need for realistic and timely staffdevelopment to support the imple-mentation of technology has beencommunicated to districts as theybring new technologies onto theircampuses and into their classrooms.

INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS

The Innovative Education Grant Program is ajoint effort of the board and the EducationalEconomic Policy Center (EEPC). This pro-gram offers a broader range of program areasand greater freedom in program develop-ment than did the seven statutory pilot pro-grams. The project areas addressed by theInnovative Education Grant Program are listedin Exhibit 8.1. Successful applicants in theprogram have obtained both board and EEPCapproval. The Legislature has appropriatedPublic Education Development Fund (PEDF)funds to support these programs. The inno-vative programs that receive PEDF fundsmust also be approved by the LegislativeEducation Board.

The 71st Texas Legislature appropriated ap-proximately $4.8 million for Innovative Edu-cation Grant Program awards. Slightly morethan $3 million was awarded, in amountsranging from $8,000 to more than $341,000,to 33 programs in 24 school districts in thespring of 1991. The programs covered the1990-91 ana, in some cases, the 1991-92school years. Elementary and senior highgrade levels were targeted most often by the

innovative projects. More than 7,500 stu-dents were served by these programs.

The 72nd Texas Legislature provided approxi-mately $3.2 million in PEDF funds for theInnovative Education Grant Program. TheRequest for Applications for the 1992 cycleemphasized four priority areas:

campus-based accountability sys-tems;

staff development and training;

collaborative efforts involving schools,parents, communities, and busi-nesses; and

middle school restructuring.

In the spring of 1992, 26 programs from 19school districts and the Texas School for theBlind were approved for funding.

Both the Texas Education Agency and theEEPC are charged with evaluating these pro-grams. The Report to the State Board ofEducation and the Legislative EducationBoard: The Innovative Education Grant Pro-gram, 1991-92, presented to the board inNovember 1992, evaluates the progress madeby the 33 programs funded in 1991 in achiev-ing their goals. The report found that 24 ofthe 33 programs were implemented asplanned and that 25 of the projects eitherpartially or fully met their stated objectives bythe fall of 1992. Six themes were noted bythe report in the most productive features ofthis program. They include:

increased access to technology af-forded by the innovative grant;

greater access to highly specializedstaff development through the inno-vative grant;

enhanced investment in curriculumdevelopment;

Goal 8: Research, Development, and Evaluation

1 1 1Page 91

EXHIBIT 8.1Innovative Education Grant Program

Project Areas

1. School year restructuring

2. Alternative learning environments

3. Parental literacy

4. Decentralization of organizationaldecisions

5. Instructional technology

6. Student and parental choice amongpublic schools

7. Child care

8. Early childhood education

9. Extended school day

10. Teacher and administratordevelopment

11. Continuous progress education

12. Student-teacher ratios below 22:1 inelementary grades

13. Use of elementary school guidancecounselors, social workers, and otherpersonnel in successful dropoutprevention programs

14. Career development for students

15. Bilingual training

16. Generation of more effective parentalinvolvement with the schools

17. School-age latchkey children

18. Volunteer efforts with the privatesector

19. Coordination of school activities withcommunity health and humanservices programs and othercommunity resources

20. Magnet schools

21. Interdisciplinary curriculum

22. Peer tutoring

23. Counseling of families of students inat-risk situations

24. Comprehensive coordination withhealth and human service deliverysystems

increased attention to learners as in-dividuals, reflected in program designby intensive efforts to link supportservices to students in need of themand by individualization of instructionto better match learners' uniqueneeds;

increased attention to learning asbeing a context-bound, familial pro-cess; and

encouragement of school restructur-ing.

The report also raised a concern about evalu-ating the innovative programs before theyhave enough time to achieve their intendedresults.

COST STUDIES

Senate Bill 351, pasf...-ed by the 72nd TexasLegislature, calls for the Legislative Educa-tion Board and the Legislative Budget Board,together with the Texas Education Agencyand the EE PC, to conduct biennial studies ofvarious costs of education, beginning in Sep-tember 1991. The results of those studiesare to be used in recommending educationappropriations for the following biennium.The Texas Education Agency submits costestimates related to equity and fiscal neutral-ity to the Legislative Budge, Board.

LONG-RANGE PLAN FOR TECHNOLOGY

The Long-Range Plan for Technology of theTexas State Board of Education was adoptedby the board in 1988. Phase one of the planextended through the 1991-92 fiscal year andprogress on the first phase of the plan wasreported to the Committee on Long-RangePlanning in April 1991. The Long-Range Planfor Technology sought to accomplish sevenactions to enhance equitable access to tech-nology during the first phase of the plan. Theactions include:


112

Technology EquipmentAllotment AnADA-based technology allotment wasestablished by Senate Bill 1, 71stTexas Legislature, and amended bySenate Bill 351, 72nd Texas Legisla-ture. The technology allotment wasinitiated at $30 per ADA in the 19921993 school year, and increases to$50 per ADA in 1996 1997.

Expansion of the Foundation SchoolProgram to Include Technology: Sen-ate Bill 351 incorporated the technol-ogy allotment into Tier 1 of the Foun-dation School Proca:am.

Electronic Information Transfer Sys-tem: TENET, the state educationElectronic Information Transfer Sys-tem was established and funded bySenate Bill 650, 71st Texas Legisla-ture. TENET expands the ElectricPages Telecommunications Network,connecting educational institutionsand professional organizations at thestate, regional, and local levels. TE-NET allows the exchange of adminis-trative and curricular information be-tween system users.

Instructional Television Allotment:This allotment, which sought to en-sure that districts received publicbroadcasting and other instructionaltelevision services for supplementalcourse enrichment, was not fundedby the legislature.

Support of District Purchase of Tech-nology Systems: The Texas Educa-tion Agency and the State Purchasingand General Services Commission(SPGSC) are piloting school districtaccess to the SPGSC On-line Auto-mated Contracts System to encour-age district use of state contracts forthe purchase of hardware and soft-ware.

State Board of Education AdvisoryCommittee on Technology Standards:A 15-member advisory committee ontechnology standards was appointedby the board in April 1991. The com-mittee is charged with advising theboard on standards related to quality,technical specifications, security,training, and service.

Hardware Standards: The AdvisoryCommittee on Technology is devel-oping standards related to technol-ogy system hardware.

These actions to enhance access to technol-ogy were accompanied in phase one of theLong-Range Plan for Technology by a call toenhance the use of technology through in-creased research and demonstration pro-grams. Central to the research and develop-ment effort is the Center for EducationalTechnology, a consortium of hardware, soft-ware, and other companies as well as schools,institutions of higher education, and the TexasEducation Agency. Technology demonstra-tion programs were funded in eight schooldistricts as part of the pilot programs estab-lished by the 71st Texas Legislature.

An update on technology policy initiativeswas presented to the board in November1991. The focus of this report was on thecreation of statewide infrastructures and stan-dards development that will span the Texaspublic school system and facilitate links tonational electronic education, research, andbusiness systems.

ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE INDICATORSYSTEM

The Academic Excellence Indicator System(AEIS) provides essential, accurate, and timelyinformation on student achievement and ac-countability for school improvement and ef-fective decision making at campus and dis-trict levels. AEIS indicators were developed

Goal 8: Research, Developmeni, and Evaluation

113Page 93

based upon legislative mandate, as directedin Section 21.7531 of the Texas EducationCode and board recommendation and ap-proval. A list of current indicators in thesystem can be found in Exhibit 1.3 in ChapterOne.

There are three major sources of data for theperformance summaries contained in AEIS.The Public Education Information Manage-ment System (PEIMS), the statewide stu-dent assessment system, and contractorsproviding college admissions testing data.PEIMS contains student, teacher, and admin-istrator data collected from school districtsacross a range of student enrollment, facultyexperience, and demographic data. Financialinformation is also collected in PEIMS. Thestatewide student assessment program con-tains data collected from the Texas Assess-ment of Academic Skills (TAAS) test adminis-trations and the state Norm-referenced As-sessment Program. College admissions test-ing data comes from the SAT and ACT col-lege admissions testing programs.

The Advisory Committee for the Develop-ment of Performance Indicators was chargedby the board with developing an indicatorsystem for the academic performance ofTexas students The advisory committeerecommended, based on its review of re-search on education indicator systems, thatthe academic indicator system adopted bythe board:

use multiple variables rather than asingle test or measure;

provide valid reflections of studentperformance; and

support further research and evalua-tion through the creation of defen-sible hypothetical data relationships.

The legislation that created the AEIS requiredthe comparison of actual to expected schoolperformance. To accomplish this mandate,maintain the focus of the system on a broad

range of academic goals, and avoid compar-ing the performance of schools with differingresources, the advisory committee recom-mended grouping similar schools and dis-tricts together, based on demographic andeconomic variables found to affect academicachievE:rnent. The board adopted a groupingsystem in June 1991. As adopted by theboard, the performance of each school iscompared to a unique group of 100 similarschools. The variables used to create thegroups of 100 schools are:

percent of economically disadvan-taged students in the school;

percent of minority students;

wealth of the district;

percent of limited English proficientstudents; and

percent of student mobility.

Two variables, district wealth and studentmobility, were required by the enabling legis-lation.

The AEI S groups districts into 16 categories.The variables used for district grouping are:

enrollment of the district;

wealth; and

percent of economically disadvan-taged students served by the district.


As the board seeks a broader incorporation ofresearch into state and local policy and prac-tice, there is a need for the development of acomprehensive research plan that builds uponcurrent areas of investigation, adequatelyfunds long-term longitudinal studies, sup-


114

ports cooperative research at different levelsof the public education system, and facili-tates the communication of research results.The first look at pilot and innovative prog-rams must be accompanied by sufficienttime for both research and implementationto demonstrate their ability to effectively andefficiently achieve their targeted student out-comes. Board approval of future indicators ofthe Academic Excellence Indicator Systemwill continue to strengthen it as a tool forplanning and communication. The success increating a technological infrastructOre forTexas education must be supported by theprovision of equipment and training to betterprepare the state's classrooms for the 21stcentury.


To measure state-level progress towardachieving Goal 8, Research, Development,and Evaluation, in the Long-Range Plan forPublic Education, the board established thefollowing performance measure:

numberof districts and schools imple-menting nontraditional or innovativeprograms.

DISTRICTS IMPLEMENTINGNONTRADITIONAL OR INNOVATIVEPROGRAMS

As is evident throughout this evaluation, theboard is encouraging innovations in educa-tion in a number of ways. Fundamental tothese innovative efforts is the implementa-tion of research-based programs that ad-dress student achievement and school im-provement in a number of ways. Descrip-tions of initiatives fostering nontraditionaland waiver-based programs are contained inthe Performance Measures section of GoalTwo.

In 1991, 33 Innovative Education Grant Pro-gram projects were funded; 26 new pro-grams were funded in 1992. These programsaddress the goal of school improvementthrough a number of different routes. Mosthave focused on the elementary school.

School-to-school networks. An innovativerealignment of the role of the Texas Educa-tion Agency and the use of research-basedpractices in a statewide professional devel-opment effort is the use of school-to-schoolnetworks, such as the Texas Middle SchoolNetwork and the Partnership Schools Initia-tive. The focus of these networks is onschools working together to implement re-search-based instructional practices toachieve quality and equity in student perfor-mance.

With the advice and assistance of the TexasEducation Agency and the regional educationservice centers, these networks are growingacross the state. High school and elemen-tary school networks will be established in1993. One of the board's recommendationsto the 73rd Texas Legislature is implement-ing a network anchored by schools that havebeen recognized through the Texas Success-ful Schools Awards System.

Goal 8: Research, Developmeru, and Evaluation 1 15 Page 95

GOAL 9 COMMUNICATIONSCommunications among allpi,blic education interests will beconsistent, timely, and effective.

Goal Summary

STATE-LEVEL ACTIONS SHOULD DISSEMINATE INFORMATION ABOUT

STATEWIDE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO THE

PUBLIC, EXPAND TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AND SELECT FOR

RECOGNITION DISTRICTS OR SCHOOLS THAT DISPLAY OUTSTANDING

ACHIEVEMENT.


9-1 Communicate state education policies, needs and performance to the Governor, the Legislature,students, parents, teachers, school administrators, and the public.

9-2 Determine public perceptions of local schools and provide complete and accurate informationabout development and achievements in the public school system.

9-3 Establish an effective integrated telecommunications system.

9-4 Recognize outstanding achievements by students, teachers, administrators, parents, busi-nesses, staff, schools, and school districts.


1 . Disseminate to the public complete and timely information about educational needs and accomplish-ments using a variety of means appropriate to each audience, including print, telecommunications,and presentations. Reports include the Academic Excellence Indicator System, annual performancereports, and legislative reports. Annual performance reports will reflect pertinent district character-istics, including size and wealth.

Goal 9: Communications Page 97

116

2. Provide timely information on State Board of Education hearings and other actions so the public canrespond.

3. Solicit public perceptions of educational issues and quality and report results of the appropriateofficials and agencies.

4. Expand telecommunications systems, sites, and use. Steps include:

a. Establish an information delivery system for exchange of many types of information, includingtext, images, and sound among the Texas Education Agency, Regional Education ServiceCenters, districts, schools, and other educational entities. Use the system for instructingstudents, training teachers, distributing materials, and transmitting data.

b. Support public access to public education data and promote its effective use. Provide improvedsoftware and applications, expand user training and access, and develop standard reports andanalyses.

5. Select for recognition schools or districts that display outstanding achievement according to specificcriteria, including student performance that exceeds mastery of minimum skills.


117


Board members see one of the primary func-tions of the State Board of Education asproviding a forum for public testimony aboutthe initiatives, performance, and roles of theTexas public education system. Board com-mittees request public hearings before manyfirst readings of action items on monthlyagendas; hold additional hearings to clarifythe impact of proposed rules; and throughactivities of board-appointed task forces, seekpublic comment on the development of edu-cation policy at site visits and hearings held inschools and regional education service cen-ters across the state.

COMMUNICATING DISTRICT ANDCAMPUS INFORMATION

Board implementation of the Academic Ex-cellence Indicator System (AEIS) has pro-vided educators and the public with a valu-able tool for analyzing campus, district, andstate academic performance. Section 21.258of the Texas Education Code requires dis-tricts to publish an annual report of theirperformance as measured by the AEIS and tohold a hearing for discussion of the perfor-mance report. The board established stan-dards for reporting campus, district, regional,and state performance as it adopted the 1992AEIS in February 1992. The board specifiedthat information reported for each indicatorinclude:

performance of the total population;

performance disaggregated by stu-dent groups;

change in performance;

state performance standards; and

comparison group performance.

As adopted by the board, the reporting stan-dards provide a format for district perfor-

mance reports and can be instrumental inanalyzing current levels of achievement, de-veloping goals for the improvement of schoolsand districts, and redirecting education re-sources to accomplish these goals.

The board recognized that the legislative re-quirement of a single hearing regarding thedistrict performance reports may not providesufficient opportunities for public input inmany communities. In February 1992, theboard endorsed a Texas Education Agencyproposal to implement three additional re-porting methods with the 1992-93 AEIS re-ports. Under the proposal, reports would beavailable:

at each campus and in selected loca-tions, such as public libraries;

at regional education service centersin on-line and paper formats; and

on diskette.

TECHNOLOGY

Senate Bill 650, passed by the 71st TexasLegislature in 1989, authorized the establish-ment and maintenance of an electronic tele-communications system. In February 1991,the board approved an interagency contractwith The University of Texas to implementthe TENET (Texas Education Network) tele-communications system. TENET is a state-wide electronic communications systemwhereby teachers and other education pro-fessionals, through the use of a computer,modem and toll-free or local telephone lines,can communicate with each other. TENETprovides timely, cost-effective communica-tions between and among school districtsand the Texas Education Agency by offeringeducators electronic mail, bulletin boards,computer conferencing, and database ac-cess. The network provides access to awealth of information from the agency, other

Goal 9: Communications lis Page 99

state agencies, professional associations,agency files, on-line encyclopedias, and data-bases. TENET gives educators access tocollege and university libraries in Texas andaround the world.

Classroom teachers can use the network toaccess instructional materials to enhanceclassroom lessons and to initiate computerconferences with educators in Texas andacross the country. Through TENET, Texaseducators have access to news and informa:tion services such as United Press Interna-tional, the Cable News Network's CNN DailyNewsroom, NASA's Space link, McDonaldObservatory's Star Date, United NationsNews, Newsweek Lessons, and the Educa-tional Resources Information Center (ERIC).An update on TENET, requested by the boardin November 1991, provided informationabout the configuration and use of TENET.Exhibit 9.1 charts the growth of TENET usebetween August 1991 and August 1992.

Another component of the state's integratedtelecommunications system for education inT-STAR, the Texas School Telecommunica-tions Access Resource. According to theNovember 1991 update presented to theboard, T-STAR is designed to link the Texas

Education Agency, Regional Education Ser-vice Centers, and school districts for thepurpose of improving communications andsupporting teleconferencing; deliveringinservice training and distance learning; andproviding technical assistance and adminis-trative support. It is a statewide integratedtelecommunications system that providesschools and regional education service cen-ters access to one-way video and two-wayaudio services and full broadband servicesfor delivering professional development andstudent instruction.

Phase One of the T-STAR implementationplan is to install 250 satellite television receiv-ing systems in regional education servicecenters and school districts. Approximatelyone-half of the sites have been completed.The remaining sites are scheduled to becompleted early in 1993. Phase Two of theimplementation plan, occurring through 1993,includes the installation of 50 additional sat-ellite systems. In early 1993, these satellitesystems will be used to expand the agency'scapacity to broadcast information via satel-lite.

T-STAR is authorized by Section 14.043 ofthe Texas Edt.ation Code. System imple-

EXHIBIT 9.1Growth in TENET Use: 1991-1992

By the end of August 1992, TENET users had grown to over 12,000.


mentation is funded through the TechnologyAllotment Fund, established by the 72ndTexas Legislature. Costs of the programwere $2.4 million through 1992 and are pro-jected to be $1.2 million in the 1992-93 schoolyear. Major activities of the T-STAR imple-mentation program include:

investigating an implementation planfOr two-way digital communicationsto serve all districts;

developing and expanding user train-ing statewide; and

Developing and expanding satelliteservices for schools.

RECOGNITION OF SCHOOLPERFORMANCE

The 71st Texas Legislature established theGovernor's Educational Excellence Programin fiscal year 1989. The first awards weredistributed to schools in fall 1990. This pro-gram was established to recognize andreaward schools with outstanding levels ofachievement overall or any gain in perfor-mance over a three-year period.

The 72nd Texas Legislature amended theauthorizing statute to create the Texas Suc-cessful Schools Awards System (TSSAS).TSSAS awards were established fornonmonetary recognition of schools exhibit-ing high performance overall and monetaryrecognition of schools with substantial gainin student achievement.

Under the criteria established for this initia-tive in 1991-92, schools that met the statestandards on the Academic Excellence Indi-cator System (see Exhibit 1.3 in ChapterOne) were eligible to apply for the high per-formance recognition awards. The campusplanning committees of the schools receiv-ing TSSAS monetary awards are chargedwith determining the use of the award funds.Approximately $10 million was awarded to139 schools in 1990-91.


Future actions of the board will seek greaterpublic input into the development of policygoals, facilitate public access to state, dis-trict, and campus performance information,and take the Long-Range Plan for Technologythrough its next phase of implementation.


To measure state-level progress towardachieving Goal 9, Communications, in theLong-Range Plan for Public Education, theboard has established the following perfor-mance measures:

rate of use of state telecommunica-tions systems; and

public perception of public education.

USE OF STATETELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS

Since its inception in August, 1991, morethan 16,000 users are accessing TENET. Theyaverage 20,500 logins per week. More than1,000 new users apply for a TENET accounteach month.

PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF PUBLICEDUCATION

In 1992, as part of its charge to report on thestatus of high school education in Texas, theState Board of Education Task Force on HighSchool Education conducted a survey of thepublic's perception of the academic and real-world preparation of Texas high schools stu-dents. The surveys were distributed to thegeneral public and to such targeted popula-tions as teachers, administrators and stu-dents on high school campuses, professionalgroups, and representatives of the business

Goal 9: Communications

120Page 101

EXHIBIT 9.2

Respondents to a StatewideSurvey on the Academic

Preparation of Texas HighSchool Graduates

Percent Who ConsiderGraduates Prepared in

.1.1 HS Students

NM HS Teachers

EXHIBIT 9.3

Respondents to a StatewideSurvey on the Preparation ofTexas High School Graduates

for Post-Secondary Roles

Percent Who ConsiderGraduates Prepared for

College

Work

Indepen-dence

SelfFulfillment

05k

osys.

Civic Duty

1

0% 50% 100%

AiPas.g, Parents of HS Students

General public

community. Four groups of survey respon-dents were identified by the task force: highschool students, high school teachers, par-ents of high school students, and the generalpublic. Approximately 3,000 surveys werereturned to the task force. Exhibits 9.2 and9.3 show results of the survey. Exhibit 9.2indicates the public perception of the aca-demic preparation of Texas high school stu-dents. Exhibit 9.3 indicates the publicperception of the preparation of Texas highschool students for post-secondary roles.


To support high levels of student achieve-ment, the board recommends that the 73rdTexas Legislature expand the Texas Suc-cessful Schools Awards System (TSSAS) tosupport a school improvement network. Inthis network, schools that were eligible forTSSAS awards and that had implemented aprogram of instruction that targeted educa-tionally disadvantaged students would re-ceive funds to provide peer support and as-sistance.


121

Future Actionsof the State Board of Education

The following issues will be addressed by the board as it works over the next two yearsto achieve the goals and objectives of Quality, Equity, Accountability: Texas State Boardof Education Long-Range Plan for Public Education, 1991-1995.

GOAL 1

STUDENT LEARNING

The effoqs of Texas educators and policy makers havenot succeeded in closing the gaps in academic perfor-mance among the state's demographic and specialstudent populations. Board rules to implement grade-level and student policies must focus on achieving andsustaining high levels of academic performance for allstudents if Texas is to successfully meet the chal-lenges of a dynamic future. In other actions over thenext two years, the board will extend the statewideassessment program to incorporate a broader range ofcurriculum and measurements, expand its policy ini-tiative to reach early childhood, elementary education,and special education students, and incorporate edu-cational initiatives and legislative action in ways thatmaintain the state's focus on educational quality,equity, and accountability.

GOAL 2

CURRICULUM ANDPROGRAMS

Over the next two years, the board will articulateoutcome goals for Texas students. It will ensure thatthe state's curriculum anchors the development andadoption of textbooks used in Texas schools. Theboard will be challenged to rewrite the essential ele-ments to support a state curriculum that is both well-balanced and results-based. Embedded in that re-working of the essential elements is the secondchallenge facing the board: developing a curriculumthat is not only results-based, but interdisciplinary anddevelopmentally appropriate.

Future Actions of the State Board of Education

1 22Page 103

GOA

PERSONNEL

Redefining the roles and expectations for all players inprofessional development will be a primary concern ofthe board over the second biennium covered by thisLong-Range Plan. As the board reviews the rulesrelated to the professional training and development ofteachers and administrators, it will address outcomes-based standards of professional preparation and train-ing, the incorporation of campus planning and improve-ment into the professional development process, and

standards of professional assessment and growth.

GOAL 4

ORGANIZATION ANDMANAGEMENT

The period covered by this evaluation saw a restructur-ing of the Texas Education Agency to make it moreresponsive to the state's changing educational envi-ronment; increased authority for decision making atthe campus level; and the initiation of a performance-based system of school accreditation. The secondbiennium covered by the Long-Range Plan will seerefinement in the agency's organizational structure asit responds to challenges faced by educators in dis-tricts and campuses across Texas. Board action overthis period must strengthen and support the nascentsystem of campus-based planning and decision mak-ing in the state. The board will also monitor andevaluate the effectiveness of the system of campusand district accountability for school performance.

G OA L

FINANCE

Of primary importance to the goals and objectives ofthe Long-Range Plan is the implementation of a publiceducation finance system that is adequate, efficient,equitable, and constitutional. As the state frames aconstitutional school funding system, the board willwork to ensure that the Permanent School Fund sup-ports quality education for every student in Texaspublic schools.

Page 104


GOA L 6

PARENTRESPONSIBILITY

The success in meeting its Long-Range Plan objec-tives depends upon the board's ability to communi-cate the idea that meaningful parent and family in-volvement energizes student achievement. One av-enue for articulating this idea is the development of astate-level plan and policy statement and to encour-age parent and family involvement in education.

GOA L 7

COMMUNITY ANDBUSINESSPARTNERSHIPS

Full educational success for all students involves acommunity-wide effort that draws upon the resources,services, and activities of a range of organizations,agencies, businesses, and institutions. The board willbe challenged to develop a comprehensive strategyfor community and business partnerships in educationthat encompasses a range of educational, health, andsocial services.

GOAL 8

RESEARCH,DEVELOPMENT, ANDEVALUATION

As the board seeks a broader incorporation of researchinto state and local policy and practice, there is a needto develop a comprehensive research plan that buildsupon current areas of investigation, adequately fundslong-term longitudinal studies, supports cooperativeresearch at different levels of the public educationsystem, and facilitates the communication of researchresults. Board action regarding the Academic Excel-lence Indicator System must continue to strengthen itas a tool for educational planning and communication.The success in creating a technological infrastrUcturefor Texas education will be supported by the provisionof equipment and training to better prepare the state'sclassrooms for the 21st century.

Future Actions of the State Boani of Education

124Page 105

GOAL 9

COMMUNICATIONS

Future actions of the board will seek greater publicinput into the development of policy goals, facilitatepublic access to state, district, and campus perfor-mance information, and take the Long-Range Plan forTechnology of the State Board of Education throug h itsnext phase of implementation.

Page 1061 535


Academic Excellence Indicator System1991-92 State Performance Report

The 1991-92 district and campus Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) reports,including demographic profile data, were released in May 1992. The reports weresupplemented with graphs of selected indicators in October 1992, district levelsoftware tools in November 1992, and interactive campus-level software tools inFebruary 1993. The following information from the 1991-92 state-level AEIS report isincluded in this appendix:

State Performance Report

State Graphs

Glossary (includes performance report and profile section elements)

The content, format, and variety of AEIS products will evolve as a result of modificationsto the indicators, technology, and user response.

AE1S Appendix Page 107

126

Sta

te P

erfo

rman

ce

Inci

cato

r,

Spa

nish

TA

AS

Grd

. 3 (

91/9

2)

Rea

ding

% P

assi

ng%

Mas

tery

Writ

ing

% P

assi

ng%

Mas

tery

Mat

h%

Pas

sing

% M

aste

ryS

pani

sh T

AA

S G

rd. 3

(90

/91)

SU

M

55.7

%27

.8%

42.0

%17

.9%

72.0

%13

.9%

60.5

%27

.4%

38.9

%18

.3%

65.0

%15

.8%

80.6

% (

-)53

.7%

62.6

% (

-)18

.4%

85.3

% (

-)34

.8%

80.2

%47

.5%

67.0

%23

.1%

81.7

%33

.8%

.

62.5

% (

-)19

.2%

77.2

% (

I21

.9%

57.7

% (

-)15

.9%

TE

XA

S E

DU

CA

TIO

N A

GE

NC

YA

cade

mic

Exc

elle

nce

Indi

cato

r S

yste

m19

91-9

2 S

tate

Per

form

ance

Rep

ort

Afr

ican

Am

eric

anH

ispa

nic

47.1

%55

.8%

17.6

%27

.9%

25.0

%42

.2%

0.0%

18.0

%52

.9%

72.2

%5.

9%13

.8%

50.0

%60

.4%

20.0

%27

.2%

20.0

%38

.9%

10.0

%18

.1%

45.5

%65

.0%

9.1%

15.7

%

70.6

% (

-)71

.5%

(-)

40.0

%38

.6%

49.4

% (

-)51

.9%

(-)

10.7

%11

.1%

75.4

% (

-)77

.8%

(-)

22.3

%24

.8%

70.6

%71

.1%

33.5

%33

.8%

55.6

%56

.5%

14.3

%14

.4%

68.9

%72

.9%

19.1

%21

.6%

45.5

% (

-)48

.7%

(-)

8.9%

10.0

%66

.8%

(-)

67.9

% (

-)13

.4%

13.7

%37

.4%

(-)

44.9

% (

-)6.

6%8.

8%

Whi

te

46.2

%20

.5%

43.6

%25

.6%

69.2

%10

.3%

60.0

%28

.6%

27.8

%16

.7%

71.4

%8.

6%

88.5

% (

-)66

.0%

72.3

% (

-)24

.6%

92.3

% (

+)

43.5

%

88.1

%59

.3%

76.0

%30

.2%

90.3

%44

.6%

75.4

% (

-)27

.5%

85.6

% (

-)28

.9%

70.6

% (

-)22

.3%

Rea

ding

% P

assi

ng%

Mas

tery

Writ

ing

% P

assi

ng%

Mas

tery

Mat

h%

Pas

sing

% M

aste

ryT

MS

Grd

. 3 C

urre

nt Y

ear

(91/

92)

Rea

ding

% P

assi

ng(9

0%)

% M

aste

ryW

ritin

g%

Pas

sing

(90%

)%

Mas

tery

Mat

h%

Pas

sing

(90%

)%

Mas

tery

TA

AS

Grd

. 3 P

rior

Yea

r (9

0/91

)

Rea

ding

% P

assi

ng%

Mas

tery

Writ

ing

% P

assi

ng%

Mas

tery

Mat

h%

Pas

sing

% M

aste

ryT

MS

Grd

. 5 C

urre

nt Y

ear

(91/

92)

Rea

ding

% P

assi

ng(9

0%)

% M

aste

ryW

ritin

g%

Pas

sing

(90%

)%

Mas

tery

Mat

h%

Pas

sing

(90%

)%

Mas

tery

Pag

e 1

Eco

nom

icD

isad

v.

56.8

%28

.3%

43.7

%18

.6%

73.2

%14

.1%

60.5

%27

.3%

39.4

%18

.6%

65.3

%15

.8%

70.2

% (

-)38

.0%

50.1

% (

-)10

.6%

77.5

% (

-)24

.1%

69.3

%32

.3%

54.3

%13

.1%

71.9

%20

.8%

46.2

% (

-)9.

0%65

.9%

(-)

12.1

%41

.9%

(-)

7.9%

127

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE12

8

Sta

te P

erfo

rman

ce

Indi

cato

r,

TM

S G

rd. 5

Prio

r Y

ear

(90/

91)

itatt

TE

XA

S E

DU

CA

TIO

N A

GE

NC

YA

cade

mic

Exc

elle

nce

Indi

cato

r S

yste

m19

91-9

2 S

tate

Per

form

ance

Rep

ort

Afr

ican

Am

eric

anH

ispa

nic

Pag

e 2

Eco

nom

icW

hite

Dis

adv.

Rea

ding

% P

assi

ng62

.7%

46.2

%49

.1%

75.3

%46

.0%

% M

aste

ry18

.7%

9.1%

9.7%

26.7

%8.

4%W

ritin

g%

Pas

sing

74.9

%65

.7%

66.3

%82

.4%

64.0

%%

Mas

tery

24.4

%16

.1%

16.6

%30

.9%

14.6

%M

ath

% P

assi

ng55

.9%

35.2

%42

.4%

69.4

%39

.5%

% M

aste

ry15

.0%

5.3%

7.3%

21.9

%6.

4%T

MS

Grd

. 7 C

urre

nt Y

ear

(91/

92)

Rea

ding

% P

assi

ng(9

0%)

50.1

%(-

)31

.5%

(-)

33.9

%()

64.9

%(-

)31

.6%

(-)

% M

aste

ry9.

4%3.

4%3.

9%14

.3%

3.3%

Writ

ing

% P

assi

ng(9

0%)

59.6

%(-

)42

.0%

(-)

46.8

%(-

)72

.0%

(-)

43.2

% (

-)%

Mas

tery

19.4

%8.

5%10

.7%

27.4

%8.

8%M

ath

% P

assi

ng(9

0%)

50.9

%(-

)29

.9%

(-)

35.6

%(-

)65

.5%

(-)

33.3

% (

-)%

Mas

tery

10.0

%2.

7%3.

8%15

.5%

3.3%

TM

S G

rd. 7

Prio

r Y

ear

(90/

91)

Rea

ding

% P

assi

ng44

.2%

26.9

%28

.0%

58.5

%25

.5%

% M

aste

ry9.

4%3.

6%3.

7%14

.2%

3.1%

Writ

ing

% P

assi

ng61

.9%

45.3

%51

.3%

72.8

%47

.1%

% M

aste

ry19

.5%

8.2%

10.9

%27

.5%

8.7%

Mat

h%

Pas

sing

50.3

%29

.0%

34.7

%65

.1%

32.0

%%

Mas

tery

12.1

%3.

1%4.

7%18

.6%

4.1%

TA

AS

Grd

_ 9

Cur

rent

Yea

r (9

1/92

)

59.5

% (

)40

.3%

(-)

43.4

% (

-)75

.6%

(-)

39.7

% (

-)R

eadi

ng%

Pas

sing

(90%

)%

Mas

tery

24.6

%10

.8%

12.2

%36

.6%

10.6

%W

ritin

g%

Pas

sing

(90%

)62

.4%

(-)

47.8

% (

448

.4%

(-)

75.8

% (

-)46

.6%

(-)

%M

aste

ry13

.5%

6.6%

6.7%

19.5

%5.

7%M

ath

% P

assi

ng(9

0%)

43.8

% (

-)22

.3%

(-)

28.1

% (

-)59

.6%

(-)

25.8

% (

-)%

Mas

tery

10.5

%2.

7%4.

2%16

.2%

3.7%

TM

S G

rd. 9

Prio

r Y

ear

(90/

91)

62.5

%45

.2%

48.0

%77

.1%

44.6

%R

eadi

ng%

Pas

sing

% M

aste

ry25

.4%

12.1

%13

.4%

36.9

%11

.9%

Writ

ing

% P

assi

ng58

.4%

40.8

%47

.1%

70.7

%44

.0%

% M

aste

ry14

.5%

5.8%

7.3%

21.5

%6.

0%M

ath

% P

assi

ng44

.2%

22.5

%28

.6%

60.1

%26

.4%

% M

aste

ry11

.1%

2.7%

4.3%

17.4

%4.

0%

Stat

e Pe

rfon

nanc

eT

EX

AS

ED

UC

AT

ION

AG

EN

CY

Aca

dem

ic E

xcel

lenc

e In

dica

tor

Sys

tem

1991

-92

Sta

te P

erfo

rman

ce R

epor

t

Indi

cato

r,A

fric

anIt

ate

Am

eric

anH

ispa

nic

Whi

te

TM

S E

xit

Cur

rent

Yea

r (9

1/92

)A

ll T

ests

% P

assi

ng(9

0%)

48.6

% (

-)%

Mas

tery

6.4%

Rea

ding

% P

assi

ng(9

0%)

72.0

% (

-)%

Mas

tery

26.7

%W

ritin

g%

Pas

sing

(90%

)78

.2%

(-)

% M

aste

ry21

.6%

Mat

h%

Pas

sing

(90%

)56

.6%

(-)

% M

aste

ry15

.8%

TA

AS

Exi

tP

rior

Yea

r (9

0/91

)A

ll T

ests

% P

assi

ng51

.0%

% M

aste

ry7.

8%R

eadi

ng%

Pas

sing

74.4

%%

Mas

tery

30.6

%W

ritin

g%

Pas

sing

75.3

%%

Mas

tery

23.7

%M

ath

% P

assi

ng60

.7%

% M

aste

ry18

.6%

27.7

%(4

33.1

%(4

61.6

% (

41.

6%2.

3%9.

5%56

.5%

(457

.8%

(483

.4%

(4

13.9

%14

.6%

35.9

%68

.6%

(-)

68.3

%(-

)86

.1%

(-)

11.9

%12

.3%

28.5

%34

.1%

(-)

42.2

%(-

)69

.0%

(4

4.9%

7.5%

22.0

%

29.5

%35

.5%

63.4

%2.

2%3.

5%10

.9%

59.6

%59

.6%

85.3

%15

.9%

17.6

%40

.4%

63.1

%65

.6%

83.2

%13

.7%

15.6

%29

.6%

38.1

%47

.0%

72.1

%6.

9%10

.6%

24.6

%

Pag

e 3

Eco

nom

icD

isad

v.

29.6

% (

42.

0%53

.1%

(-)

12.8

%65

.5%

(4

11.0

%39

.3%

(4

6.6%

31.1

%2.

8%54

.0%

14.0

%62

.2%

13.5

%43

.0%

9.2%

% S

tude

nt A

ttend

ance

Cur

rent

Yea

r (9

1/92

)(9

7%)

95.1

% (

-)n/

an/

an/

an/

aP

rior

Yea

r (9

0/91

)95

.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

DrO

DO

Ut

Rat

eC

urre

nt Y

ear

(90/

91)

( 1%

)3.

9% (

-)4.

8% (

-)5.

6% (

42.

7% (

-)3.

7% (

4P

rior

Yea

r (8

9/90

)5.

1%6.

7%7.

2%3.

5%n/

a

% A

dvan

ced

Cou

rses

Cur

rent

Yea

r (9

1/92

)3.

3%n/

an/

an/

an/

aP

rior

Yea

r (9

0/91

)3.

4%n/

an/

an/

an/

a

Gra

duat

ion

Rat

e (9

0/91

)(9

9%)

95.7

% (

-)88

.1%

(4

88.1

% (

-)93

.1%

(4

85.2

% (

-)

% G

radu

ates

with

Adv

ance

dS

eal o

n T

rans

crip

t (90

/91)

32.4

%25

.1%

25.4

%38

.9%

21.2

%

131

132

Sta

te P

erfo

rman

ce

Indi

cato

r;

Col

lege

Adm

issi

ons

Tes

ts%

At o

r A

bove

Crit

erio

nC

urre

nt Y

ear

(90/

91)

(35%

)

% T

este

dC

urre

nt Y

ear

(90/

91)

(70%

)

Ave

rage

SA

T T

otal

Sco

reC

urre

nt Y

ear

(90/

91)

Prio

r Y

ear

(89/

90)

Ave

rage

AC

T C

emoo

site

Sco

reC

urre

nt Y

ear

(90/

91)

Prio

r Y

ear

(89/

90)

1 3

3

TE

XA

S E

DU

CA

TIO

N A

GE

NC

YA

cade

mic

Exc

elle

nce

Indi

cato

r S

yste

m19

91-9

2 S

tate

Per

form

ance

Rep

ort

Pag

e 4

Afr

ican

Eco

nom

ic

lists

Am

eric

anH

ispa

nic

Mite

Dis

adv.

14.5

% (

-)3.

4% (

)5.

1% (

-)20

.5%

(-)

n/a

62.3

% (

-)54

.5%

(-)

48.9

% (

)67

.5%

(-)

n/a

873

731

794

917

n/a

872

732

795

914

n/a

19.9

17.1

17.9

21.1

n/a

19.8

17.0

17.8

20.9

n/a

134

Sta

te P

erfo

rman

ce

Indi

cato

r:S

tate

TE

XA

SA

cade

mic

1991

-92

Mst

a

ED

UC

AT

ION

Exc

elle

nce

Indi

cato

rS

tate

Per

form

ance

Fem

ale

AG

EN

CY

Sys

tem

Rep

ort

Ove

rage

Cha

pter

1E

SL/

Bili

ngua

lLE

E

Spa

nish

TM

S G

rd. 3

(91

/92)

Rea

ding

% P

assi

ng55

.7%

50.5

%61

.2%

50.8

%57

.5%

56.9

%55

.7%

% M

aste

ry27

8%

.24

.5%

31.5

%25

.1%

28.0

%28

.5%

27.8

%W

ritin

g%

Pas

sing

42.0

%37

.8%

46.8

%34

.7%

44.7

%43

.6%

42.0

%%

Mas

tery

17.9

%15

.2%

20.9

%14

.0%

19.6

%18

.8%

17.9

%M

ath

% P

assi

ng72

.0%

70.9

%73

.6%

69.8

%73

.3%

73.3

%72

.0%

% M

aste

ry13

.9%

13.2

%14

.7%

13.9

%14

.2%

14.2

%13

.9%

Spa

nish

TM

S G

rd. 3

(90

/91)

Rea

ding

% P

assi

ng60

.5%

56.0

%65

.2%

55.4

%58

.3%

61.4

%60

.5%

% M

aste

ry27

.4%

24.4

%30

.5%

25.5

%25

.2%

28.1

%27

.4%

Writ

ing

% P

assi

ng38

.9%

34.0

%43

.9%

33.2

%38

.3%

40.3

%38

.9%

% M

aste

ry18

.3%

15.3

%21

.5%

14.5

%17

.2%

19.1

%18

.3%

Mat

h%

Pas

sing

65.0

%64

.3%

66.1

%62

.5%

63.3

%66

.1%

65.0

%%

Mas

tery

15.8

%15

.8%

15.9

%14

.5%

14.2

%16

.1%

15.8

%T

AA

S G

rd. 3

Cur

rent

Yea

r (9

1/92

)

Rea

ding

% P

assi

ng(9

0%)

80.6

% (

-)77

.5%

(-)

83.7

% (

-)64

.8%

54.1

%53

.8%

54.0

%%

Mas

tery

53.7

%50

.5%

56.8

%35

.2%

22.1

%21

.1%

21.3

%W

ritin

g%

Pas

sing

(90%

)62

.6%

(-)

57.1

% (

-)68

.0%

(-)

44.5

%33

.5%

35.0

%35

.5%

% M

aste

ry18

.4%

14.4

%22

.3%

9.1%

4.3%

5.0%

5.0%

Mat

h%

Pas

sing

(90%

)85

.3%

(-)

85.4

% (

-)85

.3%

(-)

75.5

%68

.1%

67.8

%67

.7%

% M

aste

ry34

.8%

35.2

%34

.4%

23.2

%14

.6%

18.7

%18

.6%

TA

AS

Grd

. 3 (

90/9

1)

Rea

ding

% P

assi

ng80

.2%

77.2

%83

.3%

62.7

%53

.1%

51.7

%52

.0%

% M

aste

ry47

.5%

44.6

%50

.5%

28.6

%17

.9%

17.3

%17

.6%

Writ

ing

% P

assi

ng67

.0%

62.2

%71

.9%

48.5

%38

.4%

38.5

%38

.8%

% M

aste

ry23

.1%

18.8

%27

.3%

11.0

%5.

7%5.

9%6.

3%M

ath

% P

assi

ng81

.7%

82.0

%81

.5%

69.7

%61

.5%

61.1

%60

.8%

% M

aste

ry33

.8%

34.7

%33

.0%

20.1

%12

.3%

13.8

%13

.7%

TA

AS

Grd

. 5 C

urre

nt Y

ear

(91/

92)

Rea

ding

% P

assi

ng(9

0%)

62.5

% (

-)59

.4%

(-)

65.4

% (

-)38

.7%

27.8

%19

.6%

20.3

%%

Mas

tery

19.2

%17

.9%

20.4

%7.

3%2.

8%2.

1%2.

1%W

ritin

g%

Pas

sing

(90%

)77

.2%

(-)

72.8

% (

-)81

.5%

(-)

56.4

%51

.8%

37.9

%38

.9%

% M

aste

ry21

.9%

17.6

%26

.2%

7.8%

4.6%

2.6%

2.8%

Mat

h%

Pas

sing

(90%

)57

.7%

(-)

56.5

% (

-)58

.9%

(-)

33.9

%25

.3%

23.1

%23

.5%

% M

aste

ry15

.9%

'16

.1%

15.7

%6.

0%2.

7%2.

9%3.

0%

135

Pag

e 5

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n

36.7

%13

.6%

31.1

%11

.0%

56.9

%8.

8%

42.1

%15

.3%

33.9

%14

.7%

53.4

%9.

2%

64.9

%37

.7%

44.4

%10

.3%

72.8

%23

.7%

63.4

%32

.9%

47.1

%12

.9%

67.9

%22

.3%

37.4

%8.

3%49

.6%

7.6%

31.6

%6.

1%

1 36

Sta

te P

erfo

rman

ce

Indi

cato

r:S

tate

TE

XA

S E

DU

CA

TIO

NA

cade

mic

Exc

elle

nce

Indi

cato

r19

91-9

2 S

tate

Per

form

ance

Mal

eF

emal

e

AG

EN

CY

Sys

tem

Rep

ort

Ove

rage

Cha

pter

1E

SL/

Bili

ngua

lLE

E

Pag

e 6

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n

TM

S G

rd. 5

Prio

r Y

ear

(90/

91)

Rea

ding

% P

assi

ng62

.7%

59.5

%65

.8%

38.6

%26

.8%

19.6

%19

.6%

37.1

%

% M

aste

ry18

.7%

17.3

%20

.1%

6.8%

2.7%

2.1%

2.0%

8.3%

Writ

ing

% P

assi

ng74

.9%

69.0

%80

.5%

55.6

%49

.2%

38.9

%38

.9%

46.5

%

% M

aste

ry24

.4%

18.9

%29

.7%

9.2%

6.1%

5.0%

4.9%

8.9%

Mat

h%

Pas

sing

55.9

%55

.3'.'

56.5

%31

.3%

22.5

%21

.7%

21.6

%28

.3%

% M

aste

ry15

.00/

.15

,u14

.8%

4.8%

1.9%

2.3%

2.1%

5.8%

TA

AS

Grd

. 7 C

urre

nt Y

ear

(91/

92)

Rea

ding

% P

assi

ng(9

0%)

50.1

% (

-)48

.7%

(-)

51.5

% (

-)25

.6%

14.3

%7.

1%7.

9%18

.4%

% M

aste

ry9.

4%9.

2%9.

6%2.

7%0.

8%0.

4%0.

4%2.

1%

Writ

ing

% P

assi

ng(9

0%)

59.6

% (

-)52

.7%

(-)

66.3

% (

-)34

.4%

27.0

%13

.7%

15.4

%21

.0%

% M

aste

ry19

.4%

15.1

%23

.6%

5.2%

2.5%

1.2%

1.5%

2.9%

Mat

h%

Pas

sing

(90%

)50

.9%

(-)

48.8

% (

-)53

.0%

(-)

25.2

%16

.6%

12.5

%13

.2%

15.6

%

% M

aste

ry10

.0%

9.8%

10.2

%2.

3%0.

6%0.

7%0.

7%1.

6%

TA

AS

Grd

. 7 P

rior

Yea

r (9

0/91

)

Rea

ding

% P

assi

ng44

.2%

43.4

%45

.2%

21.1

%10

.1%

5.7%

5.6%

14.7

%

% M

aste

ry9.

4%9.

0%9.

8%2.

4%0.

7%0.

5%0.

4%1.

8%

Writ

ing

% P

assi

ng61

.9%

53.8

%69

.9%

38.4

%32

.6%

20.0

%20

.1%

22.7

%

% M

aste

ry19

.5%

13.9

%24

.9%

5.3%

2.7%

1.7%

1.6%

3.3%

r.M

ath

% P

assi

ng50

.3%

48.6

%52

.0%

24.9

%16

.0%

12.5

%12

.2%

14.8

%

% M

aste

ry12

.1%

12.2

%12

.0%

3.0%

0.8%

0.9%

0.8%

1.8%

TA

AS

Grd

. 9 C

urre

nt Y

ear

(91/

92)

59.5

% (

-)58

.5%

(-)

60.5

% (

-)37

.2%

23.6

%9.

0%10

.3%

24.2

%R

eadi

ng%

Pas

sing

(90%

)E

.:%

Mas

tery

24.6

%24

.5%

24.7

%10

.0%

3.7%

1.0%

1.3%

6.4%

Writ

ing

% P

assi

ng(9

0%)

62.4

% (

-)56

.3%

(-)

68.7

% (

-)38

.4%

34.7

%13

.6%

15.0

%21

.3%

% M

aste

ry13

.5%

9.8%

17.3

%2.

9%2.

0%0.

6%0.

6%1.

4%

Mat

h%

Pas

sing

(90%

)43

.8%

(-)

44.0

% (

-)43

.8%

(-)

20.3

%13

.1%

9.0%

9.3%

10.7

%7;

1.

% M

aste

ry10

.5%

11.1

%9.

9%2.

6%1.

0%0.

9%1.

0%1.

5%

TA

AS

Grd

. 9 P

rior

Yea

r (9

0/91

)

73.

Rea

ding

% P

assi

ng%

Mas

tery

62.5

%25

.4%

61.7

%25

.1%

63.4

%25

.6%

41.7

%10

.6%

28.1

%4.

8%14

.1%

1.8%

15.1

%1.

9%26

.4%

7.0%

Writ

ing

% P

assi

ng58

.4%

51.6

%65

.3%

35.0

%32

.7%

17.6

%18

.9%

17.3

%

% M

aste

ry14

.5%

10.6

%18

.5%

3.0%

1.9%

0.9%

0.9%

1.6%

Mat

h%

Pas

sing

44.2

%44

.3%

44.2

%20

.5%

13.3

%9.

8%10

.2%

11.2

%

% M

aste

ry11

.1%

12.0

%10

.2%

2.6%

1.3%

1.1%

1.2%

1.7%

1 3'

7

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

TE

XA

S E

DU

CA

TIO

N A

GE

NC

YP

age

7A

cade

mic

Exc

elle

nce

Indi

cato

r S

yste

m19

91-9

2 S

tate

Per

form

ance

Rep

ort

Indi

cato

r:S

peci

alS

tate

Mal

ef e

mal

eO

vera

geC

hapt

er 1

ES

L/B

iling

ual

LER

Edu

catio

nT

MS

Exi

tC

urre

nt Y

ear

(91/

92)

All

Tes

ts%

Pas

sing

(90%

)48

.6%

(-)

50.3

% (

-)47

.0%

(-)

23.6

%15

.0%

6..5

%8.

2%13

.1%

% M

aste

ry6.

4%6.

5%6.

4%1.

0%0.

6%0.

1%0.

2%0.

6%R

eadi

ng%

Pas

sing

(90%

)72

.0%

(-)

73.1

% (

-)71

.1%

(-)

48.1

%35

.7%

18.7

%20

.8%

34.0

%%

Mas

tery

26.7

%27

.2%

26.2

%10

.0%

5.4%

2.0%

2.4%

7.1%

Writ

ing

% P

assi

ng(9

0%)

78.2

% (

-)74

.8%

(-)

81.5

% (

-)56

.2%

53.9

%25

.5%

30.0

%37

.5%

% M

aste

ry21

.6%

17.5

%25

.6%

5.6%

5.6%

1.2%

1.5%

3.2%

Mat

h%

Pas

sing

{90%

)56

.6%

(-)

60.6

% (

-)52

.9%

(-)

32.4

%24

.9%

21.8

%23

.0%

18.8

%%

Mas

tery

15.8

%18

.5%

13.2

%4.

4%2.

5%2.

5%2.

6%2.

4%T

AA

S E

xit

Prio

r Y

ear

(90/

91)

All

Tes

ts%

Pas

sing

51.0

%51

.5%

50.6

%23

.1%

15.5

%7.

3%8.

5%13

.5%

% M

aste

ry7.

8%7.

5%8.

1%1.

3%1.

0%0.

2%0.

3%1.

1%R

eadi

ng%

Pas

sing

74.4

%74

.0%

74.8

%50

.0%

36.0

%19

.8%

21.2

%35

.3%

% M

aste

ry30

.6%

30.4

%30

.9%

11.9

%6.

7%2.

9%3.

3%8.

9%W

ritin

g%

Pas

sing

75.3

%72

.2%

78.3

%51

.7%

49.1

%24

.1%

27.5

%32

.1%

% M

aste

ry23

.7%

20.1

%27

.1%

6.9%

5.9%

1.7%

2.4%

4.6%

Mat

h%

Pas

sing

60.7

%63

.5%

58.1

%35

.3%

27.1

%24

.9%

24.8

%20

.6%

% M

aste

ry18

.6%

20.0

%17

.3%

6.0%

3.2%

3.5%

3.5%

3.6%

% S

tude

nt A

ttend

ance

Cur

rent

Yea

r (9

1/92

)(9

7%)

95.1

% (

-)n/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

aP

rior

Yea

r (9

0/91

)95

.7%

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Dro

pout

Rat

eC

urre

nt Y

ear

(90/

91)

( 1%

)3.

9% (

-)4.

2% (

-)3.

7% (

-)59

.7%

2.7%

6.3%

6.3%

4.3%

Prio

r Y

ear

(89/

90)

5.1%

5.5%

4.8%

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

5.8%

% A

dvan

ced

Cou

rses

Cur

rent

Yea

r (9

1/92

)3.

3%n/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

aP

rior

Yea

r (9

0/91

)3.

4%n/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

an/

a

Gra

duat

ion

Rat

e (9

0/91

)(9

9%)

95.7

% (

-)89

.7%

(-)

92.3

% (

-)80

.1%

83.0

%71

.0%

73.2

%72

.2%

% G

radu

ates

with

Adv

ance

dS

eal o

n T

rans

crip

t (90

/91)

32.4

% '

31.3

%36

.6%

11.9

%15

.2%

4.6%

6.8%

2.1%

140

139

A-

Sta

te P

erfo

rman

ce

Sta

te P

erfo

rman

ceT

EX

AS

ED

UC

AT

ION

AG

EN

CY

Pag

e 8

Aca

dem

ic E

xcel

lenc

e In

dica

tor

Sys

tem

1991

-92

Sta

te P

erfo

rman

ce R

epor

t

Indi

cato

r.,

Spe

cial

ltate

Mal

eF

emal

eO

vera

geC

hapt

er 1

ES

LiB

iling

pal

LEE

Edu

catio

n

Col

lege

Adm

issi

ons

Tes

ts%

At o

r A

bove

Crit

erio

nC

urre

nt Y

ear

(90/

91)

(35%

)14

.5%

(-)

17.3

% (

-)13

.4%

(-)

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

% T

este

dC

urre

nt Y

ear

(90/

91)

(70%

)62

.3%

(-)

63.5

% (

-)67

.4%

(-)

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Ave

rage

SA

T T

otal

Sco

reC

urre

nt Y

ear

(90/

91)

873

900

849

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Prio

r Y

ear

(89/

90)

872

902

845

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Ave

rage

AC

T C

ompo

site

Sco

reC

urre

nt Y

ear

(90/

91)

19.9

19.9

19.8

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Prio

r Y

ear

(89/

90)

19.8

20.0

19.6

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

4114

2

ACADEMICEXCELLENCE

INDICATORSYSTEM

STATE

GRAPHS


143

STATE GRAPHICS FOR THE AEIS

100

ST $TD 90

60

70

60

50

N 40

30

20

10

0

PERCENT OF STUDENTS PASSING TAAS ALL TESTS TAKENBY GRADE FOR CURRENT AND PRIOR YEAR

47.446 1

36.333.9.. 35.5 36.0

51.048.6

3RD 5TH 7TH

90/91 : 91/92

9TH EXIT GRADE

100

ST STD 90

70

10

PERCENT OF STUDENTS PASSING TAAS ALL TESTS TAKENBY GRADE FOR ETHNICITY AND ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE

44.642.3

27.9

33.4

61.0

30.4

17.5

21.2

50.4

3RD 5TH 7TH

61.6

51.4

18.8 20.111.7

18.3

i um a

27.7

33.129.6

WO.I I

1.11.11

AFRICAN! AM. HISPANIC WHITE

EXIT

ECON. DIS.

GRADE


14 4


100

ST STD90

so

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

PERCENT OF STUDENTS PASSING TAAS READINGBY GRADE FOR CURRENT AND PRIOR YEAR

3RD STH 7TH

90/91 91/92 II

9TH EXIT GRADE

PERCENT OF STUDENTS PASSING TAAS READINGBY GRADE FOR ETHNICITY AND ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE

100

ST STD 90 88.5

70

20

10

70.6 71.5

ss

70.2

45.548.7

75.4

46.2

31.533.9

64.9

40.343.4

75.6

39.7

1$se:

:::m:

s31.67;1:1:

14.11:

:11%

+??.

I.II.I

I

11111.1I

!XIc I

3RD STH 7TH 9TH

83.4

53.1

::see

%111::EXIT GRADE

AFRICAN AM. HISPANIC WHITE ECON. DIS.


145


100

ST $TD 90

70

30

20

10

0

PERCENT OF STUDENTS PASSING TAAS WRITINGBY GRADE FOR CURRENT AND PRIOR YEAR

87.0

I 12.8

77.2

59.8 58 462.4

78.2

3RD 5TH 7TH

90/91 91/92

9TH EXIT GRADE

100

ST $TD 90

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

PERCENT OF STUDENTS PASSING TAAS WRITINGBY GRADE FOR ETHNICITY AND ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE

72.3 72.0N441

47.8 48.4

43.2

68.6 $6.3

Nit

380 5TH 7TH ITH

=WW2 AFRICAN AM. HISPANIC N WHITE

EXIT GRADE

ECON. DIS.


146


100

ST STD 90

00

70

50

40

30

20

10

PERCENT OF STUDENTS PASSING TAAS MATHBY GRADE FOR CURRENT AND PRIOR YEAR

3RD 5TH 7TH

F7777.777q 90/91 91/92

9TH EXIT GRADE

100

ST STD 90

$0

70

10

11

50

40

30

20

10

PERCENT OF STUDENTS PASSING TAAS MATHBY GRADE FOR ETHNICITY AND ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE

92.3

3RD 5TH 7TH 9TH EXIT GRADE

MOOR AFRICAN AM. HISPANIC N WHITE ECON. DIS. I

AEIS Appendix 147 Page 121


DROPOUT RATEBY SUBGROUP FOR CURRENT AND PRIOR YEAR

20

19

18

17

18

16

14 .13

p 12

11

10 -

7

5

4


90/91 IIIMENNI 91/92 1

GRADUATION RATEBY ETHNICrTY AND ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE

100999.

ST STD 9798 -96 -94 93.193 -92 -9190 -89 - 88.1 Ottse

so 85.2eses838281BO

79787776757473727170


COLLEGE ADMISSIONS TESTS% HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES TESTED

BY ETHNICITY

100

ST ST070

T 40

10

54.5

48.9

67.5

N/A

AFRICAN AM. HISPANIC WHITE ECON. DM.

COLLEGE ADMISSIONS TESTS% HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES AT OR OVER CRITERION

BY ETHNICITY

ST STD 35

30

AFRICAN AM. HISPAMC WilTE ECON. DIS,


148

GlossaryAcademic Excellence Indicator System: 1991-92 Report

Advanced Courses

Advanced Seal onTranscript

Attendance

Auxiliary Staff

Enrollment in advanced academic courses is calculatedfrom teacher responsibility records Because individualstudent enrollment in advanced courses is not available,the values may be based on duplicated counts of students

they may not represent the actual percent of studentsenrolled in at least one advanced course. The values arecalculated as the number of students enrolled in eachadvanced academic class divided by the number of stu-dents enrolled in all academic courses. A single studentmay be counted several times in each category, thusproducing a duplicated (and lower) count. For the 1991-92reports, these values are calculated for schools whichinclude grades 9 and above. See Appendix C: ListofAdvancedCourses. (Source: PE1MS, Oct. 1991 and Oct. 1990)

The percent of graduates whd received an advanced sealon their transcript is calculated as the number of 12thgraders who received an advanced seal in 1991, divided bythe total number of 12th graders reported as graduates.NOTE: In the 1990-91 AEIS report, this indicator did notshow the percent of students actually receiving the seals,but, rather, the percent who were expected to receivethem. For this reason, only current year values are given onthis report. (Source: PE1MS, Oct. 1991 and Oct. 1990)

Average daily attendance is calculated from the second six-weeks reporting period as the total number of days stu-dents were present divided by the total number of daysmembership. Students in grades Early Education and/orPrekindergarten through 12th are included in the Calcula-tions. NOTE: This formula is slightly different from thatused in the 1990-91 AEIS report; therefore, the valuesreported for prior year on the current report will be the sameor higher than those reported last year. (Source: Principal'sReport of Fdpil Attendance and Contact Hours, Fall 1991 and1990)

(from District Profile Section) This shows the Full TimeEquivalent (FTE) count of staff reported without a role butwith a PE1MS employment and payroll record. Counts ofauxiliary staff are expressed as a percent of total staff. Forauxiliary staff, the FTE is simply the value of the percent ofday worked expressed as a fraction. (Source: PEIMS, Oct.1991)

AE1S Glossary149 Page 123

Average Actual Salaries

Average Experience ofTeachers

Average Teacher Salary byYears of Experience

Campus Group

Chapter 1

For each staff type, the total salary is divided by the total FTEcount of staff who receive that salary. The total actual salaryamount is pay for regular duties only (base pay) and does notinclude any supplements. For example, career laddersupplements are not included. (Source: PEIMS, Oct. 1991)

Weighted averages are obtained by multiplying eachteacher's FTE count by years of experience. These amounts,when summed for all teachers and divided by the totalteacher count, result in the averages shown in the ProfileSection. Average experience refers to the total number ofyears of teaching experience for the individual, while aver-age experience with a district refers to tenure, i.e., the yearsemployed in that district. (Source: PEIMS, Oct. 1991)

Total base pay for teachers within each experience group isdivided by the total teacher FTE for the group. Total teacherbase pay is the actual salary amount earned for regularduties. No supplement amounts are included. Careerladder supplements are not included. (Source: PEIMS, Oct.1991)

Each school has a unique comparison group of 100 schools.To determine the comparison groups, a composite indexwas computed using five demographic variables:

1) percent of economically disadvantaged students(weighted 40%);

2) percent of minority students (weighted 40%);3) district wealth (weighted 10%);4) student mobility (weighted 5%); and5) percent of limited English proficient students

(weighted 5%).

The value given in the Campus Group column is the medianscore. (The median is defined as that point in a distributionof scores, above and below which one-half of the scoresfall.) See Economically Disadvantaged, Minority Students, Dis-trict Wealth, Limited English Proficient, and Mobility.

These students are eligible for, or receiving instructionaland/or support services supplemental to the foundationprogram through a Chapter 1 compensatory program. Aneligible student is: 1) educationally disadvantaged; 2) ne-glected or delinquent; 3) migrant; or 4) participating in aschool-wide Chapter 1 project. (Source: PEIMS, Oct. 1991,Oct. 1990, and TEA Division of Student Assessment)

Class Size by Subject Area (from District Profile Section)This value shows the numberof classes and the average class size for elementary andselected secondary classes. Elementary class size aver-ages were calculated by summing the number of students


150

Class Size by Subject Area(cont.)

College Admissions Tests

served and dividing by the total number of classes. Countsof secondary classes were calculated by computing thetotal time spent on a subject area and dividing by a standardclass period of 50 minutes. Secondary average class sizeis the number of students served divided by this calculatedcount of classes. (Source: PEIMS, Oct. 1991)

These include the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and theEnhanced ACT of the American College Testing Program.Three values were calculated for this indicator:

1) the average score for each (SAT total and ACTcomposite), shown for current and prior year;

2) The percent of graduating seniors who scored at orabove the criterion score on either test (1000 on theSAT and 25 on the ACT), shown for current year only;and

3) the percent of graduating seniors who took eithercollege admissions test, shown for currentyear only.

(Source: Educational Testing Service (SAT), American CollegeTesting Program (ACT), and PE1MS, Oct. 1991)

Cooperative Information (from District Profile Section) Staff - Individuals were iden-tified as participants in a cooperative if their assignedcampus number belonged in a district different from theiremploying district, or if they were reported with a campusnumber of 701. Only the portion of a person's total FTEamount associated with the campus .in another district (orwith the 701 record) was counted as cooperative. Coopera-tive auxiliary staff are those auxiliary staff with payrollamounts reported in the Trust and Agency Fiduciary FundGroup. None of these staff counts are included in any otherProfile statistics.

Financial - Cooperative information is categorized intotwo groups: total revenues by source and total expen-ditures by object. None of these financial amounts areincluded in any other Profile statistics.

Total revenues is the total for all revenues budgetedwith fund codes indicating State Funded Cooperativesor Federally Funded Cooperatives.

Total Expenditures is the total for all expendituresbudgeted with fund codes indicating State FundedCooperatives or Federally Funded Cooperatives.

Instructional Operating Expendituresare budgeted withState Funded Cooperatives or Federally FundedCooperatives fund classifications.

See Revenues by Source, Expenditures, Instructional OperatingExpenditures, and Appendix B (Source: PE1MS, Oct. 1991)

AEIS Glossary Page 125

151

Criterion Score

Current Year

Distribution of TeacherAppraisal Scores

District Group

District Wealth

Dropout

This refers to the college admissions tests a score of 25on the ACT (composite) or 1000 on the SAT (total).

These are the most recent values available for a givenindicator.

(from District Profile Section) The total FTE count ofteachers receiving an appraisal score within each of theranges is shown. The average appraisal score is notpresented for any of these categories. In 1991-92, teacherappraisal scores ranged from .1 to 184. The first range (.1- 135.9) represents three categories: unsatisfactoiy, belowexpectation, and meets expectation. The second range(136 - 159.9) represents a rating of exceeds expectation.The third range (160 - 184) represents a performance ratingof clearly outstanding. (Source: PE1MS, Oct. 1991)

Each district is assigned to a group based on its enrollment,wealth, and percent of economically disadvantaged stu-dents. These classifications create 16 different groups bydividing districts into four size categories, two wealth cat-egories (above and below state average), and two economi-cally disadvantaged categories (above or below 40 percent).The six special districts having no taxable property wealthcomprise a separate (17th) group. See Total Enrollment,Economically Disadvantaged, and District Wealth.

Wealth is represented by 10 categories (plus one for specialdistricts), defined as the total taxable property value dividedby total enrollment in a school district. Note that in thisreport, wealth is based on preliminarytaxable values for taxyear 1991. The categories are:

1) under $76,388;2) $76,388 to $90,217;3) $90,218 to $106,836;4) $106,837 to $126,206;5) $126,207 to $141,992;6) $141,993 to $166,017;7) $166,018 to $204,637;8) $204,638 to 260,702;9) $260,703 to $439,143; and10) over $439,143.

Source: State Property Tax Board and PEIMS, Oct. 1991 (forenrollment).

According to Texas Education Code Section 11.205, ". . .

dropout means a student: (1) who does not hold a highschool diploma or the equivalent; (2) who is absent frompublic school in which the student is enrolled for a period of30 or more consecutive days; and (3) whose attendance


152

Dropout (cont.) within that period at another public school or a private orparochial school cannot be evidenced."

Dropout Rate

Economically Disadvantaged

Educational Aides

Enrollment by Grade

ESL/Bilingual

Ethnic Distribution

Exclusions

The dropout rate is calculated as the number of dropouts ateach grade, 7 through 12, divided by the number of stu-dents enrolled in each grade, 7 through 12. (Source: PE1MS,Oct. 1991,0ct. 1990, and Oct.1989; 1989-90 Fall Survey ofStudents)

The percent of economically disadvantaged students iscalculated as the sum of the students eligible for free orreduced-price lunch or eligible for other public assistance,divided by the total number of students enrolled in theschool. (Source: PEIMS, Oct. 1991, Oct. 1990, and TEA Divisionof Student Assessment)

Educational aides are staff who are reported with a role of033. FTE counts of educational aides are expressed as apercent of the total staff FTE. (Source: PEIMS, Oct. 1991)

For the Campus Profile, percentages are calculated bydividing the enrollment for each grade by the total enroll-ment at that school. For the District Profile, percentagesare calculated by dividing the enrollment for each gradegroup by the total enrollment in the district. (Source: PEIMS,Oct. 1991)

Students who are served by either a bilingual or ESLprogram. See Student Enrollment by Program. (Source: PEIMS,Oct. 1991, Oct. 1990, and TEA Division of Student Assessment)

Students are reported as White, African American, His-panic, and Other (Asian, Pacific Islander, or Native Ameri-can). On the Profile Section, these values are expressed asa percent of total enrollment as well as an actual number.Note that "Other" is not reported on the PerformanceSection. (This information is available from TEA.) SeeCampus Group. (Source: PEIMS, Oct. 1991, Oct. 1990, Educa-tional Testing Service, American College Testing Program, andTEA Division of Student Assessment)

(from District Profile Section) These are selected revenueand expenditure amounts that have been omitted from theother financial information presented. These amounts areseparated to provide a more equalized financial picture.Total Capital Projects Fund Revenues - the total of allrevenues budgeted in the Capital Projects Fund. Expendi-tures -the total of all expenditures budgeted in the CapitalProjects Fund. Tuition Transfers -Tuition Services, Trans-portation Services, and Other Services. If there are noexpenditures for Tuition Services, then Transportation Ser-

AEIS Glossary 153 Page 127

Exclusions (cont.)

Expenditures by Function

Expenditures by Object

vices and Other Services are not excluded. Adult BasicEducation -expenditures budgeted in the Adult Basic Edu-cation Fund. See Appendix B. (Source: PE1MS, Oct. 1991)

(from District Profile Section) Expenditures for groups offunctions are expressed as a percent of total expenditures:

Instruction all activities dealing directly with theinstruction of pupils, including instruction through theuse of computers

Instructional Administration the management andimprovement of the quality of instruction and the cur-riculum

Campus Administration - the operation and manage-ment of a school

Central Administration the general administrationactivities of the district, the development of personneland curriculum, and data processing services

Support- instruction-related services such as media andlibrary materials, and pupil services such as counseling,promotion of attendance, and health services

Plant Services - physical plant maintenance andoperation

Other pupil transportation, food services, and co-curricular activities

Debt Service bond and lease/purchase principal, andall types of interest

Capital Outlay - facilities acquisition/construction notmade from the capital projects fund

Community (ancillary) Services activities involving allthe community

(Source: PEIMS, Oct. 1991)

(from District Profile Section) Budgeted expenditures forgroups of objects are expressed as a percent of totalexpenditures.

Payroll these are payroll expenditures for instruction,support, administration, plant services, and other stafffunctions.

Other Operating - purchased and contracted services,supplies and materials, and all other operating expendi-tures.

Non-Operating debt service and capital outlay notmade from the capital projects fund.

(Source: PE1MS, Oct. 1991)


154

FTE Fun Time Equivalent.

Graduation Rate

Group Index

Graduation rate is calculated as the reported number of12th graders who graduated in 1990-91, divided by the totalnumber of 12th graders enrolled in the fall of 1990. Ratesfor Special Education students are listed separately. Prioryear values are not available, as those reported in last year'sAEIS were expected graduates, rather than actual gradu-ates. Note that the percent shown for Campus might behigher than for any of the subgroups. This is because nodemographic data were available for 4%-5% of the gradu-ates. (Source: PEIMS, Oct. 1991 and Oct. 1990)

The grouping index used in the demographic group listingis calculated in three steps: First, a standard score iscomputed for each of the five demographic variables.Then, each standard score is multiplied by its appropriateweighting. The sum of these is the target school's group-ing index. The index is then used to place the target schoolon a demographic continuum of all schools. The groupindex in no way implies a ranking of schools by perfor-mance. See Campus Group, Economically Disadvantaged,Minority Students, Wealth, Limited English Proficient, andMobility.

Instructional Operating These are budgeted operating expenditures for only thoseExpenditures activities which deal directly with the instruction of pupils.

Instructional operating expenditures per pupil is this amountdivided by total enrollment. See Appendix B. (Source: PEIMS,Oct. 1991)

Instructional OperatingExpenditures by Program

Minority

Mobility

These are budgeted instructional operating expenditurescategorized by the individual program (regular, special,compensatory, vocational, bilingual/ESL, gifted and tal-ented, and other) for which they were expended. Percentsshown are the percent of total instructional operatingexpenditures. See Appendix B. (Source: PEIMS, Oct. 1991)

These percents are calculated as the sum of all non-whitestudents (African American, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific Is-lander, and Native American) divided by the total number ofstudents enrolled in the school. For grouping purposes,percent minority is weighted 40%. See Campus Group.(Source: PEIMS, Oct. 1991 and Oct. 1990)

Mobility is calculated as the sum of students taking theTAAS who were reported as enrolled in the district or anydistrict in Texas for two years or less divided by the totalnumber of students taking the TAAS. For groupingpurposes, percent mobility is weighted 5%. See CampusGroup. (Source: TEA Division of Student Assessment)

AE1S Glossary Page 129

155

n/a This indicates data that are not available or are not appli-cable.

NAPT

Operating Expenditures

Operating Expenditures byFunction

Overage

Professional Staff

The Norm-Referenced Assessment Program for Texas wasfirst given in April of 1992. It will not be reported on the AEISuntil 1993.

The total of all operating expenditures with the exception ofexpenditures budgeted for the functions of Debt Services,Facilities Acquisition & Construction, and Community (An-cillary) Services. Operating Expenditures per Pupil is totaloperating expenditures divided by total enrollment. SeeAppendix B. (Source: PE1MS, Oct. 1991)

(from Campus Profile Section) Instruction: budgeted ex-penditures for all activities dealing directly with the instruc-tion of pupils, including instruction through the use ofcomputers.

Instructional Administration: budgeted expenditures forthe management and improvement of the quality ofinstruction and the curriculum.

Campus Administration: budgeted expenditures for theoperation and management of a school.

Other Campus Costs: budgeted expenditures for pupiltransportation, food services, and co-curricular activities,and expenditures for the development of personnel andcurriculum.

See Appendix B. (Source: PE1MS, Oct. 1991)

For the purposes of the AEIS, students are consideredoverage if their birthday is prior to September 1 of the yearappropriate to the grade in which they are enrolled. (Source:PE1MS, Oct. 1991, Oct. 1990, and TEA Division of StudentAssessment)

This is a full-time equivalent (FTE) count of teachers, profes-sional support staff, and campus administrators. (On theDistrict Profile this count also includes central administra-tors.) Staff are grouped according to the PEIMS rolesreported for them. Each type of professional staff is shownas a percentage of the total staff (FTE) of all staff (profes-sional and para-professional). See Append& A. (Source:PE1MS, Oct. 1991)


156

Revenues by Source

School Type

Special Education

Standardized Local Tax Base(Comptroller Valuation)

(from District Profile Section) Budgeted revenues for groupsof object categories are expressed as a percent of totalrevenue.

Local and CED Tax - district income from ad valoremproperty taxes, including County Education District (CED)taxes. In some cases CED revenues were estimatedfrom tax information obtained through a survey.

Other Local and Intermediate payments for services toother districts, tuition and fees from students, transfersfrom within the state, revenue from cocurricular andenterprising activities, all other local sources, transfersfrom intermediate sources (county), and transfers fromoutside the state.

State -per capita and foundation program entitlements,revenue from other state-funded programs, and revenuefrom other state agencies.

Federal - revenue received directly from the federalgovernment and distributed by TEA for vocational educa-tion, programs for educationally disadvantaged children(Education Consolidation and Improvement Act and El-ementary and Secondary Education Act), food serviceprograms, and other federal programs.

See Appendix B. (Source: PEIMS, Oct. 1991)

For purposes of demographic grouping, schools are dividedinto four classif ications based on lowest and highest gradesoffered at the school: Elementary, Middle, Secondary, andboth Elementary/Secondary (K-1 2).

This refers to those students who are served through aspecial education program. Performance of special educa-tion students on TAAS, Graduation Rate, and Graduateswith Advanced Seals is reported separately and not in-cluded in the calculation of campus-level values. 'For allother indicators where special education information isavailable, performance of the students is included in thecalculation of campus-level values. (Source: PEIMS, Oct.1991, Oct. 1990, and TEA Division of Student Assessment)

(from District Profile Section)This shows the district's totaltaxable property value as estimated by the Comptroller'sProperty Tax Division (Comptroller Valuation). Value perPupil - total taxable property value divided by total enroll-ment. This per pupil figure is often referred to as "wealth."Percent Value by Category-shows aggregates of individualproperty tax categories expressed as a percent of the totalmarket, or taxable, value of all property. NOTE: Valuesshown are preliminary, not final, for tax year 1991. (Source:Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Jan. 1992)

AEIS Glossary Page 131

157

Standardized Tax Rates(Comptroller Valuation)

State Standard

Student Enrollment byProgram

(from District Profile Section) This shows a rate calculatedusing property value equalized to 100 percent of marketvalue by the Comptroller's Property Tax Division. Thecomponents of the total standardized tax rate are calculatedby dividing the levy amounts by the Comptroller's taxablevalue. The total standardized rate is-the sum of the schooldistrict M&O, the CED (also for M&O), and the l&S standard-ized rates. For a few districts, levy amounts were adjustedbased on a telephone survey. Rates are expressed per $100of market, or taxable, value. (Source: Texas Comptroller ofPublic Accounts, Jan. 1992)

The State Board of Education set a standard for excellencefor five of the indicators as follows: TAAS - 90% of studentspassing; Attendance - 97%; Dropout Rate less than orequal to 1%; Graduation Rate - 99%; College AdmissionsTests - 35% of graduates scoring above the criterion scoreand 70% of graduates taking either the SAT or the ACT. A(+) next to the value indicates that the standard was met forthat particular indicator; a (-) indicates that the standard wasnot met.

Students are identified as served through the special, voca-tional, bilingual/ESL, or gifted and talented education pro-grams. The percentages may reflect duplicate counts, as astudent may be enrolled in more than one program. (Source:PE1MS, Oct. 1991)

Student/Teacher Ratio This reflects the total enrollment divided by the total teacherFTE count. (Source: PE1MS, Oct. 1991)

TAAS (Texas Assessmentof Academic Skills) test

This criterion-referenced test currently measures studentachievement in reading, writing, and mathematics at grades3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 (Exit). Scores for Special Educationstudents are not included in the values shown for Campusand the other subgroups. (Source: National Computer Systemsand TEA Division of Student Assessment)

TAAS Spanish test This test includes reading, writing, and math sections and isavailable for Spanish-speaking third-graders.

TAAS, Mastery of allObjectives

This sub-indicator shows the percent of students who havemastered all objectives on the writing, reading, and math-ematics tests. Mastery of the objectives measured bythe written composition part of the writing test requires arating of 3 or 4. (Source: National Computer Systems and TEADivision of Student Assessment)


158

TAAS, Passing

TASP

Teacher Career LadderStatus

Teachers by HighestDegree Held

Teachers by Program(Population Served)

Teachers by Years ofExperience

AEIS Glossmy

This sub-indicator shows the percent ot students meetingthe minimum expectations on each TAAS test taken. Thestandard for meeting minimum expectations on each testis equivalent to 70% of the items correct on the October1990 test (plus a rating of 2, 3, or 4 on the writtencomposition.) Note that the Percent Passing reported forPrior Year was recalculated according to the 70% passingstandard (Source: National Computer Systems and TEA Divi-sion of Student Assessment)

The Texas Academic Skills Program test is a basic skills testmeasuring reading, writing, and mathematics skills. It isrequired of all persons entering Texas public institutions ofhigher education for the first time. The TASP will not bereported in the AEIS until its equivalence to the exit-levelTAAS has been established.

(from District Profile Section)This indicates the FTE countsof teachers and speech therapists on levels two and three.Career ladder counts may be under-reported for manydistricts due to placement decisions made after October.(Source: PE1MS, Oct. 1991)

(from District Profile Section)This shows the distribution ofdegrees attained by teachers in the district. The FTE countsof teachers with no degree, bachelor's, master's, anddoctorate degrees are expressed as a percent of the totalteacher FTEs. (Source: PE1MS, Oct. 1991)

Teacher FTE counts are categorized by the type of studentpopulations seryed. Regular, special, compensatory, voca-tional, bilingual/ESL, gifted and talented, and miscella-neous other populations served are shown. Teacher FTEvalues are allocated across population types for teacherswho serve multiple population types. Percentages areexpressed as a percent of total teacher FTEs. (Source:PE1MS, Oct. 1991)

(from District Profile Section) This is the FTE count ofteachers with years of experience that fall into the rangesshown. Experience in these categories is the total years ofteaching experience for the individual, not years of experi-ence in the reporting district or campus. Teacher countswithin each span of years of experience are expressed asa percent of total teacher FTEs. A beginning teacher is ateacher reported with zero years of experience. (Source:PEWS, Oct. 1991)

153Page 133

Teaching Permits by Type

Total Adopted Tax Rate(CEO and Local)

Total Enrollment

Total Expenditures

Total Revenues

Total Staff by Ethnicity andSex

Turnover Rate for Teachers

(from District Profile Section) This indicates the number ofteaching permits issued. Teachers may be issued morethan one permit. Permits are grouped as temporary, class-room assignment, emergency teaching, and other, repre-senting nonrenewable, special assignment, and vocational.(Source: PEIMS, Oct. 1991)

(from District Profile Section)This is the sum of the locallyadopted total tax rate set by the school district plus theCounty Education District (CED) .tax rate. (Source: TexasComptroller of Public Accounts, Jan. 1992)

This is the total number of students who were reported asenrolled on October 25, 1991 at any level, from earlychildhood education through grade 12. (Source: PE1MS, Oct.1991)

(from District Profile Section) This shows the total for allexpenditures budgeted in the General Fund, the SpecialRevenue Fund (excluding Adult Basic Education), and theDebt Service Fund. Total Expenditures per Pupil is totalexpenditures divided by total enrollment. See AppendiX B.(Source: PEIMS, Oct. 1991)

(from District Profile Section) This includes the total for allrevenues budgeted in the General Fund, the Special Rev-enue Funds (excluding Adult Basic Education), and the DebtService Fund. Total Revenue includes CED budgetedrevenues. In some cases CED revenues were estimatedfrom tax information obtained through a survey. TotalRevenues per Pupil is total revenue divided by total enroll-ment. (Source: PE1MS, March 1991 and Oct. 1991)

These are counts of total staff FTEs by combinations ofmajor ethnic group and sex. Counts are also expressed aspercentages of the total staff FTE. (Source: PEIMS, Oct. 1991)

(from District Profile Section)This shows the total FTE countof teachers not employed in the district in the fall of 1991-92 who were employed in the district in the spring of 1990-91, divided by the total teacher FTE count for the spring of1990-91. Social security numbers of reported teacherswere compared from the two semesters to develop thisinformation. (Source: PEIMS, Oct. 1991)

Page 134 Long-Range Plan interim Evaluation: 1991-1992

160

-77

National Goals for EducationBuilding a Nation of Learners: the 1992 National Goals Report

The National Governors Association (NGA) adopted and President George Bush endorsed

national goals for education in February 1990. The NGA further developed state strategies

to achieve the goals. The goals are stated below.

1. READINESS FOR SCHOOL

By the year 2000, ail children in America will start school ready to learn.

2. HIGH SCHOOL COMPLETION

By the year 2000, the high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent.

3. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND CITIZENSHIP

By the year 2000, American students will leave grades four, eight, and twelve havingdemonstrated competency over challenging subject matter including English, mathemat-ics, science, history, and geography, and every school in America will ensure that allstudents learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship,further learning, and productive employment in our modern economy.

4. SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS

By the year 2000, U.S. students will be first in the world in mathematics and scienceachievement.

5. ADULT LITERACY AND LIFELONG LEARNING

By the year 2000, every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge andskills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilitiesof citizenship.

6. SAFE, DISCIPLINED, AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS

By the year 2000, every school in America will be free of drugs and violence and will offera disciplined environment conducive to learning.

The 1992 National Goals Report contains individual state profiles of progress in meetingthe goals adopted by the NGA. The state profiles compare available data for 1992 tobaseline data that depicts state performance on or about the time the goals were adopted.The two sections that follow measure Texas' progress toward the national goals andprogress on a number of indicators related to the NGA goals and objectives.

National Goals Appendix Page 135

161

,Section 1: Measuring Progress Toward the Goals

1992Goals

Baseline _Report

Goal 1: READINESS FOR SCHOOL

No comparable state data are currently availaole.

Goal 2: HIGH SCHOOL COMPLETION

Percentage with a high school credential (1990)

all 19-20 year olds n/a 80%

all 23-24 year olds n/a 79%

Goal 3: STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND CITIZENSHIP

Percentage of all 8th grade studentswho are competent in mathematics (1990) 13% n/a

Advanced Placement examinations taken in the core subject areas(per 1,000 11th and 12th graders, 1991, 1992)

Percent of students taking tests 41% 44%

Percent receiving a grade of 3 or higher 27% 30%

Goal 4: SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS

No comparable state data are currently available.

Goal 5: ADULT LITERACY AND LIFELONG LEARNING

No comparable state data are currently available.

Goal 6: SAFE, DISCIPLINED, AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS

Percentage of public high school teachers who reported that the followingwere moderate or serious problems in their schools (1988,1991):

Physical abuse of teachers 5% 5%

Verbal abuse of teachers 30% 37%

Robbery or theft 30% 33%

Vandalism of school property 34% 34%


162

Section 2: Indicators Related to the Goal. qnd Objectives1992Goals

Baseline

Goal 1: READINESS FOR SCHOOL

1. Number of births (per 1,000 in 1988,1989):

_Report

a) at or above 5.5 pounds 932 930

b) between 3.3 and 5.5 pounds 57 58

c) below 3.3 pounds 11 12

2. Number of mothers (per 1,000 in 1988,1989)receiving first prenatal care during:

a) the first trimester of pregnancy 669 669

b) the second trimester of pregnancy 216 218

c) the third trimester of pregnancy or no prenatal care 115 113

3. Number of children with disabilities in preschool(per 1,000 3 to 5 year olds, 1991) n/a 3

Goal 2: HIGH SCHOOL COMPLETION

1. Percentage of all 16-19 year olds withouta high school credential (1990) n/a 13%

Goal 3: STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND CITIZENSHIP

1. Percentage of all public school 8th graders who scored at thefollowing levels in mathematics achievement (1990):

Below Basic 48% n/a

Basic 39% n/a

Pruficient* 12% n/a

Advanced* 1% n/a

* Meets the goals panel standard for competence

2. Estimated percentage of public high school students takingthe following courses (1989,1991):

Algebra I 87%

Algebra II 66%

Calculus 5% 7%

Biology 95+% 95+%

Chemistry 40% 50%

Physics 12% 15%

National Goals Appendix

163Page 137

Section 2: Indicators Related to the Goals and Objectives1992Goals

Baseline _Report

Goal 3: STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND CITIZENSHIP (cont.)

3. Number of foreign language Advanced Placementexaminations taken

(per 1,000 llth and 12th graders, 1991, 1992) 3

Number receiving grades of 3 or higher 3

4. Number of fine arts Advanced Placement examinations taken(per 1,000 llth and 12th graders, 1991, 1992) <1

Number receiving grades of 3 or higher <1

4

3

1

<1

Goal 4: SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS

1. Percentage of public high school science teachers who holda degree in science or science education (1988,1991) 70% 64%

2. Percentage of public high school mathematics teacherswho hold a degree in mathematics or mathematics education(1988,1991) 64% 59%

3. Percentage of public school 8th graders (1990):

a) who do these activities in mathematics class:

work in small groups at least once a week 39% n/a

work with rules, blocks, or geometric shapesat least once a week 24% n/a

write reports or do projects during the school year 62% n/a

b) whose mathematics teachers heavily emphasize:

Algebra and functions 52% n/a

reasoning and analytic skills 45% n/a

communicating mathematics ideas 42% n/a

c) who have computers available in theirmathematics classroom 13% n/a

d) who use calculators in mathematics classseveral times per week 19% n/a

Goal 5: ADULT LITERACY AND LIFELONG LEARNING

1. Percentage of all U.S. citizens (1988):

a) registered to vote n/a

b) voting n/a

71%58%


164

1Section 2: Indicators Related to the Goals and Objectives

1992Goals

Baseline _Report

Goal 6: SAFE, DISCIPLINED, AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS

1. Percentage of all high school students who reported (1990,1991 ):

a) Using the following at least once during the past 30 days:

marijuana n/a n/a

cocaine n/a n/a

b) Having 5 or more drinks in a row during the past 30 days n/a n/a

2. Percentage of public high school teachers agreeing with thefollowing statements (1988,1991 ):

a) the level of student misbehavior in this schoolinterferes with my teaching 42% 36%

b) rules for student behavior are consistently enforcedby teac irs in this school, even for studentswho are not in their classes 48% 56%

3. Percentage of public high school teachers who reported thatthey have substantial or complete control discipliningstudents in their claSsrooms (1988,1991) 56% 57%

4. Percentage of public high school teachers who reported that thefollowing were moderate or serious problems in their schools(1988,1991):

student tardiness 60% 61%

students cutting class 44% 44%

National Goals Appendix Page 139

5

COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

TITLE VI, CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964; THE MODIFIED COURT ORDER, CIVIL ACTION 5281,FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, TYLER DIVISIONReviews of local education agencies pertaining to compliance hith Title VI Civil r.ights Act of 1964 and withspecific requirements of the Modified Court Order. Civil Action No. 5281. Federal District Court. EasternDistrict of Texas, Tyler Division are conducted periodically by staff representatives of the Texas EducationAgency. These reviews cover at least the following policies and practices:

(1) acceptance policies on student transfers from other school districts;

(2) operation of school bus routes or runs on a non-segregated basis;

(3) nondiscrimination in extracurricular activities and the use of school facilities:

(4) nondiscriminatory practices in the hiring, assigning. promoting, paying, demoting, reassigning, ordismissing of faculty and staff members who work with children;

(5) enrollment and assignment of students without discrimination on the basis of race, color, or nationalorigin;

(6) nondiscriminatory practices relating to the use of a student's first language; and

(7) evidence of published procedures for hearing complaints and grievances.

In addition to conducting reviews, the Texas Education Agency staff representatives check complaints ofdiscrimination made by a citizen or citizens residing in a school district where it is alleged discriminatorypractices have occurred or are occurring.

Where a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act is found, the findings are reported to the Office for CivilRights, U.S. Department of Education.

If there is a direct violation of the Court Order in Civil Action No. 5281 that cannot be cleared through negotia-tion, the sanctions required by the Court Order are applied.

TITLE VII, CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 AS AMENDED; EXECUTIVE ORDERS 11246 AND11375; TITLE IX, EDUCATION AMENDMENTS; REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 AS AMENDED;1974 AMENDMENTS TO THE WAGE-HOUR LAW EXPANDING THE AGE DISCRIMINATIONIN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1967; VIETNAM ERA VETERANS READJUSTMENT ASSISTANCEACT OF 1972 AS AMENDED; AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990; AND THE CIVIL RIGHTSACT OF 1991.The Texas Education Agency shall comply fully with the nondiscrimination provisions of all Federal and Statelaws ana regulations by assuring that no person shall be excluded from consideration for recruitment, selection,appointment, training, promotion, retention, or any other personnel action, or be denied any benefits or par-ticipation in any educational programs or activities which it operates on the grounds of race, religion, color,national origin, sex, handicap, age, or veteran status or a disability requiring accommodation (except whereage, sex, or handicap constitute a bona fide occupational qualification necessary to proper and efficient ad-ministration). The Texas Education Agency is an Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer.

Page 140 Long-Range Plan interim Evaluation: 1991-1992

166

Texas Education Agency1701 N. Congress -AvenueAustin, Texas 78701-1494

Documen:t ftGE3-410-06

March 1993

1991-1992. - eric · 2014. 5. 7. · 3.3 retention rates for first year teachers: 1988 - 1992 44...

Documents