ATTACHMENT III
Summary of Public Comments and Agency Responses Related to Proposed Amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 97, Planning and Accountability, Subchapter DD, Investigative Reports, Sanctions, and Record Reviews, and Subchapter EE, Accreditation Status, Standards, and Sanctions
Comment: A representative of Orenda Education suggested that language be included that defines the constitution of an adverse opinion in §97.1055(g)(1)(C)(i) and an established amount or percentage of financial resources or expenditures that were not properly documented in §97.1055(g)(1)(C)(ii).
Agency Response: The agency disagrees. These terms have specific meanings within the finance industry and are established in accounting rules set forth by the American Institution of Certified Public Accountants.
Comment: A representative of Pegasus School of Liberal Arts and Sciences recommended adding the word material before the word financial in §97.1055(g)(1)(C)(ii)(I).
Agency Response: The agency disagrees. This is a term of art used in the finance industry and has a specific meaning. If the school received an adverse or disclaimed opinion based on financial resources or expenditures that were not properly documented, that in itself makes this material. Use of the word material would be redundant.
Comment: A representative of Pegasus School of Liberal Arts and Sciences recommended making performance for the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 fiscal years under §97.1055(g)(2)(C) for informational purposes only.
Agency Response: The agency disagrees. To postpone as recommended would mean that the first year charters would be held financially accountable for accreditation purposes would be 2010-2011. An annual audit is already a requirement for charter schools, and the commissioner considers financial issues when considering renewals and revocations as indicated in TEC, §12.115(a)(1)-(2); in 19 TAC §100.1021(a)(1), (2), (4), and (5); and in 19 TAC §100.1022(c). Current financial requirements are outlined in 19 TAC §100.1022(c).
Comment: A representative of Pegasus School of Liberal Arts and Sciences recommended an entirely new accreditation process be in effect for the 2008-2009 fiscal year, making performance for the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 fiscal years under §97.1055(g)(2)(C) for informational purposes only.
Agency Response: The agency disagrees. This postponement would unduly delay the accreditation process authorized by the 79th Texas Legislature, Third Called Session, 2006, and established clearly for charter schools in TEC, §39.1321. This section in statute makes charter schools accountable for sanctions under TEC, Chapter 39, and gives the commissioner the authority to adopt rules to sanction charter schools. It should be noted that charters already receive state accountability ratings, and sanctions for low student performance should already be known.
Comment: A representative of Shekinah Learning Institute, Radiance Academy of Learning, and Shekinah Radiance Academy requested that the commissioner postpone the implementation of the rules to allow more time to investigate the impact the rules will have on charters and their students.
Agency Response: The agency disagrees. This postponement would unduly delay the accreditation process authorized by the 79th Texas Legislature, Third Called Session, 2006, and established clearly for charter schools in TEC, §39.1321. This section in statute makes charter schools accountable for sanctions under TEC, Chapter 39, and gives the commissioner the authority to adopt rules to sanction charter schools. It should be noted that charters already receive state accountability ratings, and sanctions for low student performance should already be known.
Charters currently submit annual audits, and the commissioner already reviews financial issues when considering renewals and revocations as indicated in TEC, §12.115(a)(1)-(2); in 19 TAC §100.1021(a)(1), (2), (4), and (5); and in 19 TAC §100.1022(c). Current financial requirements are outlined in 19 TAC §100.1022(c).
Comment: A representative of Erath Excels Academy requested that the commissioner postpone the implementation of the rules until the following year to further investigate the proposal.
Agency Response: The agency disagrees. This postponement would unduly delay the accreditation process authorized by the 79th Texas Legislature, Third Called Session, 2006, and established clearly for charter schools in TEC, §39.1321. This section in statute makes charter schools accountable for sanctions under TEC, Chapter 39, and gives the commissioner the authority to adopt rules to sanction charter schools. It should be noted that charters already receive state accountability ratings, and sanctions for low student performance should already be known.
Charters currently submit annual audits, and the commissioner already reviews financial issues when considering renewals and revocations as indicated in TEC, §12.115(a)(1)-(2); in 19 TAC §100.1021(a)(1), (2), (4), and (5); and in 19 TAC §100.1022(c). Current financial requirements are outlined in 19 TAC §100.1022(c).
Comment: A representative from DKH Consulting requested that the commissioner postpone the implementation of the rules until the following year in order to not create the failure of many charter schools based on rules that have been implemented unfairly and retroactively.
Agency Response: The agency disagrees. This postponement would unduly delay the accreditation process authorized by the 79th Texas Legislature, Third Called Session, 2006, and established clearly for charter schools in TEC, §39.1321. This section in statute makes charter schools accountable for sanctions under TEC, Chapter 39, and gives the commissioner the authority to adopt rules to sanction charter schools. It should be noted that charters already receive state accountability ratings, and sanctions for low student performance should already be known.
Charters currently submit annual audits, and the commissioner already reviews financial issues when considering renewals and revocations as indicated in TEC, §12.115(a)(1)-(2); in 19 TAC §100.1021(a)(1), (2), (4), and (5); and in 19 TAC §100.1022(c). Current financial requirements are outlined in 19 TAC §100.1022(c).
Comment: A representative of Feldman, Rogers, Morris, & Grover, L.L.P., commented that the commissioner does not have authority to adopt the proposed amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 97, stating charters are not subject to the financial accountability rating system under TEC, Chapter 39, Subchapter I, and that the proposed rule in §97.1055(g)(1) allows the commissioner to use a finding in lieu of a rating, thus overreaching statutory authority.
Agency Response: The agency disagrees. TEC, §12.104(b)(2)(L), makes clear that charter schools are bound by public school accountability under TEC, Chapter 39, Subchapters B, C, D, and G. In addition, TEC, Chapter 39, Subchapter K, §39.301(a), explicitly states, "The commissioner by rule shall provide a process for a school district or open-enrollment charter school to challenge an agency decision made under this chapter relating to an academic or financial accountability rating that affects the district or the school."
Clearly the intent is for the commissioner to evaluate charter schools based on financial criteria, and the commissioner already reviews financial issues when considering renewals and revocations as indicated in TEC, §12.115(a)(1)-(2); in 19 TAC §100.1021(a)(1), (2), (4), and (5); and in 19 TAC §100.1022(c). Current financial requirements are outlined in 19 TAC §100.1022(c).
The accreditation process was authorized by the 79th Texas Legislature, Third Called Session, 2006, and established clearly for charter schools in TEC, §39.1321. This section in statute makes charter schools accountable for sanctions under TEC, Chapter 39, and gives the commissioner the authority to adopt rules to sanction charter schools.
Comment: A representative from Seashore Learning Center commented that state accreditation should be replaced with regional accreditation.
Agency Response: The agency agrees that third-party accreditation has merit; however, the agency has no authority to substitute regional accreditation for state accreditation. A change from state accreditation to regional accreditation would require explicit statutory authority.
Comment: Orenda Education inquired about third-party accreditation rating agencies.
Agency Response: At this time, there is no commissioner's approved list of third-party accreditation rating agencies. Under 19 TAC §97.1055(h), a third-party accreditation rating process is a permissible option left to the discretion of the commissioner.
Comment: DKH Consulting, Erath Excels Academy, Shekinah Learning Institute, Radiance Academy of Learning, and Shekinah Radiance Academy expressed concerns about imposing the same instructional accountability and student attendance standards on school districts and charters alike. The commenters stated that this system, along with financial accountability standards and the evaluation of districts and charters, places charters at a disadvantage.
Agency Response: The agency disagrees. The issues raised by the commenters address topics that are not part of this adoption.
For additional information, email rules@tea.state.tx.us.