Review of Agency Rules

Review of Agency Rules

Employees Retirement System of Texas

Title 34, Part 4

The Employees Retirement System of Texas will review and consider whether to re-adopt, re-adopt with amendments, or repeal Texas Administrative Code, Title 34, Chapter 79, concerning Social Security. This review is being conducted pursuant to Texas Government Code §2001.039.

ERS will assess whether the reasons for adopting or re-adopting this chapter continue to exist. Each section of the chapter will be reviewed to determine whether it is obsolete, reflects current legal and policy considerations, reflects current general provisions in the governance of the Board, and/or whether it is in compliance with Chapter 2001 of the Texas Government Code (Administrative Procedure Act).

Comments on the review may be submitted in writing within 30 days following the publication of this rule review in the Texas Register to Paula A. Jones, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, Employees Retirement System of Texas, P.O. Box 13207, Austin, Texas 78711-3207 or you may email Ms. Jones at paula.jones@ers.state.tx.us. The deadline for receiving comments is Monday, September 17, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. Any proposed changes to the sections of this chapter as a result of the review will be published in the Proposed Rules section of the Texas Register and will be open for an additional 30 day public comment period prior to final adoption of any repeal, amendment, or re-adoption.

TRD-201204088

Paula A. Jones

General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer

Employees Retirement System of Texas

Filed: August 2, 2012

Adopted Rule Reviews

Texas Education Agency

Title 19, Part 2

The State Board of Education (SBOE) adopts the review of 19 TAC Chapter 100, Charters, Subchapter A, Open-Enrollment Charter Schools; and Subchapter B, Home-Rule School District Charters, pursuant to the Texas Government Code, §2001.039. The SBOE proposed the review of 19 TAC Chapter 100, Subchapters A and B, in the February 10, 2012, issue of the Texas Register (37 TexReg 722).

Relating to the review of 19 TAC Chapter 100, Subchapter A, the SBOE finds that the reasons for adopting Subchapter A continue to exist and readopts the rules. The SBOE received comments related to the review of Subchapter A. Following is a summary of the public comments received and the corresponding responses.

Comment: Concerning 19 TAC §100.1, the Texas Charter Schools Association (TCSA) commented that, to improve the correlation between the charter authorization process and student success, the scoring rubric for charter applications should be adjusted to measure more elements of successful school operations. Specifically, the TCSA stated that the application rubric should be adjusted so that more aspects of the charter application are scored by the external review panel, commenting that certain critical elements of school success, such as planned approaches for special programs and students with special needs, proposed geographic boundaries, admissions and enrollment policies, governance structure, and business plans, are evaluated only by Texas Education Agency (TEA) staff for statutory and regulatory compliance. The TCSA further commented that this practice results in the applicant being held accountable during the interview before the SBOE Committee on School Initiatives only if a committee member raises issues or questions identified by TEA staff. The TCSA suggested that incorporating some of the critical elements into the scoring rubric will allow the SBOE to better identify applications with the strongest likelihood of creating and sustaining a high quality charter school.

Response: The SBOE agrees that certain critical elements referenced by the TCSA currently are not scored by the external review panel and also offers the following clarification. While the scoring rubric for charter applications is not addressed in SBOE rules, it is adopted each time that the SBOE adopts the guidelines and application for open-enrollment charter schools. The SBOE will consider which sections of an application for charter should be scored when it adopts the Generation 18 guidelines and application and each subsequent set of guidelines and application. As such, the SBOE may elect to incorporate the proposals of the TCSA in its adoption of future guidelines and application processes. Additionally, it should be noted that the SBOE currently approves an application for charter contingent on the applicant addressing all issues noted by TEA staff in the TEA's review of the application. Therefore, no contract for charter is awarded until the applicant has addressed all issues identified by TEA staff, regardless of whether the issue is mentioned in the interview.

Comment: Concerning 19 TAC §100.1(d), the TCSA commented that the SBOE should increase the knowledge and expertise required for members of the external review panel that scores charter applications. Specifically, the TCSA suggested that the process by which the commissioner and SBOE solicit volunteers to review the applications be replaced with a competitive selection process and compensation for those chosen to participate in the review. The TCSA further recommended that selected reviewers be required to participate in an orientation that includes the history and fundamental aspects of public charter schools, the structure of the request for application, and guidance on panelist responsibilities and the scoring rubric.

Response: The SBOE agrees and also offers the following clarification. While, at this time, no specific source of funding is available to pay individuals to review and score charter applications, the SBOE approved for first reading and filing authorization in July 2012 a proposed amendment to SBOE rules that would establish a request for qualifications (RFQ) process for selecting individuals to participate on the external review panel. TEA staff also is exploring options for providing more guidance to selected reviewers, including required participation in an orientation session. However, until compensation can be provided to reviewers, required participation in an orientation session may limit the number of potential reviewers who apply through the RFQ process.

Comment: The TCSA commented that the current charter application process should be refined so that greater weight is given to objective, scored criteria and that the current requirement that the external review panel assign an average score of 75% to an application before that application can be considered by the SBOE Committee on School Initiatives is too lenient. The TCSA further commented that a threshold score of 85% or 90% on a determined scale should be required for an application to be deemed eligible to continue in the process and participate in an interview with the SBOE Committee on School Initiatives.

Response: The SBOE agrees that a higher standard of review is appropriate but also offers the following clarification. The average application score required by an applicant to gain an interview with the SBOE Committee on School Initiatives is not addressed in SBOE rule but, rather, is adopted each time that the SBOE adopts the guidelines and application for open-enrollment charters. The SBOE will consider the average score that is required when it adopts the Generation 18 guidelines and application and each subsequent set of guidelines and application. TEA staff plans to recommend a higher average score for the Generation 18 open-enrollment charter applications, and the SBOE will make a final determination regarding the scoring standard.

Comment: The TCSA commented that the SBOE should incorporate, over time and as appropriate, several principles and standards of charter authorization promoted by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA), including three core principles related to high standards, school autonomy, and protection of student and public interests.

Response: The SBOE disagrees. It should not be construed that the SBOE opposes the core principles promoted by the NACSA, but the comments provided were not specific enough to be adopted as defined processes, procedures, and regulations within SBOE charter rules.

Comment: Concerning 19 TAC §100.1, the Texas Classroom Teachers Association (TCTA) commented that rule language should be included to promote charter applications that are innovative and unique and clarify that language copied and pasted from previous successful applicants is not acceptable.

Response: The SBOE agrees that, as referenced in the Texas Education Code (TEC), §12.001(a)(5), one of the purposes for charter schools is to encourage different and innovative learning methods. In accordance with 19 TAC §100.1(g), the SBOE, when determining whether to grant an open-enrollment charter, may consider the innovation evident in the program(s) proposed for the charter school. The SBOE disagrees that the scoring and selection criteria for charter applications should be addressed in SBOE rules. The scoring and selection criteria are adopted each time that the SBOE adopts the guidelines and application for open-enrollment charter schools.

Comment: Concerning 19 TAC Chapter 100, Subchapter A, the Texas American Federation of Teachers (AFT) commented that Texas' greatest need with respect to charter schools is quality control and that comprehensive charter school reform is needed that combines strong new quality standards, increased oversight, and accountability. Specifically, in reviewing administrative rules pertaining to charter schools, the Texas AFT recommended attention to certain points, including actions that would ensure that the charter school application and approval process is open and understandable to applicants and to the public; ensure that all public schools are measured by high, realistic standards applied consistently; ensure adequate assistance and oversight for charter schools; promote sharing of lessons learned through success and failure among and between charter and traditional public schools; provide charter school opportunities while ensuring the highest possible education quality; and, to accurately inform policymakers, appraise charter school academic performance realistically using all relevant data.

Response: The SBOE agrees in part and disagrees in part. The proposed amendment to 19 TAC §100.1015, published in the June 8, 2012, issue of the Texas Register (37 TexReg 4152), as well as the proposed amendment to 19 TAC §100.1, as approved by the SBOE for first reading and filing authorization in July 2012, would assist in making the charter application and approval process more open and understandable to applicants and the public. While it should not be construed that the SBOE opposes the other TAFT ideas related to standards, oversight, and accountability, the comments provided were not specific enough to be adopted as defined processes, procedures, and regulations within SBOE charter rules.

In July 2012, the SBOE approved for first reading and filing authorization proposed amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 100, Subchapter A, that would align SBOE rules pertaining to the charter application process with proposed commissioner of education rules, clarify the signatories on the original contract for charter, codify practices adopted through the annual governance report pertaining to which family members of board members and school officers must be disclosed, and expand the provisions that would apply to public senior college or university charters and public junior college charters.

Relating to the review of 19 TAC Chapter 100, Subchapter B, the SBOE finds that the reasons for adopting Subchapter B continue to exist and readopts the rule. The SBOE received no comments related to the review of Subchapter B. No changes are necessary as a result of the review.

This concludes the review of 19 TAC Chapter 100.

TRD-201204139

Cristina De La Fuente-Valadez

Director, Rulemaking

Texas Education Agency

Filed: August 6, 2012

Texas Historical Commission

Title 13, Part 2

The Texas Historical Commission (THC) adopts the review of Texas Administrative Code, Title 13, Part 2, Chapter 24, relating to the Restricted Cultural Resource Information. This review was completed pursuant to Texas Government Code §2001.039.

The THC has assessed whether the reasons for adopting or re-adopting this chapter continue to exist. Each section of Chapter 24 was reviewed to determine whether it was obsolete, reflected current legal and policy considerations, reflected current general provisions in the governance of the THC, and/or whether it was in compliance with Chapter 2001 of the Texas Government Code (Administrative Procedure Act). The THC proposed the review of 13 TAC Chapter 24 in the March 2, 2012, issue of the Texas Register (37 TexReg 1517).

Relating to the review of 13 TAC Chapter 24, the THC finds the reasons for adopting Chapter 24 continue to exist and re-adopts the rules. The THC received no comments related to the review of Chapter 24. At a later date, the THC plans to propose revisions to clarify language in the administration of the program.

This concludes the review of 13 TAC Chapter 24.

TRD-201204158

Mark Wolfe

Executive Director

Texas Historical Commission

Filed: August 7, 2012

Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board

Title 31, Part 17

Pursuant to the notice of proposed rule review published in the June 22, 2012, issue of the Texas Register (37 TexReg 4651), the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board (State Board) has reviewed and considered for re-adoption, revision, or repeal Texas Administrative Code, Title 31, Part 17, Chapter 517, Subchapter B, §§517.22 - 517.37, concerning Cost-Share Assistance for Water Supply Enhancement, in accordance with Texas Government Code, §2001.039.

The State Board considered, among other things, whether the reasons for adoption of these rules continue to exist.

No comments were received on the proposed rule review.

As a result of the review, the State Board determined that the rules are still necessary and re-adopts this chapter without change.

TRD-201204104

Mel Davis

Special Projects Coordinator

Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board

Filed: August 3, 2012

Pursuant to the notice of proposed rule review published in the June 22, 2012, issue of the Texas Register (37 TexReg 4652), the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board (State Board) has reviewed and considered for re-adoption, revision, or repeal Texas Administrative Code, Title 31, Part 17, Chapter 527, §§527.1 - 527.7, concerning Removal of a District Director, in accordance with Texas Government Code, §2001.039.