DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 280 170 EA 019 280

TITLE Implementing Education Reform. A Report to the TexasLegislature from the State Board of Education and theTexas Education Agency, 1984-1986.

INSTITUTION Texas Education Agency, Austin.; Texas State Board ofEducation, Austin.

REPORT NO TEA-GE7-741-01PUB DATE Jan 87NOTE 57p.PUB TYPE Reports - Descriptive (141)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Administrative Organization; Community Involvement;

Curriculum; Educational Finance; EducationalInnovation; Elementary Secondary Education; MinimumCompetencies; Organizational Communication; ParentParticipation; Performance; *State Boards ofEducation; State Departments of Education; *StateLegislation; *State School District Relationship;Statewide Planning; Teachers

IDENTIFIERS *House Bill 72 (Texas 1984); *Texas

ABSTRACTAll students need to develop essential academic

skills and to acquire a knowledge base on which to build lifelonglearning. To this end, Texas has implemented sweeping reforms of thestate's public education system in the form of House Bill (HB) 72.Thit legislation essentially revamped every aspect of publiceducation. This report gives a summary of HE 72, an overview of theactivities of the State Board of Education and its committees, and apresentation of some of the most significant reforms as they relateto long-range goals and objectives. Goal 1 focuses on performancestandards that students will be expected to meet. Goal 2 emphasizes aWell-balanced curriculum allowing students to realize their learningpotential. Goal 3 examines teachers and teaching, stressingcompetence and recruitment of qualified teachers. Goal 4 focuses onorganization and management, stating that all levels of theeducational system will be productive, efficient, and accountable.Goal 5 looks at the financing of public education. Goal 6 emphasizesparental and community involvement in the improvement of schools.Goal 7 investigates innovation, stressing the continual improvementof instructional programs. Goal 8 discusses consistent, timely, andeffective communications among public education interests. Concludingthe report are three appendices, offering a chronology of educationreform, program and operating budget figures, and contactinformation. (WTH)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

IVPLEVE\TI\ EDJCU S. DEPARTMENTOF EDUCATION --7.--

Office of Educational Research and Improvement "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISEDUCATIONAL-RESOURCES INFORMATION MATERI HAS BEEN GRANT D BY

CENTER ( ERIC) .ifAirtia document--hasbeen reproduced asreceived from the person or organization

_ originating IE i0 Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality

Points of view or opinIcInestatedinthisdoetement do-nOt-neceseerily represent officio! TO THE EDUCATIONALRESOURCESOEM million or policy

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."ANC

it)cyd Of Education ant the Texas Education Agency

1984 -1986

A Report td the TexOS Legislature from the State Boad

IYPLEV \TING EDUCATIO\ REFORV

A Report to the Texas Legeature frorn the State BoardOf Education and the Texa Education Agency

198,4 -1986

3

Stitt Board Of Education1701 North Congress Avenue

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

Jon Brumley. ChairmanFort Worth. District 11

Rebecca-Canning. Vice ChairmanWaco. District 9

Emmett J. Conrad. M.D.. SecretaryDallas. District 13

Vo lly,C_Bastine. Jr.. J.D.Houston. District 4

Mail) Helen Bei tingeCorpus Christi. Distritt 2

Carolyn_Honea Crawford. Ph.D.Beaumont. District 7

Charles W. Duncan, Jr.Houston. Distnct 6

Pin! C. Dunn, D.D.S.Level land. Distriet 15

Maria Elena A. FloodEl Paso._ District 1

William V. McBride, Gen.(USAF. Retired)5an Antonio. District 5

GeraldineMiller_Dallas. District 12

Pete Morales. Jr.-Devine. Dittritt 3

John Mack_Prescott,Ph.P.College Station, District 10

Katherine Pearcy RainesCleburne. District 14

Jack Strong-Lorig.+WW1 DiStri Cr 8

W. N. KirbY, Ph:IXCommissioner-ol Education(512) 453-89E5

1

January 1987

To The Citizens of Tezas and Members of the Legislature:

When the members of the new State Board of Education tookOffide in October_of 1984, we_faced a_tremendouslyimportant_and_challenTi.ng task, and that was to put into _

effect the most complete education ref-dm laW evet enadtedby this state or, perhaps; any state in the nation.

_

House_Bill 72 not only changed virtually every aspect ofpublic education in Texas,_it also_changed the iMage Ofour state in the eyes of educational leaders adtb88 thecountry. Suddenly,_Texas was thrust into the_forefront ofeducational_leadership nationwide. _This public attentionon Texas' education systemhincreased as our state'seconomic situation worsened. More and More pecple ==taxpayers, the business community, and lawmakers -7_begantti realize that Texas' successful economic future hingedin great part -on the success of its educational system.

National attention and our economic future were not,however, the primary considerations of the State Board ofEducation in its efforts_over the past two years to imple-ment education reform. Our major goal has been, and willcontinue to be, providing the highest quality educationpossible for our children.

We are pleased to present this_reporti_in compliance withTexas Education Code Section 11.26(C)1_4), aS ah_abbre=viated summary of the efforts of the State Biatd ofEducation and the Texas_Education Agency to iraplementOdUcation reform over the past two years. We believeTexas has made great progress toward its goal of improvingeducation for all the children of the state. Any ctedit_for this progress must be shared with the public and withteacherS, administrators, other professionals and localschool boards, whose_dedication and effort the State Boardof Education gratefully acknowledges.

Our accomplishments over these two years, although signi-fidant, must not be_allowed to lull us into complacency;We_have_only established the foundations for a truly_soundsystem of public education. _Now begins the sustainedcommitment and perseverance required td achieve OUtobjectives. Much remains to be done;

rely,

Jon Brumley, Chairman

State Boardof Education(State BoardfOr VOcationalEducation)

JON BRUMLEY, Feet WorthChairman of the StateBoard of EducationDistrict 11

REBECCA CANNING; WacoVice Chairman of the StateBoard of EducationDistrict 9

EMMETT J. CONRAD, DallasSecretaiy of the StateBoard of EducationDistrict 13

COmmitteesOf theState Boardof Education

Board Members

VOLLY C. BASTINE, JR.HoustonDistrict 4

MARY HELEN BERLANGACorpus ChristiDistrict 2

CAROLYN HONEA CRAWFORDBeaumontDiStrict 7

CHARLES W. DUNCAN, JR.HoustonDistrict 6

PAUL C. DUNNLEVELLANDDistrict 15

MARIA ELENA A. FLOODEl PasoDistrict 1

WILLIAM V McBRIDESan AntonioDistrict 5

GERALDINE MILLERDallasDistrict 12

PETE MORALES, JR.DevineDiStrict 3

JOHN MACK PRESCOTTCollege StationDistrict 10

KATHERINE PEARCY RAINESCleburneDistrict 14

JACK STRONGLongviewDistrict 8

PersonnelJOHN_ _MACK PRESCOIT, ChairmanREBECCA CANNINGEMMETT J. CONRADCAROLYN HONEA CRAWFORDPAUL C. DUNN

Long-Range PlanningREBECCA CANNING, ChairmanMARY HELEN BERLANGAEMMETT J. CONRADCAROLYN HONEA CRAWFORDCHARLES W DUNCAN, JR.WILLIAM V. McBRIDE

IV

5

FInance Prog tarns_MARIA ELENA A. FLOOD; ChairmanJON BRUMLEYWILLIAM_V. MsBRIDEGERALDINE MILLERPETE MORALES; JR:

StudentsJACK STRONG, ChairmanVOLLY C. BASTINE, JR._MARY HELEN BERLANGACHARLES_ W. DUNCAN, JR.KATHERINE PEARCY RAINES

TableofContents

The Mission, Goals and Objectives forTexas Public SO Obl Education

Summary of House Bill 72 6

The State Board of EducatiOn and itt Ccirrimittees 8

Implementation of Education Reform 10

Goal 1:Student performance 11

The TEAMS tettt 11

No pass/no play 14

Reduced class size 15

Bilingual education 16

Compensatory education 17

Spacial education 18

Dropout reduction 18

School-age pregnancy prevention 19

GOal 2:Curriculim 19

Grade 70 passing standardisocial promotion 19

Gifted ediication 20

Vocational education 20

Goal 3:Teachers and teaching 22

The Texas Teacher Appraisal Systemand the career ladder 22

Teacher testing (TECAT, ExCET, P-PST) 23

Paperwork reduction 24

Alternative certification 25

Gbal 4:Organi±ation and management 26

Performance-based accreditation 26

Instructional leadership training for administrators 27

School board member training 27

The Public Education Information Management System 28

The Texas Education Agency 28

Education service centers 30

6

Goal 5:School finance 31

Funding of public education 31

The Permanent School Fund 31

GOal 6:Parent and community involvement 34

Parental participation in discipline management plance 34

Notificaticri of parents regarding students' failing grades 34

Goel 7:Innovation 35

Distance learning 35

Goal 8:Communications 36

The annual performance report 36

TEA=NET Electronic Communications Network 36

Future Tasks of the State Board of Education 38

Appendix I:Highlights of the Chronology of Education Reform 39

Appendix II:Public Education Program Budget, 198687 41

Appendix III:Texas Education Agency Operating Budget, 198687 45

Texas Education Agency Staff for this Publication 48

Publication Information 48

vi

7

Missionof PublicEducationin Texas

GOAL 1Student perfor;mande: Allstudents willbe expected tomeet Or exCeededucationalpeHormancestandards.

Texas is moving toward the 21st century amid a period ofdramatic change in the economic conditions of both the state andthe nation. The educational system of the state is responsible forpreparing our children to live and work in this changing future.

Ail students need to develop essential academic skills and toacquire -a knowledge base on which to build lifelong learning. Allstudents will be taught a core curriculum of English language arts,mathematics, science, social studies, fine arta, health, physicaleducation, and technological literacy. Ali students Will acquire aknowledge of citizenship and economic responsibilitieS and an ap=preciation of our common American heritage including itsmulticultural richness. To the full extent of their individual abilities,students will be provided the opportunity to develop ihe ability tothink logically, independently, and creatively and to communicateeffectively.

Educating our children to be productive in a changing futurenecessitates an excellent educational system. A system that canaccomplish this mission must be characterized by quality, equity,and accountability. Instruction must be provided at the highestlevels of quality. Educational opportunities and resources must bedistributed with equity for all students. The educational systemmust maintain accountability for demonstrated results anJ con-tinuous improvement. Such a system will have the vitality toprepare our childron for the changes and the challenges of thefuture, a future which Will belong V, the educated.

OBJECTIVES1-1

Set increasingly challenging expectations for academic performanceby all students in the public schools, measure student learning, andreport performance results.

1=2

Close the achievement gap between educationally disadvantagedstudents and other populations.

1=3

Support priority funding for prekindergarten, kindergarten, and theelementary grades.

1=4

Improve student skill6 ini thinking critically and solving problems.

1-5Recdgnize outstanding achievement by students and improvedacademic performance by campus.

1-6Establish programs to reduce th6 dropout rate and ehcourage higherattendance.

GOAL 2Curriculum: Awell-balancedcurriculum willbe taught sothat all studentsmay realize theirlearning poten-tial and preparefor productivelives.

GOAL 3Tbachers andteaching:Qualified andeffective teacherswill be attractedand retained.

OBJECTIVES2=1

Review and revise the state curriculum on a scheduled basis.

2=2Encourage programs to develop students' citizenship skills and interper-sonal effectiveness.

2-3Encourage the development of self-esteem, respect for others, andresponsible behavior.

2-4Develop methods to accurately identify and assist the slower learner.

2-5Provide for the expansion and enrichment for students whose masteryof the essential elements of the curriculum is substantially above gradelevel.

2-6Coordinate statewide testing, textbooks, and instructional materials withthe state curriculum.

OBJECTIVES

Set standards for the teaching profession and ensure that all teachersdemonstrate competence in basic sMs.

3 2Refine and support a compensation and career development systemthat offers advancement in teaching.

3-3Improve working conditions of teachers by ensuring orderly learningenvironments, adequate time for planning and preparation, and a reduc-tion in paperwork.

3-4Provide methods and techniques of instruction to meet students' vary-ing abilities and learning styles.

3-5Develop effective methods for recruiting teachers to meet identifiedneeds.

3-6Develop and implement methods to enhance the public's perceptionof teachers and the public schools.

2

GOAL 4OrganizatiOn ahdmanagement:The organizationand managementof all levels ofthe educationalsystem will beproductive,etfidieht, andaddountable.

OBJECTIVES4=1

Review and redefine the responsibilities of the State Board of Educa-tion, the Centrill Edifcation Agency, and regional education servicecenters, and reergani2e to fulfill the mission of the public educationsystem.

4-2Improve the statewide acCreditation proceSS by using a performance-based accountability and evaluation systern and attend, on a prioritybasis; to those districts mOst in heed Of regUlatory attention.

4-3Ensure that all certified public school administratort deMenstrate com-petency in instructional leadership and management.

4-4Ensure that the training of school board members and professional ad=ministrators strengthens their abilities to direct the educational prOceSS.

4-5Establish a continuous, statewide educational planning process.

Institute a statewide information delivery and retrieval system.

4:7Recruit qualified Stafft that relied AS heady as possible the ethnic cnm-position of the state as a whole.

4-8Strengthen coordination betWeen the Central Education Agency andother state agencies, collegeS and uniVertities, employment trainingprograms, and the private sector.

4-9Plan to increase local responsibility for quality educaticinal programs.

4-10Investigate and implement methods to improve the ability Of Smalldistricts to use funds efficiently and to deliver a wellzbalanced cUrricUlUmof high quality to all students.

GOAL 5Finance: Thefinanding OfpubliC edudatitonwill be equitableto all students inthe state.

GOAL 6Parent and COM-munity involve-ment: Parentsand othermembers of theCOmmunity willbe panners inthe improvementof sch0OlS.

OBJECTIVES

Develop a management and financial reporting system that will pro-vide meaningful and timely information at the state, district, and cam-pus levels.

5-2Identify price differentials in program and service costs among districtson a continuous basis.

5-3Monitor equalization and equity in the distribution of funds and relateprogram effectiveness and student progress to costs.

54Analyze and evaluate all funding sources on a continuing basis.

5-5Analyze the financial impact of the education reform movement, andestimate education costs for the 1985-95 period.

5=6Strengthen the accountability process, including accreditation and auditprocesses, seliTctUid management audits, and a periodic review of costsby campus, if needad, to ensure adequate student progress.

Administer and manage the Permanent School Fund for the optimumuse ind Ix:merit of public school students and public education.

OBJECTIVES

Improve parental involvement.

Increase communication betWeen teachers and parente regarding theacademic performance and development of students.

6=3Provide educational programs that strengthen parenting skills and helpparents to provide educational assistance to their children.

6-4Develop mutually beneficial partnerships between schools and com-munity entities.

6-5Initiate and develop a long-range plan for adult and communityeducation.

411

GOAL 7Innovation: Theinttructional pro-gram will be dein-tinually improvedby the develop-ment and Lite Ofmore effectivemethods.

GOAL 8Communications:Communicationsamong all publiceducation in-terests will beconsistent, timely,and effective.

OBJECTIVES7-1

Investigate new technologies which improve student performance,strengthen the curriculum, and achieve educational goals.

7-2Develop dGmonstration programs for new instructional arrangementsand management techniques.

7;3Institute tn information exchange that collects and disseminates dataabout advancements in education and systematically obtains adviceabout current prattices and results from representatives of educationalorganizations, research groups, and schools.

7-4Develop a comprehensive, coordinatedolan kir a statewideeducationalresearch effort aimed at improving all facets Of public education.

OBJECTIVES8-1Communicate state education policies, needs, and performance to theGovernor, the LeOslature, students, parents, teachers, school ad;ministrators, and the public.

8-2Reflect school district differences such as size, socioeconomics, urbanand suburban factors, and community characteristics in reportingeducational performance.

8-3Provide the media with accurate information on a timely basi&

8-4Determine public perceptions of local schools and provide informationabout developments and achievements in the public school system.

8-5Increase the public's awareness that Texas' economic base haschanged dramatically and that as a consequence, students need to suc-ceed in school if they are to have an opportunity later to achieveeconomic success.

5 12

Summary ofHouseBill 72

The Texas Legislature;meeting in a special summer ses-sion in 1984; enacted sweepingreforms of the state's publiceducation system in legislationcommonly referred to as HouseBill 72. The passage of this land-mark legislation, which revampedvirtually every aspect of publicschooling in Texas, grew out ofthe actions of the 68th TexasLegislature the previous year.

At the 1983 regular sessioncame to a close, the TexasLegislature adopted HouseResolution 275, which estab7-lished a special 22=member com-mittee to "study the issues andcontinuing concerns relating_ topublic education in Texas." Thegovernor appointed members tothe Select Committee on PublicEducation in June 1983 andnamed Dallas businemman H.Ross Perot as chairman. Thecommittee was comprised ofstatewide elected officials;legislators; members of the StateBoard of Education and localschool boards; educators; civicand community leaders; andbusinessmen;

Over the next 10 months, theSelect Committee studied publiceducation intensely and held pub-lic hearings in all comers of thestate to gather testimony fromparents, teachers, administrators,and local school Poard membersas well as nationally-recognizedconsultantt. In April 1984, thecommittee presented its recom-mendations to the governor, whocalled a special session of theLegislature for the purpose of

adopting and funding the recom-mendations of the committee.

Most of the Select Commit-tee recommendations, many ofthem tempered by compromises;were incorporated into theresulting education reform billknown as House Bill 72. Thismeasure significantly changedpractically every aspect of publiceducation in Texas. Some ofHouse Bill 72's major provisionsinclude:

Changing, for a four-yearperiod, the 27-member electedState Board of Education to a15-member panel appointedby the governor. The StateBoard will become a 15=member panel elected bydistrict in the November 1988general el6ction with membars

6

taking office in January 1989.

Revising the state fundingsystem to distribute more sMtefunds to property-poor schooldistricts and to provide for bet-ter equity among schooldistricts across the state.

Requiring all currently certifiedteachers and administrators topass a basic skills test inreading and writing by June30, 1986; to be eligible forpublic school employment inthe 1986-87 school year.

Requiring high school studentsto pass an exam in Englishlanguage arts and mathe-matics before receiving adiploma.

Mandating that students in allodd-numbered grades be

tested on minimum skills.

Directing the new State Boardof Education to devise state-wide systems for on-the-job ap-praisals of teachers andadministrators.

Establishing a fouNevel "careerladder system to reWardoutstanding teachers with An=nual pay bonuses.

Ettablishing a prekindergartenprogram for disadvantagedAnd limited English proficientfour-year-olds and an eight-week, language intensive sum-mer program for limited

English proficient childrenentering kindergarten or thefirst grade.

Reducing class sizes inkindergarten through secondgrade to a maximum of 22students ger class beginningin the 1985-86 school year andextending the 22-student limitto the third and fourth gradesbeginning in 1988-89.

Setting a statewide passingstandard of 70 (on a scale of100) And prohibiting socialpromotion.

Initiating the "no-pass/no-

play" rule that requires stu-dents to pass all their courses(exemptions may be providedfor honors or advancedcourses) during a six-weeksgrading period to be eligible toparticipate in extracurricularactivities during the nextgrading period.

Denying a student credit i4 heor she accumulates more thanfive unexcused absences persemester in any course.

Directing the State Board toset long-range goals and ob-jectives and to adopt a four-year master plan for publiceducation.

Providing an across-the-boardpay raise for teachers; in-ClUding raising the minimumbeginning annual salary for afirst-sear teacher from$11;000 to_$15;200, and com-ptessitig the Salary scale toallow frit more rapid advance-ment. A tlatStoom teacherwith a Master's degree at thehighest step of the pay scaleearns a minimum of $25;460a year.

_Giving teachers- a 45=minuteplanning period during theschool day.

7

1 4

The StateBoard ofEducationAnd ItsCommittees

The year 1984 marked morethan a quarter century sinceTexas took major strides towarda modern educational systemwith the passage of the Gilmer-Aikin laws. That legislationestablished the FoundationSchool Program and placed thestate's responsibility for publicschools in an eitcted State Boardof Education, a commissioner ofeducation appointed by the Boardand a new state educationagency.

In the summer of 1984,House Bill 72 was adopted in aspecial legislative session follow-ing a year of study and statewidepublic hearings by the SelectCommittee on Public Education.House Bill 72 abolished the ex-isting 27-member elected StateBoard of Education and directedthe governor, with the assistanceof the Legislative EducationBoard, to appoint a 15-membertransitional State Board of Educa-tion from 15 equally populateddistricts in Texas.

Under present law, the termsof the governor's appointees willexpire on January 1, 1989, whentheir positions will bt filled by 15members eltcted at the generalelection of November 1988.Seven of the members elected atthat time will serve twolear termsexpiring January 1, 1991, andeight membtrs will serve four-

year terms expiring January 1,1993. Subsequent Boardmembers also will be elected.

The State Board of Educa-tion adopts rules and establishespolicies dealing with the state'spublic education system and hasa broad array of authority over theelementary and secondary schoolsystem, certain adult educationprograms and communityeducation.

As the governing body forthe Texas Education Agency, theState Board of Education ap-points the state commissioner ofeducation and approves theorganizational plan of the Agen-cy. The commissioner, in turn,supervises administration of theAgency and also serves as ex-ecutive officer of the State Boardof Education.

With the advice andassistance of the commissioner ofeducation, the Board formulatesproposed budgets and overseesthe administration of state ap-propriations for operating theFoundation School Program, theTexas Education Agency and theother programs for which theBoard has responsibility. TheBoard establishes goals for thepublic school system and adoptsand promotes four-year plans formeeting those goals.

As part of its effort to assurethe best possible education forpublic school students, the Boarddesignates and mandates instruc-tion in what are termed the"essential elements of a well-balanctd curriculum." The Boardrequires evidence that the essen-tial elements are being taught asa condition for continued schaoldistrict accreditation. The Boardalso establishes rules for theoperation of programs to meet thespecial needs of students in suchareas as bilingual, vocational,compensatory and specialeducation.

Students in all odd-

81 5

numbered grades are required totake assessment tests thatmeasure basic skills in reading,writing and mathematics. In addi-tion, students must pass an exit-level test in mathematics andEnglish language arts as a con-dition for receiving a high schooldiploma. The State Board ofEducation approves theseassessment tests and determinesthe passing scores for the tests.

The Board approvesminimum standards for theeducation of teachers and adoptsrules for certification of teachers,administrators and other profes-sional personnel customarilyemployed in public schools. Ex-aminations for testing studentswho want to enrol in teachereducation programs, for testingteacher candidates before theyreceive state certification and forcontinuing the certification of cur-rently certified teachers and ad-ministrators have also beenadopted by the Board. Further, anappraisal system to evaluate theclassroom performance ofteachers has been developed,and plans are underway todevelop a system for the ap-praisal of administrators.

In its other activities, theBoard oversees investment of thePermanent School Fund, reviewsand adopts textbooks for use inthe public schools, approvesschool district vocational pro-grams in its role as the StateBoard of Vocational Education,and adopts regulations and stan-dards for operation of adulteducation programs provided bypublic school districts and juniorcolleges.

The Board is required tomeet on the second Saturday ofJanuary, March, May, July,September and November. TheBoard also schedules meetings inother months as needed. During1985 and 1984 the Board metevery month except August and

December Meetings usually areheld in Board facilities in theWilliam B. Travis State OfficeBuilding in Austin; On occasion,the Board holds meetings in otherTexas cities to give citizens inother areas of the state a betteropportunity to attend Boardmeetings. Board members alsotake advantage of the meetingsotitside Austin to visit local schooldistriota and education servicecenters. The State Board met inBrownsville in October 1986 andSan Antonio in factober 1986.

Although policy decisions aremade by the full Beard at its man-dated or called meetings, much ofthe detailed preliminary work iscompleted in committee sessionsusually held on the Fridaypreceding each Baard meeting.Here, members of four StandingcommitteesFinance and Pro-grams, Students, Personnel, anaLong-Range Planningconsideritems in the Board's scheduledagenda and review staff progressreports of work underway, pro-posals for new programs and sug;gestions for improving currentefforts:

Responsibility for thepreliminary work in areas in-cluding school finance, invest-ment of the Permanent SchoolFund; vocational education pro-grams; textbook distribution andTexas Education Agency ad-ministration rests with the Com-mittee for Finance and Programs:The Committee for Students hasresponsibility in areas includinginstructional programs, textbookcontent, cui ricuium; studenttetting, alternatives to social pro-motion, discipline management;the 'no-past/no-play' rule andother extracurricular activity rules.The Committee for Personnel isresponsible for areas such asteacher testing, the teacher andadministrator appraisal systems,teacher certification, the careerladder and standards for teacher

training in colleges of education.The Committee for Long-RangePlanning has responsibility forareas including the long-rangeplan for public education, the ac-creditation system and enucationservice centers.

Approximately one weekbefore each meeting, copies of

STATE BOARDOF EDU TIONDISTRICTS

the preliminary Board agenda aremade available in the 20 regionaleducation service centers locatedthroughout the state: A list ofagenda items is published in theTexas Register. The final agendais available to the public and thenews media at Board meetings;

mimic

.1 6

Implementa-tion ofEducationReform

The State Board of Educa-tion was appointed by the gover-nor in the early fall of 1984. Whilethe Legislature had set downr-..iucation law in House Bill 72 itwas the responsibility of the StateBoard to adopt rules and guidethe other activities required for im-plementation of the law in localschool districts.

Since its first meeting in Oc-tober 1984 through its November1986 meeting, the Board hasadopted some 400 rules andestablished through other meansadditional policies that affect thestate's public education system.Virtually all these rules andpolicies play a part in reaching

House Bill 72's goal OT improvededucation for the schoolchildrenof TeXaS.

One of the most importantprovisions of House Bill 72directed the State Board ofEducation to "establish goals forthe public school system, andadopt and promote four-yearplans for meeting these needsand goals." The first step in thiscomprehensive planning processwas the adoption of a statementof long-range goals and objec-tives for public education. Aftermany months of work by theCommittee for Long-Range Plan-ning, this statement was adoptedby the Board in October 1985:

The second step was thedevelopment of a system-widelong-range plan designed to ac-complish the Board's goals andobjectives; Under the direction ofthe Board and the Committee,Texas Education Agency staffmet with nationally recognizededucational and financial expertsto construct activities that wouldaccomplish, over a period of

years, the Board's goals and ob=jectives for improvingthe publiceducation system of Texas. Theresulting Long;Range Plan forPublic Education in Texas,adopted by the Board in January1987, includes scores of specificactivities assigned to the variousdepartments of the Agency;regional and local actions to betaken by education servicecenters; local school districts, col-leges and universities; and a callto the public at large to participatein improving Texas publiceducation:

In addition to the develop-ment of the Long-Range Plan, theBoard has worked throughout thepast two years to fulfill the man-dates of House Bill 72 and otherreform legislation; The scope ofthe law prevents discussion in thispublication of the implementationof every provision; Highlights ofthe implementation of some of themost significant reforms, pre-sented as they relate to theBoard's long-range goals and ob-jectives, follow in this report.

10

GOAL 1Student perfor-mance: Allstudents willbe expected tomeet or exceededucatitorialperformanceStahdardt.

The TEAMS testsThe improvement of student

achievement is the basic goal ofevery provision of House Bill 72.To help gauge student perfor-mance; the law requires basicskills testing of students in eachodd-numbered grade; Moreover;a passing grade on an exit-leveltest, administered beginning inthe eleventh gradei is requiredbefore a student can receive ahigh school diploma.

The State Board of Educa-tion is responsible for overseeingthe development of these basicskills tests. Based upon therecommendations of its Commit-tee for Students, the Boardawarded a contract in the springOf 1985 for development of theTexas Educational Assessmentof Minimum Ski HS (TEAMS). TheBoard approved test items for theTEAMS exams, which measurereading, writing and mathematicsskills of students in grades 1, 3,5, 7, 9 and 11. In addition toEnglish-language TEAMS tests,the Board has approved

:

Spanish-language TEAMS testsfor first and third grades. It is in-tended that the results of theTEAMS tests for students at allgrade levels be used to identifyand remediate academic.weaknesses.

The TEAMS exit-level tests(graduation exams) were given

for the first time in October 1985to approximately 191,000eleventh graders. Eighty-eightpercent of those students passedthe math section of the test; 91percent passed the Englishlanguage arts section; and 85percent passed both sections.When these TEAMS test results

TEAMS EXIT-LEVEL TESTSComparison of October 1985

and October 1986 PerformanceSTATEWIDE AVERAGES

ScaledScores* Mathematics

EnglishLanguage Arts

780

_

760

750

740 .-.

730

,

_ 720

710

700

1985 1986 1985 1966

*A statistical procedure allowing test scores to becompared from year to year

Eleventh graders' scores on the TEAMS exit level testsimproved by 20 points in mathematics and by 10 pointsin English language arts from 1985 to 1986

11

.1 8

were equated with nationalnormsalso a requirement ofRouse Bill 72=Texas studentsmilked in the 53rd percentile inmathematics, in the 50th percen-tile in writing and in the 46thpercentile in reading. This in-dicates that Texas eleventhgraders are performing at aboutthe national average when com-pared to students in other states.

Students who failed eithersection of the TEAMS test or whodid not have the opportunity totake the test in October weregiven another opportunity to passthe test in May 1986: Of the re-

tested students, 54 percentpassed the math section and 54percent passed the Englishlanguage arts section. Thismeans more than half thestudents who failed in Octoberwere able to demonstratemastery of reading, writing andmath just seven months later.The Board believes, consequent-ly, that the mandatory remedialhelp provided to students who failthe TEAMS test provides valu-able academic assistance.

The test was given for thesecond time to eleventh graderswho comprise the graduating

class of 1988 in October 1986.Results indicated a definite trendof improvement over the previousclass's performance. t.veragescores on the math section rosefrom 740 in 1985 to 760 in 1986while average scores on theEnglish language arts sectionrose from 775 to 785. Nationalpercentile rankings also im-proved significantly in math (fromthe 53rd to the 64th percentile)and in writing (from the 50th tothe 56th percentile), while thereading percentile remainedstable at 46.

Mthough improvements

STATEWIDE AVERAGENATIONAL PERCENTILE RANKINGS

1985-86 TEAMSP

E 99

Grade1

Grade3

Grade5

Grade7

Grade9

Grade11

R

C goE

N 90TI

LE

60

50*

N

s30

20

io

mq

F 4

P0a0FAFAr,

4_.

FrO

0.re;

4Kmm0

,,ei,

Oi Fo3 '.0, .01 00 e da ,w g0 IA 04

0 :relNo

p 0A A a _

, .eer

.

g

P ro

0e00pir,0rA_

MATHEMATICS READING WRITING

`Represents average achievement level of students nationwide

12

have been noted in student per-formance on the exit-level examfrom one administration to thenext, many students still areunable to demonstrate masteryof basic reading, writing andmathematics skills in order topass the test and receive adiploma. The Board will not besatisfied with improvements inTEAMS results until significantlyhigher percentages of studentscan pass the exit-level exam.

Gains were posted from1985 to 1986 in virtually allcategories of school districts,with the largest gains shown indiStricts with the highest percent-Agee of ditadVantaged andminority students. Although poorand minority students continue toSCOre lOWer Ori the reading,writing and math tests than otherstudents, their scores are improv-ing at faster rates.

Students in the state's 99poorest school districts gained 26points in average math scoresand 14 points in average Englishlanguage arts scores. The com-bined gain of 40 points in poordistricts was the largest gainshown among school districts ofvarying wealth..

In school districts with thegreatest number of disadvan-taged students (eo percent ormore in compensatory educationprograms), test scores improvedby 49 points from 1985 to 1986,whereas districts with less than20 percent of students in com-pensatory education postedgains of 21 points; Students inschool districts with 75 percent ormore minority enrollment showedgains of 38 points in combinedtest scores from 1985 to 1986compared to a gain of 29 pointsin districts with less than 10 per-cent minority enrollment;

A slightly smaller percent-age of students passed both sec-tions of the test in October 1986than in 1985-83 percent com-

DISADVANTAGED STUDENTPERFORMANCE GAINS

Combined gains in peribrmance ofdisadvantaged students, October 1985 and

netoher 1986 administrations.ScaledScore*

Under20%

20%-29%

30%-39%

40%-49%

60%-79%

Over80%

55

50

45

-6

35

.30

25

.,

-

20

_10_SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPENSATORY EDUCATION" ENROLLMENT

*Combined mathematics and English language arts gains (in numlwof scaled score points)

**Compensatory education funds are allotted based on the number ofStUdents eligible for the federal free or reduced price lunch program.Eligibility is determined by family size and income in relation to thefederal government's determination of poverty level:

pared to 85 percent. This veryslight decline can be attributed tothe fact that the passing standardwas raised for each section of the

13

2 0

test. The class of 1987 webquired to correctly answerleast 36 of 72 math questionsand 45 of 72 English language

MINORITY STUDENTPERFORMANCE GAINS

Gains In combined exit level scaledOctober 1985 and October 1986

Administrations Percent-of-M-Inorit

scores

Enrollment

0

35

30

20

15

ScaledScores*

Under10%

10%- 20%- 30%-19% 29% 49%

50%- Over74% 75%

SCHOOL DISTRICT MINORITY ENROLLMENT

*Combined mathematics and English language arts gains (innumber of scaled score points)

Students in school districts with the largest percentagesof disadvantaged students showed the greatest improve-ments in TEAMS scores from 1985 to 1986.

arts questions to pass the tin:.The class of 1988 was requiredto correctly answer a minimum of39 math questions and 50English questions; The StateBoard plans to review passingstandards for all the TEAMS testson a_regUlar basis.

Students have at least fouropportunitiestwice in theirjunior year and twice in theirsenior yearto pass the TEAMSexit-level test.

No-pass/no-play"rule

One of the most highlypublicized provisions of HouseBill 72 is what came to be knownas the "no-pass/no-play" rule;Thit proVision requires studentsto earn a passing grade in alltheir courses in order to beallowed to participate in extracur-ricular activities during the nextgrading period. As House Bill 72

14

21

perititS, the State Board ofEducation allows campus prin-cipals to exempt from the rulecertain honors classes in Englishlanguage arts, foreign lan-guages, social studies, fine arts,mathematics and science. By ex-empting students in advanced orhonors courses from the no-pass/no-play rule, the Boardbelieves students will not bediscouraged from taking morechallenging courses.

When the no-pass/no-playrule first went into effect in thespring semester of 1984-85school year, several lawsuitswere filed to prevent the statefrom prohibiting students fromparticipating in certain athleticevents, contests, agriculturalShoWS and So forth. The TexasSupreme Court eventually foundthe rule constitutional, and itsdecition Wet alleWed to stand bythe U.S. Supreme Court.

Statistics show that 32 per-Cent of studentt in gradet 7=12failed one or more courses in thethird six weeks grading period of1985. Eighteen percent ofstudents who participated in ex-tracurricular activities failed oneor more courses during thatsame grading period. _Reportsfrom many school districts in-dicate that the rule is having itsintended effect of encouragingstudents to concentrate first andforemost on academics.

The rule is serving as an in-centive to many students. TheBoard recognizes that otherstudents with special learningneeds may have difficulty achiev-ing a grade of at least 70 in orderto participate in ektracurricularactivities. Special instructionalsupport must be provided tothese students, such as remedialprograms, tutorials, motivational

counseling and small group In-struction; The need for such sup-port is recognized in the Board'sLong-Range Plan for Public

Education; Under the plan, boththe Texas Education Agency andlocal districts will make further ef-forts to encourage and assistthese students;

The State Board hasadopted other rules required byHouse Bill 72 to help ensure thatextracurricular activities do notinterfere With the academic in-

StructiOn Of students. For exam-ple, practicet for athletic eventsOr Othei didracUrricular activitiesare linlitttd tO a makiMUM of eighthbUrt pOt tehPol Week. Only onecOntett Or performance per eachextracUrrioUlar attivity it allOWedin one week. StUderitt may hotbe absent from claSS for riori=instructional activitieS mbre than

J.:A?

15

10 times each school year.Studentt May not receive creditfor a coUrte orgrade if they haveMore than five unexcusedabtencet per semester in secon-dary grades or more than l junexcused absences per year inthe elementary grades. All theseprovisions are aimed at em-phasizing the importance ofacademic study.

Reduced class s!zesTestimony presented to the

Select Committee on PublicEducation indicated that childrenin the early grades benefitedacademically from the in-dividualized instruction madepossible by smaller class sizes.To enhance a child's ability tolearn in the crucial early grades,House Bill 72 set a class size limitof 22 students in kindergartenand first and second grades; Thislimit is to extend to the third andfourth grades beginning in the1988=89 School year. Texasteachers say the smaller classsizes have resulted in more pro-ductive learning environments fortheir students.

House Bill 72 allowed thecommissioner of education togrant an exception to the classsize limitation if "the limits workan undue hardship on thedistrict." In implementing thisprovision, the Board authorizedthe commissioner to considertwo criteria in granting waiversa lack of available teachers anda lack of available classroomspace; Board rules state thatschool districts that receivewaivers should be in full com-pliance with the class size limita-tions_within three years;

Some 350 school districtswere granted waivers in the1985-86 school year, the majori-ty of those on the basis of lack offacilities.

Bilingual education

Bilingual educationin-struction in both English and astudent's primary language otherthan Englishwas mandated bythe Legislature beginning in the1974-75 school year. A decadelater, House Bill 72 increasedfunding for bilingual educationfrom approximately $7 million to$37 million in 1986-87 and man-dated new programs to furtherassist students in becoming pro-ficient in English. Becauseresearch indicates that childrenwho are assisted in overcoming;claming impairments at a veryyoung age greatly increase theirchances of academic success,House Bill 72 established twonew programs aimed at helpingyoung children get an early startin becoming proficient in English.

A prekindergarten programwas established for four-year-oldchildren who are either unable tospeak and comprehend Englishor who come from financiallydisadvantaged families (as deter-mined by eligibility for the federalfree or reduced-price lunch pro-gram); Prekindergarten isdesigned as an intenstvelanguage development program.At the direction of the StateBoard of Education, essentialelements were developed for thishalf-day program that stress thedevelopment of communicationand cognitive skills along withmotor development, social andemotional development and finearts. State Board rules allow nomore than 22 students per classin prekindergarten.

Parents have the option ofwhether to enroll their children inprekindergarten. A school districtmust offer a prekindergarten pro-gram if it identifies 15 or moreligible children in the district;

however, the commissioner maygrant waivers to districts whereadequate facilities for the pro-

111

gram are unavailable. A schooldistrict receiving a prekinder-garten waiver must submit a planshowing the steps it will take toprovide adequate facilities to ac-commodate a prekindergartenprogram.

The second program in-itiated by House Bill 72 for youngchildren is an eight-week,language-intensive summer pro-gram for four, five and six-year-olds. The summer program isopen to children of limitedEnglish proficiency who will beeligible for admission intokindergarten or first grade at thebeginning of the next schoolyear. Like the prekindergartenprogram, enrollment in thelanguage-mtansive summer pro-gram is optional with the parent.School districts that are requiredto offer bilingual education orEnglish as a Second Languageprograms and that identify 10eligible children are also requiredto offer the summer program ona half-day basis, with no morethan 18 students in each class.

16

23

.Tt

In addition to passing rulesto implement prekindergartenand the summer program, theState Board of Education tookother steps to enhance theeducational opportunities pro-vided to children of limitedEnglish proficiency. Technicalassistance to school districts hasbeen increased. bilingualhandbook was developed toassist school districts inestablishing instructional designsand instructional placements forthe limited English proficient stu-dent. Following a pilot study inthe spring of 1986, the Boardapproved a Spanish-languageTEAMS test for first graders. TheBoard also adopted a rule toallow children to be tested in theTexas Educational Assessmentof Minimum Skills program inSpanish during the first or thirdgrade; The results of theseTEAMS tests are intended toserve as diagnostic tools togauge students' remedial needs;Efforts to improve bilingualeducation in Texas schools also

included a pilot study; conductedby the Texas Education Agency,of student achievement and in-structional practices in local bi-lingual programs. The pilot studywill form the basis for a statewideevaluation of bilingual educationprograms.

Compensatoryeducation

Compensatory, or remedial,education provides instruction inidentified areas of deficiency andadditional time on task to enablea student to master the essentialelements for a course or subjectarea. House Bill 72 increased theappropriation for compensatoryeducation froin approximately$50 million to more than $300million a year tb finance a great-ly enhanced effort to provideemedial assistance to ttudefits.

Results of TEAMS tettt areviewed as key indicatort to deter-mine a student's need for ddim:pensatory education. Scho Oldistricts are required to offerremedial programs for studentswho fail to meet the minimUMpassing standards established bythe State Board of Education onany section of TEAMS exams.

The types of remedial pro-grams provided to students areleft up to local school districts;however, the Texas EducationAgency provides technicalassistance to districts inestablishing compensatory pro-grams. Guides for teachers weredisseminated to assist them inmeeting the varied instructionalneeds of their students. Otherteacher's guides focused onmathematics instruction and onstrategies to incorporate readinginto the content areas of scienceand social stUdiet to help buildthe reading skillt Of ttudents. Ad-ditional technical atsistancedocuments helped tOhooldistricts implement ddienpen-

tatory programs and suggestedways that parents can help theirchildren be more successful inachOol.

Special educationMore than 370,000 hand-

icapped students ranging in agefrom infancy to 21 years wereserved in special education pro-grams in Texas public schoolSduring the 1985-86 school year.Education reform efforts over thepast several years have en=hanced learning opportunities forhandicapped students by en-

couraging school districts to in-struct special education stUdentsin the same curriculum as otherstudents, with modifications ifnecessary.Handicapped childrenare required to be served in the"least restrictive environment."House Bill 72 specifically requiredall learning disabled students tobe considered for placement inother programs before beingreferred to special education. TheState Board of Education ex-panded upon that directive by re-quiring the same consideration forell handicapped students. A widevariety of placement options in-cluding regular and self-containedclassrooms, homebound pro-II I 1 Jams.

''4Ele=z;atmor-

grams; community centert andresidential schools are availableto serve the specific needs Ofchildren with different handicap=ping conditions;

The State Board of Educa=tibn has sought to increase thectkirdination between regular andtpedial education programs overthe past two years. Teachers inbtith programs now work moredlotely together to enable regularprograrn teachers to better servespecial education students whoare Mainstreamed into regularclattrbomt.

The goal of the specialeducation program is to help eachchild reach his or her potential: Atthe end Of the 1985-86 schoolyear, aletioSt 4,000 special educa-tion studentt graduated from highschool throUgh the regularacademic _prOgram while morethan 5,000 graduated throughspecial curridUlUrri. State Boardrules provide for Sorvidet to hand-icapped children through age 21.

DeOpout reductionHouse Bill 72 required the

State Board of Edutatibh to takeStelae to reduce the dropoutratea gbal that also receiveshigh priority in the Board's Long-

17

111...

Range Plan. As a starting pointfor those efforts, the legislationrequired a study of schooldropouts to be conducted by theTexas Department of Communi-ty Affairs in cooperation with theTexas Education Agency. Thatstudy was completed and itsresults released in the fall of1986.

The study found thatstudents drop out of school formany different reasons. Itestimated that 35 percent ofTexas students leave schoolbefore receiving a diploma andindicated the dropout rate ishigher among Hispanics andblacks than among whitestudents. The study also iden-tified the lack of consistent,reliable methods for defining andcounting school dropouts as amajor stumbling block in fightingthe problem.

The TDCA study is viewedas the initial step in overcomingthe dropout problem in Texas.The next step was taken in thefall of 1986 when the State Boardauthorized the Texas EducationAgency to contract for a follow-up study and to create a taskforce on dropout reduction. Thefollow-up study will produce astandard definition of school

dropout and will develop auniform accounting system to beused by all school districts indetermining how many studentsactually leave school withoutreceiving a diploma. This willgreatly enhance efforts to identifyat-risk students. The task forcealso will seek to identify suc-cessful dropout prevention pro-grams across the state and todisseminate information aboutthese programs to all schooldistricts.

School-agepregnancy prevention

Further efforts to reduce thedropout rate were taken in July1986 when the State Board ofEducation adopted a plan of ac-tion that emphasizes the respon-sibilities of parenthood as factorsin students' choice to leaveschool early and targets reduc-tions in the rate of school-agepregnancy. Entitled "Educationin Self Responsibility," the plancharges the Texas EducationAgency with:

Emphasizing prevention as-pects of school-age pregnancythrough curriculum in socialstudies, health, physicaleducation, science and voca-

tional education focusing onpersonal decision making andresponsibility;Collaborating with organiza-tions and other agencies in theidentification of high-riskstudents;Serving as a clearinghouse fordistricts to disseminate infor-mation about communityresources;Developing and disseminatinga kindergarten-grade 12 tech-nical assistance publicationfocusing on the teaching of selfresponsibility and decisionmaking;Providing technical assistanceto local education agencies,upon request, in the develop7ment and implementation ofresources for curriculum thatfocuses on the roles of deci7sion making and personalresponsibility in the preventionof school-age pregnancy;Organizing and conducting astatewide conference in Austinin February 1987 as thelaunching point for providingpositive leadership in the im-plementation of the teenagepregnancy prevention pro7gram, "Education for SelfResponsibility."

18 25

GOAL 2Curriculum: Awell=balancedCurriculum willbe taught sothat all studentsmay realike theirlearning pOten-tial and preparefor productivelives.

House Bill 248, passed in1981, specified 12 subject areasin requiring a Uniform curriculumto be taught in all Texas publicschools in order to help ensurethat students across the state aregiven the opportunity to study thesame essential elements of everysubjszt at every grade level.These requirements for teachingthe "essential elements" Werephased in over a period of sr.veralyears and were fully implerneotedin the 1985-86 school year, coin=ciding with the implementation ofthe provisions of House Bill 72.

House Bill 72, while leavingthe curriculum provisions of HB246 intact, mandated some newprograms (such as prekinder-garten) requiring state curriculumguidelines. In addition; House Bill72's requirement for testingstudents in reading; writing andMathematics in all odd-numberedgrades necessitated additionalgUidance to local school districtsfrom the Texas Education Agen-Cy'S curriCulUM development staffin those subject areas. Work-shops were held across the stateto familiarize school district per-sonnel_ with new essentialelements and to provide gold=ance to districts in devising theirown curriculum guides based onthe state's essential element& Inthe fall of 1986; all State Board ofEducation rules dealing with cur=riculum were updated, compiled,published and distributed to localschool districts;

Statewide passingStaridardiSocialpromotion

Prior to the passage ofHOuse Bill 72; a wide array ofgrading policies existed amongthe school districts in the state.Some school districts set thegrade of 70 as the minimum

1926

passing standard, while Otheraset the standard above or beloWthat mark. Because of this lack ofconsistency in grading amongdistrictsand even among cam=puses within a single schooldistrictHouse Bill 72 set thegrade of 70 as the minimumPassing standard and mandateda uniform; statewide system ofreporting grades; This systemVMS effective at the beginning ofthe 1985-86 school year asfollowt:

90 100 =80 89 =75 79 =70 74 =69 and below = failing

A State Board of Educationrule adopted in the summer of1986 requites each schooldistrict to draft its own policy ongrading and promotion to ensureconsistency from campus tocampus. The rule als0 requiresthat the grade of 70 be based onthe requisite essential elementsnecessary to ensure success atthe next grade level. Byspecifically relating the passinggrade to a student's ability tO Sim=ceed in the next grade 10Vel, theBoard's rule complieS WithHouse Bill_ 72's prohibitiOnagainst "social promotion," thepractice of promoting a studentfrom one grade to the next forsocial rather than academicreasons; The adoption of the rulefollowed a series of public hear-ings, meetings with schooldiStricts and lengthy Boarddeliberations aimed at develop-ing a blede and consistent policyon grading and promotion;

In taking steps to eliminatesocial proMOtiOn, the State Boardof EducatiOn realized that alter-natives MUM be provided forthose SHAMS Oiht4 cannot meetthe requirements for prOmotion.The rule adopted In the Summer

of 1986 requireS districts todevelop policies that describe thealtematiVé programs they deemappropriate for students who areunable to be promoted. Thesealternatives could include reten-tion in a grade, special tutoring,separate remedial classes or amyriad of other programs de-signed to help ensure theacademic success of the student;School districts are held account-able through the accreditationmonitoring process for the suc-cess of their alternative pro-grams. Districts also are requiredto report to the parents ofstudents placed in alternativeprograms the actual functionallevel of the child.

Gifted educaaonState funds were first made

available in 1979 for local schoolprograms for the gifted. Since theinitial apprdpriation of $2 millionin the 1979-80 school year,legislative changes in 1984 and1985 brought about Increases infunding and developmental ef-forts for gifted education; In the1985-86 school year; 447 of thestate's 1,07 school districtswere operating gifted programsapproved by the State Board ofEducusion. A total of $6.9 millionin state funds was appropriatedfor the programs;

A law passed in 1985 al-lowed state funds to be used tocover administrative experiSetinvolved in developing new pro=grams for the gifted. Schodldistricts that receive déVélop=mental program funding MuStbegin operating gifted prograMSwithin one year.

The State &mid Of Edirne=tion is permitted to Ute 10 per=cent of the state allcicatiOn for theprogram for special projects aim-ed at enhancing the education ofgifted studente. Projects approv-

In 44-Z4 0

ed by the Board include theTexas GoVernors School, a four-week, retidential summer pro-graM fOr gifted high schoolstudentsL the Future ProblemSolVing PrOgram, designed _toenhance critical and analyticalthinking Skills, oral and writtenCOMMUnication skills, and pro-blem solving strategies; theOlyMpics of the Mind Program, ayearclOng curriculum project thatalsO includes state and interna-tional team competition; and aStaff development programdesigned to assist school districtsinterested in developing pro-grams for gifted students

The Board also approvedthe use of $333,000 in federalfunds in the_1985-86 school yearfor four training institutes forteachers of young, disadvantag-ed, gifted students. Six such in-stitutes were approved for the1986-87 school year using$460,000 in federal funds. Addi-tionally, $60,000 in federal funds

202 7

was appropriated in 1985-86 tostudy the feasibility of the TexasGovernOr's School and $75,000in 1986-87 to assist in theschool's implementation.

Vocational educationIn addition to developing the

Long-Range Plan for TexasPublic School Educatitin, theState Board has constructed amaster plan ler vocational educe;tion as required by House Bill 72.Following months of work bybusiness and industry leaders,members of the Advisory Coun-cil for Technical-VocationalEducation, Texas EducationAgencyStaff and members of theState Board's Committee forFinance and Programs, the voca-tional education master plan wasadopted by the Board in January1987. The plan is designed toredirect vocational education inTexas to provide students withstrong academic foundations and

broad occupational skills.The plan emphasizes the

need for strong academic foun-dations for all students in allgrade levels, while maintainingcareer training as an integral partof the total education process.The plan calls for a flexible cur-riculum designed to informstudents of the wide range ofCareer options open to them; ItalloWt students to enroll in train-ing for specific occupations onlyin the eleventh and twelfthgradet. While aimed at meetingthe needa of all students, cur-riculuM in vocational educationprogratna alto will be adaptabletb Special heeds of educational-ly ditadVaritapd students orthose Who taneiot meet stan-dards for proMoticin.

The plan calls for schooldistricts tb integrate keyboardingand computer literady into theelementary turriculutri over afive-year, phase=in pericid to givestudents an early introducticin totechnological skills.

In gradea 7 and 8, the Cur-riculum wOuld tbritititte tb stressacademics while requiring a onW-half credit course 41 life Manage-ment skills. This course coverssuch topics as characterdevelopment, decision makingand problem solving, family andpeer relationships, parenting,self-responsibility, nutrition, com-munication skills and manage-ment of resources. The seventhand eighth grade curriculum alsoallows all students to explorecareer opportunities;

Courses in grades 9-12would continue to develop strongacademic foundations and pro-vide general work-related skillswhile offering opportunities forexploration in a number _of dif-ferent occupational fields;Specific occupational training isoffered only in grades 11 and 12;reflecting the Board's belief thatvocational education must be a

supplement to, not a a substitutefor, academic skills. The StateBoard plans to evaluate the ap-propriateness and continuedneed for occupationally-specificcourse offerings at the eleventhgrade.

A course entitled "Principlesof Technology," offered ingrades 11 and 12, provides stu-dents the opportunity to applytechnical principle.: of algebra,trigonometry, calculus, biology,chemistry; physics and com-munications skills in preparationfor advanced training at the post-secondary level;

The plan calls for new voca-tional courses to be drawn froma list of priority occupations de-veloped by the State Board toidentify jobs that will be in highdemand in the future;

At the post-secondary level,the plan is designed to meet theemployment needs of the statefor a skilled workforce by pro-viding additional occupationaltraining. It calls for effective part-nerships to be forged amongeducation at the secondary andpost-secondary levels, businessand industry, and governmental

liargaosses

21 28

agencies at all levels.The plan also provides for

regional planning committees tocoordinate education and train-ing programs; services and ac-tivities within a region; In addi-tion, leaders from schools at thesecondary and post-secondaryleVels, business; industry; andgovernmental agencies will ex-amine current and future occupa-tional trends to ensure vocationalprograms are meeting theBOard't goalt.

To &turd that the Board'sMatter plan for Votatkinal educa-tiOn it aUtcettful,_ the plan callsfor a change in fUnding Whichwould base allocationt for Voca4tional edUcation Oh the COSta ofproviding instructiOn Under thenew plan.

It is expected that the masterplan will help ensure thatstudents are trained forjobs thatwill be in demand in the futureand that they will have thenecessary skills to continue tolearn in preparation for emergingtechnologies.

In addition to House Bill 72's--requirement for the developmentof a master plan for vocationaleducation; the legislation alsotransferred authority for post-secondary vocational trainingprograms from the Texas Educa-tion Agency to the CoordinatingBoard; Texas College andUniversity System; Both agen-cies continue to work closely inproviding vocational training op-portunities to Texas citizens;

Budget cuts initiated by theLegitlatUre in 1986 promptedother thatiget in the state'sVcicational education program. AredUttion of MOre than 30 per-tent (frOM $8.1 Million to $4.2million) itt the TEA'S ad-ministrative bUdget for vocationaleducation neceatitated theelimination of 10 VOcationaleducation field officeS adrots thestate.

GOAL 3leathers andteaching:Qualified andefkactive Wacherswill be attractedand retained.

The Texas TeacherAppraisal System andthe career ladder

In an effort to keep wellqualified teachers in theclassroom, House Bill 72 set upa system to reward outstandingteachers with salary bonusesbased on their performance, ex-perience, job-related education,advanced academic training andjob assignments. As teachers par-ticipate in advanced training andmeet high performance stan-dards; they may advance up thefour-level career ladder to earnannual bonuses ranging from aminimum of $1,500 on Level 2 toas much as $6,000 on Level 4; Inthe 1984-85 school yearthe firstyear the career ladder wasimplementedapproximately 40percent of Texas teachers wereplaced on Level II of the careerladder and received supplementsaveraging $1;624. Teachers willbe eligible for Level 3 beginningin the 1987-88 school year andWill be eligible for Level 4 begin-ning in the 19890 school year.

To help determine ateacher's placement on thecareer ladder, House Bill 72 alsocalled for a uniform, statewide ap-praisal system to evaluate theclassroom performance ofteachers: The Texas Teacher Ap-praisal System, however, haslush broader implications that go

beyond career ladder considera-tions. The system is designed toprovide thorough, objective ap-praisals of teaching performanceand to help teachers take specificsteps to improve any teachingweaknesses. For these reasons,the Board believes the TexasTeacher Appraisal System willhave a tremendous impact on im-proving the quality of teaching inthe state's public schools.

The appraisal system isbased on a set of observable irdicators of good teaching perfor-mance. These indicators make upthe appraisal instrument; which isused by trained and certified ap-

praisers in evaluating classroomperformance. The 72 indicatorsare grouped under five majorareas called domains, whichcover planning and evaluation, in-structional strategies, cle.sroommanagement and organization,presentation of subject matterand learning environment.Teachers are appraised twiceinch school year by each of twocertified appraisers, one o; whommust be the teacher's supervisor.Teachers also complete a self=appraisal. Finally, a summativeconference is held between theteacher and at least one appraiserfor a discussion of the appraisalresults and any particularstrengths or weaknesses noted inthe appraisals. The conference iscrucial to the teacher's profes-sional growth since it prescribesspecific steps to be taken for anynecessary improvements in theteacher's classroom teachingabilities.

29

The State Board of Educa-tion began working on the ap-praisal system in the fall of 1984.Initial work included an examina-tion of many of the existing ap-praisal systems used in variousTexas school district& Researchon teacher appraisal systemsacross the country also wasexamined.

Classroom teachers, ad-ministrators and other educatorswere then appointed to theTeacher Appraisal Advisory Com-mittee to provide field-based sug-gestions for Texas EducationAgency staff working with theBoard's Committee for Pergonnelon the statewide appraisalsystem. One of the advisory com-mittee's first tasks was the reviewof a job-relatedness surveydesigned to determine exactlywhat a teacher should know, oractually be able to do, in order tobe effective in the classroom.Each respondent rated a numberof items on the survey based onperceptions of observability; fre-quency and importance; Thesurvey was returned by approx-imately 17,000 Texas educators;The advisory committee then metin June and August of 1985 todiscuss recommendations for pro-cedures to design the appraisalprocess.

The CoMmittee for Person-nel in October 1985 cempleted itsplant for en appraital inatrumenttts be uted in a piUot project involv;ing six Te kat achtfol diStritte. Thepilot_prejett intlUded the trainingof 90 Schobl adminittratorS whoSerVed aS appraisers of some1,500 teachers in the six pilotdistricts. The appraiser traineesunderwent a series of six-daytraining sessions that includedvideotapes and in-school obser-vations designed to help the ap-praisers pinpoint strong and weakclassroom conduct by teachers;

The appraisal instrumentwas further refined and dis-

tributed for public comment inJanuary 1986. Results of the pilotstudy and comments received ata public hearing were examinedin February 1986 by the Boardand Agency staff to determine thereliabiliV of the appraisal instru-ment, the_ usability of the ark.pre isal system and the quality ofthe training program presented toappraisers; Rules to implementthe teacher appraisal systemreceived initial Board approval inMarch 1986 and were given finalaPproval in May 1986;

During the summer of 1986,more than 13,000 administratorsand teachers were trained as ap-praisers. The new appraisal sys-tem was implemented in everyTexas school district in the fall of1986. The Board determined thatthe first appraisal perkid in the failwas to be a formative appraisal togive teachers and appraisers timeto familiarize themselves with thenew system. Beginning_with thespring appraisals in 1987, the ap-praisal system is to be used forcareer ladder purposes.

Members of the State Boardof Education are aware of the ini-

:sA

23 30

tial problemt that haVO occurredwith the implementation of the ap-praisal_system. Teachert and ad-ministrators have eXpreatedseveral concerns about the ap=praisal process and the appraigalinstrument; The Board _believesthe appraisal system is an ex;cellent initial effort to establish auniform method of evaluatingclassroom performance; At thesame time, the Board intends toreview the system carefully, to en-courage suggestions for im-provements from educators, torecommend needed Changes tothe Legislature, and to make ad-justments wherever necessary toensure that the system remainsfair, _objective and meaningful.The system will be perfected oVerthenext several years and, bVertime, will significantly improve thequality of teaching in Texas.

Teacher testingTeachers and prospective

teachers take three different tests;The Pre-Professional Skills Test(P=PST) it given to Collegesophomores withing to enter col-leges of educatibn. The Ekartilna-tion for the Certifidation ofEducators in Texas (ExCET) it atiinitial teacher certification tettgiven to graduates of collegOS ofeducation, out-of-state teacher&participants In alternative car;tification programs or certifiedteachers seeking additional cer-tifications; The Texas Examina-tion of Current Administrators andTeachers (TECAT) was given tomore than 200,000 educators asa condition of continued employ-ment. The TECAT will continue tobe offered to educators who werenot employed in public educationduring the 1985-86 school yearbut who were certified prior toFebruary 1, 1986, and wish tokeep their certificatet current.

The TECAT Wet one of themost highly publitized provisions

of House Bill 72. The State Boardof Education took several steps toensure that classroom teachershad_a voice in the development ofthe test, as required by House Bill72. A TECAT Advisory Commit-tee, comprised primarily ofeducators and including 19classroom teachers, was con-sulted throughout the develop-mental process to help ensurethat the TECAT measured thekinds of skills ueed routinely byteachers. A Bias Review Commit-tee, which included eightteachers, examined each testitem for possible minority bias.More than 1,600 teachersresponded to a job-relatednesssurvey while another 850teachers and administrators par-ticipated in item review and stan-dard setting. A field test of theTEC'AT involved some 4,500classroom teachers from acrossTexas. The State Board reviewedthe field test results in settingpassing scores for the exam. Allin all, a total of more than 7,000teachers participated in theTECAT development process.

Designed to measure basicreading and writing skills, theTECAT was administered for thefirst time in March 1986 to morethan 200,000 Texas educators.Those who failed the exam inMarch were given another oppor-tunity to take the test in June1986. The final passing rate was99.1 percent. Those who failedthe TECAT after both administra-tions were not allowed to continuein certified positions in the1986 87 school year. Passage ofthe TECAT is required for anyTexas educator certified prior toFebruary 1, 1986, who wishes toteach in any of the state's publicschools.

Legislation passed_ in 1981required both the P-PST and theExCET. The P-PST has bieen ad-ministered since 1983 to collegeundergraduates as a means of

measuring the basic reading,writing and math skills of prospec-tive teachers;

The ExCET, developedunder the direction of the currentState Board of Education, is com-prised of a total of 63 different ex-ams. Prospective teachers, Upongraduation froM a cci!lege ofedUcation, must pass one ExCETexam in their SUbjett area andanother exam in teaching theoryand skills in Order to be certified.The ExCET is also taken by per-sons who have completed alter-native certification programs, byout-of=state teachers, and by cer-tified educators who wish to bedertified in new teaching fields.Thirty4our different ExCET examsWere given for the first time inMay 1986. Twenty-nine additionaltests were then developed andwere scheduled to be ad-ministered for the first time inFebruary 1987.

PaperwOrk redUCtiOnThe massive changes in-

volved in education reform, andthe increased demands uponteachers as a result; promptedthe Texas Legislature; the StateBoard of Education and the TexasEducation Agency to take severalsteps to improve teachers' work-ing conditions by easing thepaperwork burden.

Following directives from theLegislature; the first step by theBoard was the adoption of a rulethat, for the first time, requiresstate accreditation monitoringteams to investigate the amountof paperwork required of teachersby local school districts. If the ac-creditation teams deem that thedistrict has placed an unduepaperwork burden on teachers,the district may br found in viola-tion of accreditation standardsand required to alleviate theburden.

24

31

Secondly, in November of1985, the State Board authorizedthe commissioner of education toappoint a Paperwork ReductionAdvisory COmmittee and reqUiredthat more than half the commit-tee't rnernbrt be classroomteachert. The 19=member com-Mined met for the first time inJanuary of 1986 and began anthorough study of the paperworkdeemed most burdensome byteachers.

After several meetings atwhich dozens of examples ofteacher paperwork were re-viewed, the committee deter-mined that school districtmisunderstandings about re-quirements of legislation passedin 1981not House Bill 72wereresponsible for most of the paper-work that teachers believed wasexcessive. The committee citedlesson plans and documentationof mastery of the essential ele-ments (the statewide curriculummandated by House Bill 246,passed in 1981) as most burden-some to classroom teachers. Ac-cording to the committee, somelocal school districts mistakenlybelieved that state accreditationmonitoring teams woUld requireextensive, detailed dcicUMenta=tion that the ettential eleMenttwere being taught, and COnse=quently, were requiring teachersto go to extreme lengths in writinglessen plans and in documentingStunt mastery in grade books.

With the advice of the Paper-work Reduction Advisory Commit-tee, the commissioner of educa-tion directed Texas EducationAgency staff to draft several ex-amples of lesson plans that wouldprovide the information necessaryto meet state requirements.These sample lesson plans weredistributed to local school districtsin the fall of 1986. Prior to thedistribution of the sample lessonplans; the commissioner sent let-ters to all school districts describ-

ing the problern of MiSUrider=standings abOut reqUired paper=work and instructing Schooldistricts to follow examplet ofminimal paperwork necessary tomeet state requirements.

Finally, following passage ofHouse Bill 50 in a speciallegislative session inthe summerof 1986, the State Board ofEducation in November 1986adopted a rule to implement thisnew law aimed at limiting theamount of paperwork that may berequired of classroom teachers:The rule specifically outlines thekinds of reports required ofteachers and directs each localschool district to devise a plan forreducing the paperwork burdenon classrooM teachers. Likewise,the Texat Education Agendy isrequired to inVeStigate Wayt toreduce the amount of paperworkthat it requireS from local dittrictt.

Alternativecertification

Recognizing the need torecruit new teachers to help fillclassroom vacancies across thestate, House Bill 72 authorizedthe creation of new training andcertification programs to serve asalternatives to the traditional pro-grams conducted by teachereducation colleges; The HoustonIndependent School District in the1985-86 school year was the firstto receive approval from the StateBoard of Education to operate analternative certification program;A total of eight alternative cer-tifibation programs were approvedby the Board for operation in the198W-87 School year. They are be-ing Conducted by the Houston,Dallas and San Antonio ISDs, theRegion XX Education ServiceCenter in San Antonio, PanAmerican University inBrownsville, Pan Arrierican

Jr.

University in Edinburg, TarittonStale University, and the SPcorroISDISan Elizario ISD/University ofTexas at El Paso.

Under rules established bythe State Board of Education, ap=plicants for alternative certificationprograms must hold at least abachelor's degree from aregionally accredited institution,have at least a 2.5 grade pointaverage on a scale of 4.0 andmuSt potteSt a minimum numberof semeSter hOurt in the subjecthe or aid Withes to teach.Thorough sere-ening prciceduresand background checkt are re-quired to ehaUra that indiVidualShave the proper commitMent,temperament and underStandingof the rigors of the teaching pro7-fession to embark on teachingcareers. Once accepted into analternative certification program,individuals undergo intense train-ing and participate in a full year'sclassroom internship under thedirection of a supervising teacher.The teacher-intern may earn ateaching certificate in prekinder-garten-grade 5; grades 6-8;grades 9-12 or bilingual educa-tion/English as a SecondLanguage if he or she receivesSatiSfactory evaluations duringthe internShip under the Texas

Teacher Appraisal System, isrecommended for certification bythe alternative cerfification pro-graM and passes the appropriateExaniination for the Certificationof EdutatorS in Texas (ExCET),

Board rules require TexasEducation Agency personnel tocarefully monitor all approvedalternative certification programsand to provide technical assis-tance where necessary. TEA Staffperform two on-site consultationvisits for each program during theschool year to verify the qualifica-tions of interns; ensure thatthorough screening proceduresare in place, observe interns inthe classroom, and interviewSupervisors and principals aboutthe interns' performance. A thirdOti=tite reView of each program istondubted by a panel of educe-tOrt Who Make reciommendationsconcerning reapprOval andstrengthening of the programs.

Some 165 individuals wererecommended for cerOfication bythe Houst0h ISD's alternative cer-tification program follbwing tht,completion of its 1985=86 training.Approximately 350 people are Okpected to be certified after corn;pleting training in the eight pro-grams operating in the 1986-87school year;

25

GOAL 4Organization andmanagement:The organizationand mana_gementof all levelt Ofthe educationalsystem will beOttiductive,efficient andaccountable.

AccreditationThe Texas Education Agen-

cy has had the responsibility formany years of accrediting localschool districts. In the past,however, accreditation was basedon a district's compliance withrules, regulations and laws. In thefall of 1986, the State Board ofEducation approved modifica-tions in the accreditation to beginmoving from a district-based,compliance-based system towarda performance-based system em-phasizing improvements inacademic achievement at thecampus level. The new accredita-tion system is founded on impro, r-ing student performance at in-dividual campuses with lowscores on the Texas EducationalAssessment of Minimum Skills(TEAMS) tests administered in all

odd-numbered grades. Twenty-seven elementary school cam-puses in 12 school districtsscheduled for accreditation in1986-87 were selected as pilotcampuses for the initial year ofthe neW accreditation program.Students at these campusespoSted ScoreS on the TEAMStests that fell into the loweSt 5 per-cent 6f TEAMS Stores statewide.

Performance-based accreditation calls for TEA staff toprovide these low-achieving cam-puses with existing research oneffective schools and to providetechnical assistance to help themdevelop and implement programsto improve student achievement.In addition, campuses whoseTEAMS scores fell into the lowest25 percent _statewide will alsoreceive technical assistance fromthe Agency, while campuses withhigh TEAMS scores will be ex-amined for use as models of ef-fective instructional programs. Inthe fall of 1986, the Agency beganpublishing a series of technicalassistance documents calledREACH (Realistic EducationalAchievement Can Happen),

which highlight effective schoolsliterature. The documents aredistributed to school districtsacross the state to help guidethem in self-assessment andself-improvement;

The performance-based ac-creditation system is designed tohelp school districts recognizetheir instructional weaknessesand improve their efforts to pro-vide a quality education to theirstudents. It is not intended tosingle out low-achieving districtsfor criticism and_ then dictatechanges to them. The campusesand school districts are intenselyinvolved in their own improve-ment plans.

While increasing stateassistance to school districts withlow TEAMS scores, the new ac-creditation system will decreaseemphasis on school district com-pliance with very technical rulesand regulations. It is con-lemplated that in the future,districts with a majority of effec-tive campuses will be given morefleXibility to operate their pro-grams under the new accredita-tion system. Additionally, the

e**

26

Micas Education Agency willcoordinate a program to allowthose districts to share their effec-tive instructional strategies withother districts across the state,eventually "pairing" high- andlow-achieving campuses to bringabout improvements.

The new accreditationsystem is viewed as an exciting,ambitious program that will bephased in over the next threeyears. The new accreditationsystem will allow the Agency tohelp school districts make themost of House Bill 72 reforms andto go beyond those improvementsto find what works best in theircommunities.

Instructionalleadership trainingfor school districtadMinittratbit

Literature and research fin=dings indicate that the most suc-cessful schools are those withprincipals who demonstratestrong leadership skills. Theseskills become even more impor-tant in times of reform andchange.

In August of 1985; the StateBoard of Education adopted ruleswhich require public school ad-ministrators to complete a basic36-hour instructional leadershiptraining program and to par-ticipate in a 12-hour continuing in-service training program eachyear. These rules establish thecontent of instructional leadeishiptraining programs and identifypotential sponsors of such pro-grams to include the TexasEducation Agency, local wheeldistricts, colleges and univer-sities, education service centersand professional organizations.POtential sponsors muSt apply kirapproval of programs.

The adoption of the Boardrules followed nearly two years of

work by TEA staff to develop aplan for instructional leadershiptraining. Working with recognizededucational experts, TEA de-signed a program based on find-ings reported in effective schoolsresearch. A pilot test of the pro-gram wet initiated in the spring of1985 and involved the training of50 Superintendents and prin-cipals. As a result Of the pilOt proj-ect, the training program wasrevised and was again pilot testedin several school districts with theparticipation of approximately 200administrators.

As of September 1; 1986; 94different sponsorsincluding 59local school districts; all 20regional education servicecenters, 13 colleges and univer-sities, the Texas Education Agen-cy and one professionalorganizationhad received ap-proval to provide the 36-hourtraining_programs. Approximate-ly 15.000 Scheel adrninittiatorshave cbmpleted the trainingpregram.

Sc7lool boardmember training

In addition to requi.ing in-structional leadership training foradministrators, House Bill 72 alsosought to improve the organiza-tion and management of schoolsby mandating training formembers of local school boardsof trustees;

Following the recommenda-tions of an advisory committeecomprised primarily of schoolboard members and superinten-dents, the State Board of Educa-tion in December 1985 adopter!the "Statewide _Standards onDUtiet Of a School BoardMeMber." The% Standardt Stateiin part, that local tdard membersshall:

Uphold educational and ethicalstandards that promo% Ihe

27

best interettt of the schooldistrict as a whole;

Understand the role andresponsibility of the board; theboard president and individualt:ioard members;

Understand and respect therole and responsibility of thesuperintendent;

Be familiar with the organiza7tional structure of the schooldistrict and methods of interac=tion with the community;

Attume ari active role in thedevelopMent Of tdard pdlioy;

Understand the importance ofeffective planning activities;

Accept responsibility for theadoption of high quality instruc-tional programs;

Work toward establishingSOund bUtiriett arid fiScalpractices for the district;

Adhere to legal and ethicalconstraints, and understandthe nature of school law;

Understand the board's Wm=tion relative to school districtpersonnel;

130 Well Vetted in boardmeeting manageMent, arid;

Pursue a continued course ofexcellence and effectivenessas a means of increasing skills;

ThOSO StandardS font thebasis of echool board membertraining. Rules state that allachool board members electedprior to January 1, 1987, shallcomplete a minimum of 20 hoursof training from approved spon-sors prior to the board meeting atwhich the 1988 call for election ofmembers is scheduled All boardmembers elected after January 1;1987; must participate in a localdistrict orientation session within60 days of their election; New

members also must complete aminimum of 20 hours of trainingfrom approved sponsors prior tothe end of their first year of ser-vice. Each year, board membersmust participate in an assess-ment of their training needs priorto establishing a plan for eachmember to meet those needs.Following the initial training, eachboard member must participate inat least six hours of training ac-tivities each year.

The PublicEducation InformationManagement System

The need for a more efficientinformation gathering systembecarne apparent shortly after thepassage of House Bill 72.Significantly increased funding forpublic education led to demandsby members of the Legislatureand the public for greateraccountability for performanceand effective results in the publiceducation system; These con-cems, echoed by the State Boardof Education and the TexasEducation Agency, led to anevaluation of the Agency'scapabilities for collecting, storingand analyzing information fromlocal school districts.

Development of a new infor-mation system was studied firstby a special Agency task force inDecember 1984. The task forcecreated a preliminary plan for acoordinated data-base for a^-countability, which was adoptedby the Board in July 1985. Thatplan established a framework fora new information syttem and leddirectly to the development of adetailed operational plan for thenew Public Education InformationManagement System (PEIMS).

The basic purpose of PEIMSis to provide the Board and theAgency with information that willassist them in making decisions

that affect the state's overallguidance of the public educationsystem; Most major activitieswithin the Agency will be sup-ported by PEIMS, including ac-creditation, program develop-ment, curriculum and instruction,state and federal funding, com-pliance, research and policy coor-dination; These activities involvethe use of reliable, specific infor-mation that PEIMS will collectrelative to school district ad-ministration, student characteris-tics, school finance, personneland other evaluative and monitor-ing information.

Among the specific objec-tives of PEIMS is the reduction ofpaperwork for local schooldistrictt. Many of the current "penand paper" forms that will bereplaced are some of the most ex-tensive and time wnsuming forschool district administrators;While PEIMS will not allow theelimination of tranuiction-orientedactivities such as processing ap-plications for textbooks or claimsfor school lunch and milk reim-bursement, it is anticipated that

28

the forms associated with theseactivities can be streamlined byusing PEIMS data. Efficiency ofinformation exchange betweendistricts and the Agency will begreatly enhanced by PEIMS' &NH=ty to collect computerized datafrom school districts and to com7pile the data for meaningfulanalysis of school operations, pro-gram effectiveness and so forth.

The TexasEducation Agency

House Bill 72 not onlychanged and improved the publicschools of Texas; it also changedthe scope and direction of thegovernmental entity charged withoverseeing the state's educa-tional system: the Texas Educa-tion Agency.

In April of 1985, the StateBoard of Education appointed anew commissioner of educationwho, in August 1985, began areorganization of the TexasEducation Agency that would bet=ter enable the Agency to carry out

the goals of House Bill 72. Thereorganization was intendiF4.1 toredefine the Agency's role in rela;tion to local school districts.Where in past years the fOcus hadbeen primarily on ensuring_thatlocal districts complied with stateBoard rules and policies, stateand federal laws, and othertechnical regulations, thereorganized Agency would con7centrate on helping schooldistricts improve studentachievement.

To improve the efficiency ofthe Agency and to accommodateits redirected efforts to assistschool districts; funds werereduced for compliance monitor-ing and were increased in areasproviding technical assistance todistrict& Several functions that

Bats torBee

OureAussettru

To throlue

Amt. Cm re *PneuesalOutelettel

ler

performed similar tasks but hadoperated separately in the pastwere grouped together for moreefficiency.

Despite the increased re-sponsibilities brought about byHouse Bill 72; the Texas Educa-tion Agency in the 1987 fiscalyear is operating with its amallestmatt in a decade. Some 1;086pkititions were authorized for theAgency iri 1978; the largest staffSince the TEA was establishedbeady 40 years ago. When HouseBill 72 WaS paSsed, the Legis-lattire appropriated an additional$4 million fot Agendy adMinistra-Von and the Staff grew _from 933actual employees hi 1983-84 tO1,026 itl 19/14=85, the *St year Ofthe House Bill 72 reforitt. hi the1985 regular legitlatiVe tettion,

Texas Education Agency

Istake Ward 01 Ethielthin

ICvnimissioner H Wee AWN

hetet Lem I I

ANS Bea kr*tuneDeeper*

fesaturn

1

PermPelee

CU terseTiartad

BebeSr IM

Melee fee*Psems

OorleuersoN1Wee*

pluw-PelaNnueServes

.01.111111,

Ostroleor

AWL teeklerhere, Feuer

Idol Lurch

'4=

teeBete

Tempest*

however, the Agency's adminis7trative budget was cut and staffhad to be reduced. For the1986-87 fiscal year, TEA has 911authorized positions. The Agencywas operating_ in January 1987with just 850 of those positionsfilled;

The streamlined opera 'onsof the Agency are organizedunder five departments; eachheaded by a deputy commis-sioner, which carry out theprimary functions of the Agency;These departments includeeducational quality; curriculumand program development;finance and compliance, researchand information, and internalManagement. Internal audit, legaland investment divisions reportdirectly to the commiStioner.

Ser BermOes

*bee-BlusterOareetet

Educe*Cwreset

WWII Busts*helve

ASA outOwes*Mast. AMMO

r-rd-rar.t,ktr.1

12=,..0=4,1;alsr

levee.

VW&

AnrCtuer-etAwevercand

Beene-Mil-Ottre farPea Ceretne Art. Omen fr

teem

lesurer Cotead PIAVIENIO.11

TeesAtrostrant Ineneest 1401

Ilkonmpowl

lesenelAunwerear andUNN Drottowent

*WelAwastrue

*mere

Orra fttroura

-BeekBeers

NewsPeers

auttel

TeseleBeen

Be*OeseenulSeenitret

Owe..

29

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Etkidatibil tetvidedefitett

Regional education servicecenters (ESCs) were created bythe Legislature in 1965 to provideregionalized services to localschool districts; The 20 ESCsmake quality ideas, services, in=formation and teaching materialtavailable to local achoolawhenever and Wherever they areneeded. About one;quarter ofESC operating funda are from thestate; the remaining 75 percentare from federal funds and,primarily, from contracts with localschool districts and other entities.

House Bill 72 created acloser alliance between ESCsand the Texas Education Agencyin an effort to bring unity and con-tinuity to school district operationsin support of statewide efforts foreducation reform; At the directionof the State Board of Educationand Agency staff began workingwith the executive directors of the20 service centers in late 1985 todevelop a comprehentiVe Stateplan for ESCs. A plan wasadopted by the State Board inMay 1986.

Thit Comprehensive StatePlan for Regional Educatic Ser-vice Centers establishes a well-defined charter addressing theESCs' authority and purpose,working arrangements, gover-nance, programs and services;organization, administration andoperations, and accountabilityand sanctions. For the first timesince the ESCs were created; theState Board has established ser-vice expectations for the centers.The plan states that the servicecenters play "a key role in thestatewide effort to improve thequality and effectiveness ofschools" An example of this "keyrole" in the reform effort was thetraining of some 13,000 teacherappraisers over a period of Sixweeks in sessions conducted at

each of the 20 regional centers.The cOmprehensive plan for

service centers standardizes theState programs and services whileleaving latitude for ESCs to re .spond to the individual needs oftheir regions. The centers arecharged with focusing the effortsof their contractual agreementswith local school districts on ac-tivities to bring about statewideeducational improvem3nt. Theplan gives clear responSibility tothe service centers for account=

ability to the State Board ofEducation, a responsibility thatwas not clearly defined prior todevelopment of the plan. In addi-tion; the plan requires compre-hbnsive service delivery planningon the part of the centers. Theseplans are approved by the Agen-cy in each center's application forfunding. Funding and servicedelivery is to be coordinated toachieve economy and to support:school districts' achievement ofStatewide goals.

MIN

-REGIONALEDUCATIONSERVICECENTERS

30

37

GOAL 5Finance: Thefinancing ofpublid educationwill be equitabletO ail Students inthe state.

Funding ofpublic education

House Bill 72 increased stateaid to public schools by nearly $3billion over a three-year period.Immediately prior to passage ofthe legislation, aid to publicschools under the FoundationSchool Program totaled $3.6billion; That figure increased to$4.5 billion in the 1984-85 schoolyear and to approximately $4.6billion in 1985-86; State aid perstudent in average daily atten-dance (ADA) increased signi-ficantly during the same period;from $1,315 per ADA in 1983-84to $1,560 in 1984-85, $1,71 in1985786 and $1,579 in 1986-87;

Also prior to passage ofHouse Bill 72, concerns were ex-pressed about the equity of theeducational program offered tostudentS in school districts whereproperty wealth varied significant-ly. To ensure equity amongdistricts, House Bill 72 revampedthe syStem of public schoolfinance to provide more statefunds to school districts with theleast amount of locally-taxable

property; The goal of the neWfunding system is to ensure thatall children receive a qualityeducation regardless of the sizeor wealth of the school district inwhich they live;

State aid to the poorestschool districts in the statethose with average propertywealth of $94,000 or less perstuderr:was increased by anaverage of more than 56 percent,br $849 per ADA from 1983-84 to1rAt5-86. State aid accounted forMore than 70 percent of the totalrevenue of these poorer schooldistrictS. The ttate's wealthiestdistricts, however; received justless than 10 pereent of their totalrevenues from slate sources.

The State Board of Educa-tion adopted numerous rulcl toimplement the new fundingsystem, which is bated on thenumber of students in a tchooldistrict as opposed to theprevious system that based fund=ing to a large extent on thenumber of personnel in eachdistrict; Rules also were adoptedto implement various funding ad=justments built into the system forsmall school districts, for districtSwith sparse populations spreadover wide distances, for districts

in urban and subilrban areasWhere the cost of goods and ser-vices is high, and for districts withlarger nUmbers of experiencedand higher=paid teachers. TheState Board,also at the directionof HUGO Bill 72, alithoriZedstudies of accountable costs andprice differentialt in public ifiduda-tion, reviewed the results of thosestudies and formulated recom7mendations to the Legislature.

Investment ofthe PermanehtSchool Fund

The Permanent School Fundis, one of Texas' most enduringand important constitutionallegacies to future generations. Itwas created with a $2 million ap-propriation by the 1854 TexasConstitution as a means of settingaside funds to ensure adequatefinancing for Texas schools;Subsequent constitutions; legis-lative acts and constitutionalamendments gave the Fund Eciproceeds from the tale and rent-al of more than 48 million acresof public land at WOIF as mineralproduction rights to 7 millionacres of land. Mineral rights to

31 38

tidelands to a distance of 10.35miles have also bben granted.Over the Yeart. MOre than $5billion has_ been deposited hitt) theFund by the General Land Officefrom these SOurces. Today'sschoolchildren are reaping thebenefitS of this income. The Per-manent School Fund now pro-vides a total of $533 million ayear, or $226 per child; to localschool districts. Ten years ago, itprovided just $33 per child; in-dicating the potential of growth ofthe Fund;

While not directly related tothe implementation of House Bill72, the prudent investment of thePermanent School Fund, none=theless; has been a top priority ofthe State Board of_EducatiOn. TheState Board's Committee forFinance and PrograMe it respon-sible for oVerteeirig the in-vestments of the Fund, Whith hasa cUrrent !narket value 0f $7.7billion. Careful investing by theState Board Of EdUcation has putthe performance Of the Perma-nent &kid Fund in the top 5 per-cent of managed funds in a sam-ple of funds surveyed. The rate of

retUrn on investments from theFond has grown from 3;4 percentin 1961 to 9.2 percent; and annualincome from investments hasgrown from $13;8 million to $533million;

The state constitution pro-_.hibits expenditure of the principalof the Permanent School Fund,requiring instead that the moneybe invested. In the past few yearsof state budget ahortfalls itiTexas, sortie intereSt has beenexpresSed in amending the Texasconstitution tb allOW some of theprincipal of the Permanent SchoolFund tO be expanded. The StateBeard Of _Education has taken aStrOng stand against this pro-1VSal. Board members believethat any expenditure of the prin-cipal of the Fund will be tanta-mount to a tax bill on futuregenerations; Lost principal fromthe Fund would significantly im-pair its potential for growth, andthe lost income eventually wouldhave to be replaced by taxdollars; If left intact, the Fund overthe next 10 years will provide localschool districts with $6;7 billionfar more than the total deposits

made to the Fund to date by theGeneral Land Office. Expenditureof the Fund's principal also couldjeopardize the Fund's Creditrating, which in turn timid theaatanthe credit rating of every schooldistrict wishing to use the bondguarantee prograM. Any schooldistrict that is not AAA=rated on itsown would, therefore, have to payadditional financing chargesWhen it borrows to build newfacilitieS, at a substantial extracoSt to local taxpayers.

The State Board of Educa-tion has gone on record onnumerous occasions in strong op-position to the expenditure of anyportion of the principal of the Per-manent School Fund; The Boardhas adopted a resolution regard-ing the Fund that states, in part:"The State Board of Education isfully convinced that no situationnow exists, and that none will ex-ist in the foreseeable future,which justifies the invasion of theprincipal or income of the Perma-nent School Funda course ofaction which could have but oneresult, the ultimate destruction ofone of Texas' areatest heritatiet."

PERMANENT SCHOOL FUND

Income _Distributed to the Available

ciFIR 1985

School Fund $ 652,030,987 $ 417,080,382

Annualized Income as of August 31st $ 532,713,117 $ 486,011,222

Receipts Distributed from the GeneralLand Office to the Permanent SchoolFund $ 407,645,990(2) $ 374,465,371

Cumulative Receipts Distributed from theGeneral Land Office to the PermanentSchool Fund Through August 31st $5,043,575,430 $4,635,929,440

Permanent School Fund Current Yield toCumulative General Land Office Receiptsas of AugUtt 31St 10.56% 10.48%

3239

STATUS OF THE PERMANENT SCHOOL FUNDAS OF AUGUST 31, 1986

SecurityType

DebtSecurities

EquitySecurities

Short ThrmSecurities Cash

FundTotal

BookValue $3,764,990,064 $1,400,988,756 $575,000,000 32,989,301 $5,773,968,121

Percentof Total 65.21% 24.26% 9.96% .57% 100.00%

Bookyield 10.39% 7.37% 6.35% 5.12% 9.23%

MarketValue ,465,777,031 2,761,822,673 575,000,000 32,989,301 7,835,589,005

Percentof Total 56.99% 35.25% 7.34% .42% 100.00%

MarketYield 8.76% 3.74% 6.35% 5.12% 6.80%

4 0

+.; ,

GOAL 6Parent and com-munity involve-ment: Parentsand othermembers of thecommunity willbe partneft inthe improvementof SdhOolS.

Research indicates thataarental involvement in a child'saducation is critical to theacademic success of the child.'arents who talk to their childrenabout school, who help them withaomework and provide a place toArdy, who read to them, and who;tress the importance of educe-ion play a significant role in theaducational achievement of their:hildren. For these reasons, theRate Board of Education and theFexas Education Agency are en-:ouraging local school districts toio everything possible to increaseaarent and community involve-nent in education. ExistingesTaarch on the effects of such in-folvement on a child's academiciuccess is shared with localichool districts as_part of the ac-weditation process. Participationtrid cooperation with parent andainamunity groups; such as the"exas PTA; is also encouraged.ri addition to these efforts; HouseMI 72 included several provisionsD help ensure that parents are

kept informed of their children'sprogress and that parents andstudents are aware of their re-sponsibilities in the school:

Parental involvementin disciplinemanagement

If student misbehavior con-tinually disrupts the classroom,the efforts of House Bill 72 to im-prove instruction will be greatlyimpaired. At the same time, un-rUly St Udell§ Should be giVen thebppOrtUnity to dontinUe theirstudies while being disciplined.The school, the student and theparent muSt have a mutual under-standing of the behavior that isexpected of the student and of theconsequences of misbehaviorand serious disciplinaryinfractions.

House Bill 72 required eachschool district to devise adiscipline management plan thatincludes a code of student con-duct and that thoroughly outlinesthe responsibilities of teachers;administrators; parents andstudents. State Board of Educa-tion rules mandate that parentsand students play an active rolein the development of schooldiscipline management programsby participating in schoolmeetings, in advisory committees,in training workshops, and soforth. The discipline managementplan must provide for parent train-ing workshops that teach homereinforcement of study skills andspecific curriculum objectives. Inaddition, each year, the schooldistrict must secure a signedstatement from parents to verifythat the parent understands andconsents to the responsibilitiesoutlined in the district's studentcode of conduct.

State Board rules also re-quire at least two parent-teacherconferences during the schoolyear for the parents of students

- 34

41

who have committed seriousdisciplinary infractions. Thedistrict must attempt to conductparent-teacher conferencesface-to-face.

The State Board of Educa-tion required the submission of allschool district discipline manage-ment plans for approval by theTexas Education Agency byFebruary 1986; implementation ofthe plans by September 1986;and training for school admin-istrators and teachers no laterthan December 1986.

The disciplinary provisions ofHouse Bill 72 aim specify theVpes of infractions that mayresult in suspension, expulsion orremoval of a student to an alter-native education program. Theseprovisions were altered by legisla-tion passed during a special ses-sion in the summer of 1986 tostreamline the expulsion pro-cedures for students who commitserious infractions including thesale or use of drugs or alcohol onschool campuses or at campus=sponsored events, possession ofa weapon, and assaults onteachers or fellow students.

Notification of parentsregarding students'failing grades

In order to assist theirchildren in the educational pro-cess, parents must be aware ofstudent progress or lack of pro-gress. Report cards are issued atthe end of every six weeksgrading peritx1 and must be signedby the parent. In addition; at theend of the first three weeks ofevery grading period, schooldistricts must send a progressreport to the parent or guardian ofa student whose grade average inany class is lower than 70 orwhose grade average is deemedborderline. School districts rilayrequire these students to attendtutorial sessions.

GOAL 7IntiOvatiOn: Theihttrudtional pro=gram will be con=tinually improvedby the develOp-ment and use ofmore efftctivemethods.

Distance learningsystems

Technological advanceshave had a profound effect onAmerican society: Texas and thenation must be prepared to takeadvantage of technological in-novations, and perhaps nowhereis this more Important than ineducation.

Computer literacy training forall junior high school studentsWAS mandated by House Bill 246;paSsed in 1981, which also re-quired additional computer train-ing fcir Stude, ts wishing to obtainan advanced high school diploma;These are not the only areas,however, where technology isreaching into the classroom.Computers are being used at alllev,els in support of instruction.Many schdOl districts are takingadvantage of "distance learning"systems to enhance the educa-tional programs offered to stu-dents and to teachers and ad!ministrators. The State Board ofEducation's Long-Range Plancalls for an increased emphasig

on the investigation and ini=plementation of technologicalsystems to enhance educatiOn.

An example of such a dit;tance learning system is the TPINNetwork; a one-way video, two-way audio satellite system thatbeams educational programs in=to schools across Texas. TI-IN isan example of an innovative,cooperative approach to techno-logy in education. The network isa private-sector operation thatcontracts with individual schooldistricts and education servicecenters which lease equipmentfrom the Network to receive TI-IN's satellite programming: TI-INbroadcasts its programs from theRegion X-X service center; andprograms are monitored andevaluated by the Texas EducationAgency to ensure the quality ofthe curriculum Certified teachersConduct classes live on the air,and StUdents can answer ques-tiOnt and talk back live throughthe tikci=Way audio system.Printed Materialt May also beSent intO the elaSsroom. The TEAalto prOdUcet _programs on theTIAN NetwOrk. Thit ihnoVatiVe ap-proach tO educaticin gives smallschotil dittriett accets to qualityeducational prOgrarriS in areaswhere the demand fete' Studentsis not sufficient tb warrant a full;time teacher. LikeWise, teachersand administrators can have ac-cess to quality inSerViCe training

without traveling long distances.Urban districts; too, can makebetter use of teachers' time anddittrict resources through the useof technological advances ininstruction.

Another similar distancelearning system is the InterAct in-structional television networkoperated by the Region IV educa-tion service center in Houston. In-terAct utilizes closed circuitmicrowave techholOgy to transmitaudio-video signals to partici-pating schdol dittrictS in theregion. Classrooms are equippedwith modified television set§ andinstruments to allow students tocommunicate _with inttrUctors.Like the TI-IN Network, InterActalso provides staff developmentprograms for teachers and ad=ministrators, credit and non-creditcollege courses, high schoolcredit courses and student enrich-ment viewing;

While technological _ad-vances in education can neverstand alone in the classroom,technology and traditional instruc-tional methods no longer can beviewed as two separate entities:They are working together to helpimprove student achievement:The State Board of Education iscommitted to investigating in-novations in technology that willhelp adVance House Bill 72's goalof a qualitY education for allchildren.

I 1.35 42

GOAL 8CommunicatiOns:CommunicatiOnsamong all publiceducation in-terests will beconsistent, timelyand effective.

The AnnualPerformande Report

The most comprehensive ef-fort to foster goPd communicationbetween school districts and thepublic is House Bill 72's require-ment that each district publish anannual performance report. Thelaw states that these reports mustdeacribe the district's educationalperformance and give financial in-formation related to costs in-curred by the district. Specifically,the reports must contain informa-tion by campus that includes:

(1) evaluationt of the quality ofeducation;

(2) scores On teStS With nationalhorma;

(3) reports of performance trendsimprevement or lack of

. improvement;(4) statements of costs for in-

struction, instructional ad-ministration, and centraladministration;attendance data and dropoutrates;reports on discipline;

(5)

(6)

(7) data on employees, trendsinemployment, and turnover;and

(8) teacher ratios by gradegroupings and by program;

The reports must also con-tain information about studentenrollments in each classroomper class period (ex-eluding in-strumental arid choral musicclassrooms). They must specifythe number of ClatsiVoms in anyclass period (excluding_ in-StruMental and choral music) inwhich the number of students ex--meth 20 for kindergarten througheighth_grade, 25 for high school;and 10 for special education:

State Board of Educationrules section the annual perfor-mance reports into three distinctparts:

(1) a local assessment of thedistrict's performance inspecific areas;

(2) comparative statistical infer;mation developed by theCentral Education Agency;andlocally deVeloped statisticalinfOrmation.

(3)

Beginning With the 1986-87schdol Sieat, the reperts are re-OUirad td be Specifically geared tothe BMA'S Long Range Plan; in-formatiOn that must be providedincludes achievement test scores,financial resources information,personnel and student charac-teristics, and budgeted costs.Board rules also require schooldistricts to publish these annualperformance reports by December1 of the following school year and"to ensure local availability Of thedistrict annual performance reportto the professional Staff andresidents of the diStriet."

The annUal pa-Hermancereport is a refleCtion Of Texascitizens' demand fee higher ac-countability in pUblic education.LawMakere and taxpayers_ be-lieved that; iri light of the large

364 3

amount of additional funds beingspent on public education, schoolsystems across the state shouldbe accountable for the educa-tional achievement of theirstudents and each dollar spent todeliver services.

TEA=NET eleotednidcommunicationsnetwork

Another effort underfaken bythe State Board and the TexasEducation Agency to improve in-teractiOn aMeng educational en-titieS it an electronic communica-tient netWork that allows the TEAarid "en line" wheel districts (ap-proXimately half of Texas' 1;100districts and all the education ser-vice centers as of September1986) to share and receive infor-mation. This electronic network,known as TEA-NET, is designedto provide an alternate means offast, economical and efficientcommunications among the StateBoard of Education, the Agency,service centers and schidel dig=tricts. The Board has contractedwith a private sector teleccm-munications company to providenetworking services which in-clude an electronic bulletin boardand electronic mail system fortwo-way communication via per-sonal computers. The electronicbulletin Poard enables the Agen-cy to provide information toschool district personnel regard-ing Board rules and policies,calendars of upcoming events,special announcements, andgeneral information of intecest toeducators,_ Since the informationis stored, retrieved and updatedon computer systems, the net-work provides more convenientand timely access to data. Theelectronic mail capability of thesystem alloWs faster communica-tion betWeen individuals. If thenetwork eventually supplants, to

a Significant degree, our uSe ofconventional communicationssystem% a major cost savingsmay be realized.

Members of the State Boardof Education have expresskl par-ticular interest in the use of thenetwork to provide informationdirectly to teachers, which will beaided by newly-designed softwarethat allows school districts to of-fer a locally accessed networkwhich can be updated with infor-mation from both state and localsources.

The State Board of Educa-tion, the commissioner of educa-tion, legal services; and deputycommissioners for curriculum andprogram development, financeand compliance, and researchand information have their ownsections on the network. Twelvedivisions in the Agency also main-tain sections on TEA-NET. Up-to-the-minute information and theconvenience of electronic mailare viewed as incentives that willencourage all Texas public schooldistricts to utilize the system.

37

4 4

Future Tasksof theState Boardof Education

The State Board of Educe-Von's first two years of work sincethe passage of House Bill 72 havefocused on the task of implemen-ting the most extensive educationreform effort in Texas history.With the implementation of thestatewide teacher appraisalsystem in the fall of 1986, virtual-ly all the provisions of House Bill72 had been implemented. TheBoard's work, however, is notdOne. The Board will continue itsefforts to improve public educa-tion within the s=pe of House Bill72 and in other areas.

Much of the Board's work inthe future will be guided by theLong-Range Plan for TexasPublic School Education, a four-year plan designed to improve in-struction and use of resourcesthroughout the educationalsystem in Texas. This plan ad-dresses many challenges. Itspecifies projects and programsthat will be undertaken to ac7complish the Board's goals andobjectives for pUblid cidUcation inthis state. Among the rrititt &Wailchallerigeb Of the White ateeliminating the achievement gapbetween disadvahtaguld childrenand Other StUdents; effectivelydealing With a growth in enroll-ment that is expscted to increasethe public school Kipulation inTexas tb nearly 32 million by1990an increase of more than6 percent sinim 1986with thebiggest increase expected inracial and ethnic minorities;

..f4V

meeting the personnel needs thatwill result from enrollment growth;especially in the area of qualifiedteachers; reducing the dropoutrate; and encouraging increasedfinancial support of public educa-tion in a time of economic declinein Texas.

Other plans for the future in-clude continued monitoring_of theeffectiveness of the TexasTeacher Appraisal System. TheBoard is committed to remainingopen to possible changes sug-gested by teachers and ad;miniStrators to make the appralealsystem an even better MI for im-proving the quality of instructionprovided to Texas schoolchildren.In addition, an appraisal systemdesigned to evaluate the perfor-mance of administrators will alsobe developed and implementedacross the state.

In the coming biennium, theState Board will oversee the con-tinued development and im-plementation of the Public Educe-tion Information ManagementSystem, while the Texas Educe-

38 45

tion Agency will continue to in-vestigate ways to reduce thepaperwork burden on classroomteachers and local schooldistricts. Studenttesting will re.quire additional Board attentionas passing standards for theTEAMS testt are gradually rais-ed to reflett the state's increasingly higher expectations in stu-dent achievement. Curriculumstandards will also bs reviewed inthe future to ensure that studentsare being taught the kinds ofthings that will make them suc-cessful adults in the 21st mMuq.The Board also plans to examineand revise; if necessary; the re-quirements for teacher training incolleges. of education.

As provisions of House Bill72 are in place for longer periodsof time, the Board intends tocarefully monitor their effec-tiveness; In all future efforts, as inall past efforts, the State Board ofEducation will keep one over-riding goal in mind: the provisionof a quality education to all theschoolchildren of Texas.

Appendix IHighlights in the Chronology of Education Reform

June 1983 The Texas Legislature adopts a resolution calling for a comprehensivestudy of the state's public education system and Gov. Mark White ap-points the Select Committee on Public Education.

April 1984 The Select Committee on Public Education submits recommendationsfor education reform to the governor.

Juno 1984 The governor calls a special legislative session for purposes of reform-ing public education and adopting tax increases to finance the reforms.

July 1984 Gov. Mark White signs House Bill 72; the "The Educational OpportunityAct of 1984."

August 1984 The first phase of the reforms are initiated as the 1984-85 school yearbegins. Immediate implementation includes major changes in methodsof allocating state aid to local school districts, the teacher career lad-der and across-the-board teacher pay raises.

October 1984 New members of the State Board of Education take office.

November 1984 The Board begins initial work on the teacher appraisal system.

December 1984 An advisory committee is appointed to draft Statewide Standards _onthe Duties of a School Board Member in compliance with House Bill72's requirement for training of local board members.

January 1985 The Board gives initial approval to extracurricular activity rules, includingthe no-pass/no-play rule.

March 1985 Discipline management rules receive initial approval from the StateBoard.

April 1985 The State Board awards a $4.7 million contract for developmentalassistance and administration of the Texas Examination of Current Ad;ministrators and Teachers (TECAT). A $9.8 million contract is alsoawarded for developmental assistance and administration of the TexasEducational Assessment of Minimum Skills (TEAMS).

April 1985 The State Board appoints W.N. Kirby as commissioner of education.

May 1985 The Board adopts initial rules regarding social promotion.

August 1985 The Texas Education Agency is reorganized to improve efficiency andto better assist local school districts.

October 1985 The first TEAMS exit-level test is administered.

October 1985 Approximately 5AKKI teachers and administrators across the state par-ticipate in a field test of TECAT and the Board approves a teacher studyguide for the TECAT.

3946

Novemtler 1985 A draft of the State Board's Mission Statement, Goals and Objectivesfor Public Education in Texas is distributed to local school districts andthe general public for comment.

November 1985 Scoring standards for the written composition section of the TECAT areestablished.

January 1986 Scoring standards for the multiple choice reading and writing sectionsof the TECAT are established.

January 1986 The teacher appraisal system receives preliminary approval for publicarrnment.

January 1986 The Paperwork Reduction Advisory Committee is formed and holds itsfirst meeting with the commissioner.

January 1986 The Texas Education Agency's electronic communications network withlotal school districts, TEA-NET, is initiated.

February 1986 The Board holds a public hearing on the teacher appraisal system.

February 1986 TEAMS tests are administered for the first time in grades 3, 5, 7 and 9.

March 1986 The TECAT is administered to 202,0130 educators in three shifts at 846different test sites across the state.

April 1986 TEAMS tees are administered for the first time to students in the firstgrade.

May 1986 The State Board gives final approval to the Texas Teacher AppraisalSystem.

May 1986 The Board approves a new comprehensive plan for the operation ofregional education service centers.

June 1986 Teachers and administrators who failed the TECAT in March get a sec-ond opportunity to pass the test.

June 1986 The State Board approves an operational plan for the Public Educa-

tion Information Management System.

July-August 19 More than 13,000 teacher appraisers are trained.

September 1986 The Texas Teacher Appraisal System is implemented in local schooldistricts.

September 1986 A pilot program for performance-based accreditation is initiated.

October 1986 The TEAMS exit-level test is administered to a second class of high

achobl juniors.

October 1986 A public hearing on the proposed Master Plan for Vocational Educa-tion draws testimony from some 80 individuals and written testimonyfrom another 400.

January 1987 The State Board adopts the Long-Range Plan for Public Education inTexat and the Master Plan for Vocational Education.

404 7

Appendix II

Public Education Program Budget, 1986-87

Regular Education/General Purpose

Basic Allotment

Education Improvement FundCAOWer LadderOther Salaq EnrichmentAny Lagal Purpose

Enrichment Equalitation Program

EXperieraWd Teacher Alkitment

EqUaliZatiOn Transition Fund

Payments to state Schools

Sick Leave Program

incentive Aid

State Support to Education Soivice Centers

Student Teaching

Education Consolidation and ImprovementAct, Chapter 2 (Flow Through)

Education for Economic Security Act,Science/Math (Flow Through)

TOTAL

Special Education

Special Education Allotment

Discretionary

Visually Handicapped

Regional Day School for the Deaf

Education Consolidation and ImprovementAd; Chapter 1Handkapped Program

Education of the Handicapped &I BAssistance to Local and State EducationAgencies (Flow Through)

Education of _the Handicapped Act BPreach-0bl IncentIVO Act

EducatiOn of th4 Handicapped ActDeaf-Blind Education

TOTAL

*Foundation School ProgramSistWIJocaI 41 48

Sourco of Funds Expended 1985 EST/EXP4988Budgetrid-1-987

FSP* $4,073,057,096 $4,332,012,947 t*,425,454,198

ESP* 86,582,373 117,176,319 149,572;850FSP* 101,012,768 117,176,319 134,615,565FSP* 101;012,769 117,176,318 134;615;565

FSP* 1,849,210,701 1,723,868,576 1,800;718;517

FSP* 59,421;372 58;984,066 58,671,324

State 69,092,264 34,968;916 17,500;000

State 2,414,446 2,370,733 1,359,450

SA.,* 15,000,000 15,000,000 0

State 318,731 353,448 650;000

State 7,712,000 7,333,603 7,333,857

State 2,194,201 0 0

Federal 24,932,564 28,650,179 26;446;129

Federal 0 3,021,455 1,326,120

$8,391,961,285 $6,558,092,879 $6,758,263,575

FSP* $ 433,773,211 $ 490,388,179 $ 490,822,013

FSP* N/A N/A 3,250,000

State 4,952,524 5,700,211 6,005,267

State 23,329,611 25,707,248 27,633,200

Federal 6,2921,245 6,469,691 5,331,799

Federal 42,359,834 57,816,300 58,942,904

Federal 1,597,407 2,078,320 2,058,531

Federal 843;818 575,000 251,360

$ 512,850,447 $ 588,734,949 $ 594,295,094

Public Education Program Budget, 198647

Source of Funds Expended 1985 EST/EXP 1986 Budgeted4987

EthfcatUorially Dtivantaged

aompentatory Eduaation Allotment(less TEAMS costs) FSP* $ 317,249,946 $ 326,432,510 $ 335,010,993

Preldndergatten Program for the Disadvantaged S/1.** 0 39,340,058 413,597,549

School Community Guidance Centers State 1,394,319 1,315,807 1,684,193

Education Consolidation and ImprovementAct, '-',hapter 1Low Income Federal 180,821,989 222,666,926 201,060,728

Education Consolidation and improvementAct, Chapter 1Mi9rant (Flow Through) Federal 53,371,779 59,820,270 61,022,108

Education Consolidation and ImprovementAct, Chapter 1Neglected and DelinquentProgram Federal 1,759,045 1,602,911 _ _ ___1496,428

TOTAL $ 554,597,078 $ 651,178,482 $ 638,571,999

Bilingual Education

Bilingual Education Allotment FSP* $ 32,128,430 $ 34,186,689 $ 34,544,960

Early ChildhOod Limited English ProficientSummer Program State 0 5,727,942 5,899,300

Transition Program for Refugee Children Federal 996,373 1,199,999 874,419

Emergency immigration Education Assistance Federal 1,743,120 3,583,874 2,811,266

Elementary and Secondary Education ActTitle VliBilingual Federal A26074 0 0

TOTAL $ 34,993,997 $ 44,694,504 $ _44,129,934

Vocational Education

Vocational Education Allotment FSP* $ 234,018,074 $ 245,061,626 $ 245,924,991

Vocational Education State 3,159,755

Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act Federal 34,994,032 42,118,668 36,983,109

TOTAL $ 272,171,881 $ 287,180,294 _$ 282,908,100

Gifted and Talented Education

Gifted and Talented Allotment (less SBOEdiscretionary) FSP* $ 3,794,889 $ 5,920,876 $ 6,336,027

TOTAL $ 3,794,889 $ 5;920;876 $ 6,338-,327

Fdiikititiciri &WA ProgramStats/Local 42 49

Public Education Program Budget, 1986-87

Adult and Community Education

Adult Basic and Secondary Education

Source of Funds Ex nded 1985_ ESTtEXFAS88Biatif922

Program (State Formula and Discretionary) State 7,405,3t.6 7,500,000 $ 7,500,000

Adult Basic and Secondary EducationProgram (Flow Through and Discretionary) Federal 5,976,703 5,197,605 5,005,613

Community Education State 1,460,297 1,323,000 500,000

Industrial Start-Up Training State 749,017 858,305 921,695

Apprenticeship Training State 1;482;403 500,000 375,0011

Job TrEdning Partnership Act Federal 5;142,127 940422 1,440,422TOTAL $ 22,195,933 $ 16,319,332 $ 15,742.730

Child NUtlition

State Support for National SchoolLunch Program State $ 14,854,592 $ 14,854,527 14,605,000

National School Lunch Program Federal 194,771,815 209,713,866 222,750,000

National School Breakfast Program Federal 46,324,837 49,827,134 52,650,000

Special Milk Program Federal 0 35,000TOTAL $ 255,951,244 $ 274,395,527 $ 290,04OAM

School Transportation

TranSportation Allotment FSP" $ 176,027563 $ 183;754;807 $ 189;951,461

School Bus Safety State 499,94_9

TOTAL $ 176,527,512 $ 183,754,607 $ 189,951,461

Instructional Materials

Textbook ProgramTextbooks, Systems, and Materials State $ 63,320,242 $ 69,631,700 $ 112,122,850Large Type and Braille State 464,452 500,000 786,500Textbook Freight State 1,048,576 925,000 1,17'9,750

Regional Media Centers State 2;615128_ 2;741;534 _2,928,559TOTAL $ 67,448,399 $ 73,798,234 $ 117,017,659

*Foundation School Program43

50

Public Education Program Budget, 198647

Source of Funds Expended 1985 EST/EXP 1988 Budgeted 1987

Mscretionary/Agency-Related Programa

Education Consolidation and ImprovementAct, Chapter 2Enrichment Grants Federal 2445,839 $ 2,884,606 $ 3,851,179

Eduaation for Economic Security Act,Science/Math (Discretionary) Federal 0 863,273 378,891

Education Consolidation and ImprovementAct, Texas Diffusion Network Federal 137,972 135,205 120,000

Education of the Handicapped Act 9ASsistance to Lo-dal arid State EdUtationAgencies (Discretionary) Federal 13,528,290 15,417,680 15;718;108

Education Consolidation and improvementALI, Chapter 1Migrant (Discretionary) Federal 221,720 221,720 221,720

cad D. Perkins Vocational Education Act Federal 3,981,480 6,412,437 9,504,988

Gifted and Talented Allotment(SBOE Discretionary) FSP* 421;654 657,875 704,003

Adult Basic and S000fldary EducationProgramFederal (Discretionary) Federal N/A 659,856 600;000

Computer Services State 2,740,834 2,888,726 2;928,E59

Research, Development, and Evaluation State o 223;931 376,069

Texas Educational Assessment of MinimumSkilld (TEAMS) FSP* 900,655 5,014,000 5,500,000

Testing and Appralral State o 5,443,259 1,107,481

Teacher Certification Assessment State o 1,683,820 476;180

Accreditation; Training; and Curriculum State 0 2,000,000 1,500;000

Texas Assessment of Basic Skills State 2,150,000 o _afOTAL $ 26,528,252 $ 44,19Z388 $ 42,987,158

3RAND TOTAL _$8,31_9,020,897 $8,728,262,72 $8,98-0,243,737

Bethod of Financing: Summary

Federal Federal $ 622,070,888 $ 721,873,396 $ 700,580,831

Local L 2,973,690,561 3,171,940,726 3,272,807,227

State FSP/S 4,723,259,488 4,834.448.150 5,006,855,679

fOTAL $8;319=897 $8,728,262,272 $8,980,243,737

'Foundation School ProgramSUatoUll 44

51

Appeindix IIITexas Education Agency Operating Budget, 1986-87

Texas Education Agency Administration: Object of Expense

Account Description Expended 1985 EST/EXP 1988 Budgeted 1987

Compensatory Per Diem $ 23,297 $ 22,500 22,506

Exempt Salaries 797,061 907,121 999,252

Classified Salaries 22,904,624 23,643,111 23,271,048

Hourly and Other Wages 1,444 5,013 0

Longevity Pay 333,220 322,928 328,100

OASI Payments 2,608,296 2,666,566 2,586264

Professional Fees and Services 1,448,997 462,198 804,308

Workers' Compensation 0 0 0

Fuels and Lubricants 25 2,000 2,000

Consumable Supplies and Materials 318,693 495,589 388,454

Postage 458,Z153 448,791 480,348

Telephone 609,664 863,231 654,413

I/6116w 115,173 27,890 29,969

Travel 1,590,785 1,655,839 1,543,594

Rent-Building 942,251 219,907 331,704

Rent-Machine and Other 610,647 170,792 95,982

Other Operating Machine 1,543,306 1,771,286 1,915,243

Employee insurance Payments 1,155,450 1,258,008 1,240,230

Capital Outlay 2,402,882 1,045,228 1,258,893

TOTALOPERATING_EXPENSEATEMS $37,882,473 $35,787,998 $35,932,100

Texas Education Agency Operating Budget 1986-87Texas Education Agency Administration

Item No. Description Expended 1985 EST/EXP 1988 Budgeted 1987

1. General Management

a. Commissioner of Education $ 65,400 $ 67,362 $ 67,362

b. General Management 2,499,228 2,263,484 1,895,232

Educational Quality 3,038,321 3,580,314 3,517,924

3. Curriculum and Program Development 9,364,936 6,763,173 7,252,775

4. Finance and Compliance 12,207,309 12,531,264 11,626,244

5. Internal Management 3,205,318 3,650,388 4,025,210

6. Research and Information 7,481,966 6,929,013 7,547,353

Total, Agency Administration $37-,862,478 835.932.100

48

TeXas Education Agency Operating Budget, 1986=87Texas Education Agency Administration: Method of Financing

ANnariptlort Expended 1985 EST/EXP 1988 Budgeted 1987

Out of General Revenue Fund No. 001:

Out of State TextbOOk Fund NO. 003:

Out of the Certification and Proprietary School Fees; Fund No. 001:

Out of the Guaranteed BOnd Program Fund (Sec. 20.905):

$21,315,633 $17,990,147 $17,172,507

$ 1,239,187 $ 1 ;252,159 $ _1,321,892

$ 639,280 $ 1,917,518 $ 1,755,621

_ $ 45:118 $ 7,744Out of the Statewide Book Fund: 0 $ 111,712 $ 24,023Out of Miscellaneous Pees, Fund No. 001: $ 0 $__107;893Out of the GED Fees, Fund No. 001: $ 0 $ 68,659 $ 175,000Out of the Available School Fund, Fund No. 002: 0 $ 0 _$_588,779Out of the Foundation School Fund, Fund No. 193: $ 0 $ 457,738

Total State Funds for Agency AdministrationSums Certain and Estimated $23,194,100 $21,385,321 $21,611,197

Federal Funds

Out Of HEW, Fund No. 148: $12;878,246 $12,602,269 $11,817,737Out of Earned HEW; Fund No; 148: $ 846,848 $ 834,941 $ 431,290

Subtotal, Agency Administration, Fund No. 148 $13;725,094 $13,237,210 $12,249,027Out of Department of Agriculture; Fund No; 171: $ 455,704 $ 6'59,004 $ 535,899Out of Earmid Department of Agriculture, Fund No. 171: $ 759,656

Subtotal, Agency Administraton; Fund 171 $ 458,704 $ 559,004 $ 1,295,555Out Of Veterans Adminittration, Fund No. 169: _$ 44:6,05.5____$_ 587,556_ $ 590,251Out of Earned Veterans Administration Fund No. 169: 0 0 $ 128,625

Subtotal, Agency Adminittration, Fund 169 $ 486,055 $ 567,556 $ 718,876Subtotal, Federal Funds; estimated $14,647,853 $14,383,770 $14,263,458

Out of Interagency Contracts: $ 20.525 $__38,907 I 51,445

TOTAL; METHOD OF FINANCING, AGENCY ADMINISTRATION $37,862,478 $35,787,998 _$35,932,100

TexasEducationAgency Stafffor thisPublication

PublicationInformation

Written oy Terri Anderson, Director of Public Information

Editd by N. David Spurgin, Assistant Commissioner forPolicy Coordination

Photography by Richard LaGow and Jack Brown

Layout and graphics by Betty White

Typography by Trish Smith and Catherine Cans ler Snavely

Advisory Board:Members of the State Board of EducationW.N. Kirby, Commissioner of EducationLynn Moak, Deputy Commissioner for Research and Information

Copies of this publication may be ordered at a cott of $3.00 each bywriting to:

Publications Distribution OfficeTexas Education Agency1701 North Congress AvenueAustin, Texas 78701

Orders may also be placed by calling (512) 463-9744.

For further information about the State Board of Education, the TexasEducation Agency or any aspect of public education in Texas, pleasecontact the Public Information Division of the Texas Education Agencyat the above address, or call (512) 463-9000.

48 55

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 with Title VI Ci Vil Rightt Att Of 1964 and withspecific requirements of the Modified Court Order, Civil Action NO. 5281, Federal Dittrict COOrt, EasternDistrict of Texas; Tyler Division are conducted periodically by staff represeritatiVeS of the TeXat EducationAgency. These reviews cover at least the following polides 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 sthool 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.

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 CiVilRighth, Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

If there is a direct violation of the Court Order in Civil Action No. 5281 that cannot be cleared through negOtia=tiori, the sanctions required by the Court Order are applied:

TITLE VII, CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964; EXECUTIVE ORDERS 11246 AND 11375; TITLE IX,1973 EDUCATION AMENDMENTS; REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 AS AMENDED; 1974AMENDMENTS TO THE WAGE-HOUR LAW EXPANDING THE AGE DISCRIMINATION INEMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1967; AND VIETNAM ERA VETERANS READJUSTMENT ASSISTANCEACT OF 1972 AS AMENDED IN 1974;It is the policy of the Texas Education Agency to comply fully with the nondiscrimination provisions of allfederal and State laws and regulations by assuring that no person shall be excluded from consideration forrecruittrient, Selection, appointment, training, promotion; retention; or any other personnel action; or be deniedany benefits or participation in any programs or activities which it operates on the grounds of race; religion;color, national origin, sex, handicap, age, or veteran status (except where age, sex; or handicap constitutea bona fide Occupational qualification necessary to proper and efficient administration): The Texas Educa-tion Agency makes positive efforts to employ and advance in employment all protected groups:

5649

fexas 1-cucation Agenc

Austin, Texas

57