# data[].attributes.body
The topic chosen was How Response to Intervention (RTI) Works. As a middle school interventions teacher, I use RTI framework to monitor the progress of my struggling students. I see the benefit interventions has on my students. There are two types of interventions, Intentional and Specific/Formalized. Intentional interventions are aimed at a particular challenge. Specific and formalized interventions last a certain number of weeks or months and is reviewed at set intervals. I chose to research RTI because I am in the middle of a struggle with my intervention students who are distant learning at this time.

# data[].attributes.body
The legal guide topic of RTI is a crucial component of creating successful schools that will allow the delivery of the highest quality level of education for ALL students. Speaking with Frances Martinez (personal communication, November 16, 2020), my instructional coach at Kazen middle school who specializes in RTI stated, "RTI has impacted our rolls by extending the way we plan the curriculum and instruction." In addition to considering the various methods of instruction, she informs me "it is also important to consider the various methods to address classroom management and social emotional learning."
A strain that RTI imposes on the educational system is the stress of having limited resources to address the ever increasing demands of meeting the best practices of RTI.
The best practices of RTI include:
-Maintaining a multi-tiered service delivery model that addresses the unique needs of every student.
-Use high quality research based instruction methods.
-Utilize small group instruction to address special needs of each student.

Emerging issues with RTI involve the current pandemic that we are experiencing. Difficulty in getting students to attend class during virtual instruction has proven to be a hindrance in acquiring accurate placement testing data, progress monitoring assessments, and being able to deliver actual focused RTI instructional strategies.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 3: Professional Association- RTI Action Network

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 3: Professional Association- RTI Action Network

# data[].attributes.body
RTI Action Network is an organization that strives to guide educators and families with effective implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI). RTI Action Network is important to my profession because it provides teachers like me with information on how best to provide the best instruction to my intervention students.

The National Center for Learning Disabilities, Inc.,. (2020). RTI Action Network. Retrieved from RTI Action Network:http://www.rtinetwork.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
RTINetwork.org guides educators and families in the effective implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI) as a means to improve educational outcomes for all students.

# data[].attributes.body
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION 2.0: NEXT GENERATION

This article was a report on the challenges educators face as they begin to use RTI.
-They are implementing new uses,
-scaling,
-and using RTI to improve learning for all students.
- The focus is to improve the model to provide quick assistance to struggling students (Education Week, 2020).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2004, "response to intervention" was introduced into federal special education law as a method of identifying children with learning disabilities. But RTI was quickly adopted as a model for overall school improvement because of its focus on providing assistance quickly to struggling students, before any academic deficits have a chance to become entrenched.

Now, 12 years later, RTI continues to expand its reach and evolve. The same basic framework is used by many schools and districts to support children's behavioral and social-emotional needs, to find and remediate struggling readers, and to identify students in need of special education. And, when it's used to do all those things together, it's often called "multitiered systems of supports," or MTSS. And along with that evolution have come some growing pains and some successes.

This special report on RTI- Education Week 's second such report-explores the challenges facing educators as they adopt RTI for new uses, scale it up to more schools and districts, and use it to improve learning for all students.

Education Week's second special report on RTI explores how the instructional framework has expanded into new forms and uses in schools across the country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Response to Intervention 2.0: Next Generation - Education Week

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2004, "response to intervention" was introduced into federal special education law as a method of identifying children with learning disabilities. But RTI was quickly adopted as a model for overall school improvement because of its focus on providing assistance quickly to struggling students, before any academic deficits have a chance to become entrenched.

# data[].attributes.body
Implementing a Response to Intervention Framework to Support Reading Success
The article gives recent statistics on reading proficiency.
-Sixteen percent of student do not read proficiently by third grade.
-Nakamura, et. al. informs us that evidence confirms the importance of interventions to support struggling students.
-It is crucial that school districts and educators receive proper training to implement RTI.
-Interventions can be implemented class-wide so all students can benefit (Nakamura, Nunn, & Chow, 2019).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
[Return to Blogs]
Implementing a Response to Intervention Framework to Support Reading Success

January 29, 2019

SRI International
Jennifer Nakamura, REL Appalachia
Stephanie Nunn, REL Appalachia
Kirby Chow, REL Appalachia

In the United States a majority of children struggle to read proficiently by the time they reach grade 4, and limited reading proficiency is one of the main risk factors for high school dropout. Sixteen percent of children not reading proficiently by third grade do not graduate from high school on time, compared with 4 percent of children reading proficiently by then. How can we support children to become better readers? Evidence confirms the importance of intervening early, particularly before grade 3, to support students who struggle. Many states have adopted a response to intervention (RTI) framework that incorporates prevention efforts and early detection of struggling students to ensure that all students are receiving the resources they need to be successful readers. For example, the Tennessee Department of Education (TDOE) has outlined an ambitious goal for third-grade student reading proficiency in its Every Student Succeeds Act plan. State administrators believe effective implementation of RTI in schools is critical to achieving this goal. TDOE is partnering with REL Appalachia (REL AP) to measure fidelity of implementation of their own RTI model, referred to as response to instruction and intervention (RTI ²).

At the local level, implementing an RTI framework with fidelity can be daunting. Therefore, it is crucial that district and school staff receive training to implement RTI components with fidelity. With the right training and support, educators can make RTI implementation part of regular classroom practice and students can benefit. State, district, and school leaders all have an important role to play in ensuring successful implementation of an RTI framework!

What to include in an RTI framework

While states, districts, or schools have some flexibility when adopting an RTI framework, they should include core components that are well established in the research literature. One of the most crucial components is placing students in different tiers of reading support depending on their level of need. All students receive reading instruction, and some students receive interventions of varying intensity that correspond with the tier they have been placed in. Students can move between tiers based on their response, or lack of response, to the interventions they receive.

A strong RTI framework has the following additional components.

What steps can state, school, and district leaders take after developing an RTI framework?

To support successful RTI implementation it is important for state, district, and school personnel to collect data on the degree to which educators are implementing the RTI framework with fidelity. Monitoring and measuring RTI implementation can contribute to school improvement efforts by identifying specific RTI practices that schools are struggling to implement. This in turn can indicate where targeted coaching and training are required. For example, The Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Midwest assisted Milwaukee Public Schools in developing a fidelity monitoring system, including an implementation assessment tool, to collect data on RTI implementation and used the data to shape school improvement plans.

Here are some steps state, district, and school leaders can take to ensure their RTI framework is being implemented properly and having the desired impact.

State leaders

Ensure a well-developed implementation assessment tool (such as a rubric, rating scale, checklist, and/or survey with core RTI practices specified) exists for measuring schools' RTI implementation.

Take steps to build state officials' capacity to use implementation and student assessment data to identify supports for districts and to evaluate the impact of RTI implementation on student outcomes.

District leaders

Use an implementation assessment tool for measuring schools' progress in implementing the RTI framework.

Train district and school staffs on how to implement the RTI framework and how to use the implementation assessment tool.

Use implementation data to determine which components of the RTI framework schools are struggling to implement and provide them with support and training to improve implementation fidelity.

School leaders

Encourage staff buy-in by emphasizing the importance of early intervention and of providing all students with academic support through implementation of an RTI framework.

Examine the RTI framework to determine that all core components are in place for supporting students struggling with reading.

Ensure that the school staff understands the importance of implementing each component of the RTI framework as intended and has received adequate training to do so.

Collect data through an implementation assessment tool and conduct observations; staff members should meet regularly to examine the data.

Use implementation data to develop and create action plans for school improvement.

How TDOE is developing and measuring its own RTI framework

REL AP is partnering with TDOE to support implementation of its RTI ² framework. Our Early Literacy partnership is developing and piloting a research-based RTI implementation assessment tool aligned with the RTI ² model. TDOE staff plans to use the tool to determine the fidelity of schools' implementation of key RTI ² practices and use that information to determine necessary training and supports, as well as help assess the impact of implementation of the RTI2 model on students' academic outcomes. Stay tuned for the release of Tennessee's refined RTI ² handbook and the implementation assessment tool!

Resources

Interested in learning more about RTI and effective implementation of RTI practices?

This infographic and Stated Briefly report describe how REL Midwest worked with Milwaukee Public Schools to monitor and measure RTI implementation to target school improvement efforts.

This IES practice guide details the core components of an RTI framework for reading and the level of evidence for each component.

This Ask A REL Response provides information on RTI/multi-tiered systems of support implementation and the impact on student achievement.

This infographic gives additional information on RTI and other tiered models of support being implemented in schools

Footnotes:
¹Fiester, L. (2010). Early warning! Why reading by the end of third grade matters. KIDS COUNT special report. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.aecf.org/resources/early-warning-why-reading-by-the-end-of-third-grade-matters/.

²Hernandez, D. J. (2011). Double jeopardy: How third-grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/
AECF-DoubleJeopardy-2012-Full.pdf.

³Gersten, R., Newman-Gonchar, R. A., Haymond, K. S., & Dimino, J. (2017). What is the evidence base to support reading interventions for improving student outcomes in grades 1-3? (REL 2017-271). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.

⁴Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W. D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for EduÂ¬cation Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/3 .

⁵Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W. D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for EduÂ¬cation Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/3.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
educational improvement; excellence in education; educational research; statistics; statistical data; statistical surveys; regional educational laboratory program; appalachia; rel; rigorous studies; fast response projects; no child left behind; regional laboratory home page; kentucky; tennessee; virginia; west virginia; implementing nclb; improving schools; raising achievements; mcrel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Implementing a Response to Intervention Framework to Support Reading Success

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Return to Blogs] January 29, 2019 SRI International Jennifer Nakamura, REL Appalachia Stephanie Nunn, REL Appalachia Kirby Chow, REL Appalachia In the United States a majority of children struggle to read proficiently by the time they reach grade 4, and limited reading proficiency is one of the main risk factors for high school dropout.

# data[].attributes.body
Federal initiatives such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 sets nationwide standards, however, education is primarily controlled at the state level.
-Education laws determine how public schools are financially funded and how the government sets expectations for certain aspects of the educational process such as teacher unions and curriculum requirements.
-With these laws, rights and responsibilities are granted to both teachers and students in regards to the educational process including RTI.
-The US Constitution require that ALL kids be given equal educational opportunities no matter what their race, ethnic background, religion, or sex, or whether they are rich or poor, citizen or non-citizen .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Shown Here:
Conference report filed in House (12/13/2001)

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 - Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to revise, reauthorize, and consolidate various programs. Extends authorizations of appropriations for ESEA programs through FY 2007.

Title I: Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged - Revises ESEA title I as Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged (currently Helping Disadvantaged Children Meet High Standards) and its part A (Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies) (I-A).

(Sec. 101) Establishes I-A requirements for: (1) yearly testing and assessments of student performance; (2) State standards for and assessments of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP); (3) local educational agency (LEA) identification of schools for improvement and corrective actions; (4) reporting to parents and the public on school performance and teacher quality; (5) eligibility requirements for schoolwide programs; and (6) increased qualifications of teachers and paraprofessionals. Provides alternatives for students at public schools failing to meet AYP standards within certain periods, including: (1) public school transfer options for all students at such schools; and (2) supplementary educational services for low-income children who remain at such schools, with such services allowed to be provided by various entities (which may be public or private, nonprofit or for-profit, and may include religious institution-based ones, provided all content and instruction under such services are secular, neutral, and nonideological).

Reauthorizes and revises other requirements under the I-A-1 basic program for: (1) State and LEA plans; (2) eligible school attendance areas; (3) schoolwide programs; (4) targeted assistance schools; (5) State reservation of funds for school support, improvement, and recognition; (6) parental involvement; (7) participation of children enrolled in private schools, and (8) certain fiscal and coordination requirements.

Revises allocations (I-A-2) to States, outlying areas, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, as well as under LEA Basic, Concentration, Targeted, and Education Finance Incentive Grants programs. Sets forth accountability requirements for State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools to ensure that their students meet such standards.

Requires each State to define AYP in a specified manner, which includes separate measurable annual objectives for continuous and substantial improvement for the achievement of all public elementary school and secondary school students in the State, and for the achievement of specific groups: (1) economically disadvantaged students; (2) students from major racial and ethnic groups; (3) students with disabilities; and (4) students with limited English proficiency.

Requires States, by the 2005-2006 school year, to conduct annual academic standards-based assessments in mathematics and reading or language arts in grades 3 through 8. Requires such assessments in science at three grade levels by the 2007-2008 school year. Provides for grants to States to develop such assessments.

Requires distribution to parents and communities of State and LEA report cards on the academic quality of all schools, including the qualifications of teachers and teachers' aides. Includes among required information in State report cards: (1) comparisons between the actual achievement levels of the specified groups of students and the State's annual measurable objectives for such groups; and (2) professional qualifications of teachers in the State, the percentage of such teachers teaching with emergency or provisional credentials, and the percentage of classes in the State not taught by highly qualified teachers, in the aggregate and disaggregated by high-poverty compared to low-poverty schools.

Establishes requirements for academic assessment and for LEA and school improvement. Requires LEAs receiving I-A funds to identify for school improvement any elementary school or secondary school served under I-A that fails, for two consecutive years, to make AYP as defined in the State's plan. Makes such requirement inapplicable to a school if almost every student in each of specified groups enrolled in such school is meeting or exceeding the State's proficient level of academic achievement. Allows LEAs, for schools that are conducting targeted assistance programs, to opt to review the progress of only the students in the school who are served, or are eligible for services, under I-A.

Requires an LEA to provide all students enrolled in a school identified for improvement with the option to transfer to another public (including charter) school served by the LEA and not identified for improvement, unless such an option is prohibited by State law. (Requires, to the extent practicable, cooperative agreements with other LEAs in the area for such transfers if all the LEA's public schools are identified for school improvement, corrective action or restructuring.) Requires priority in providing such option to be given to the lowest achieving children from low-income families. Requires LEAs to pay for transportation for students who exercise such option. Requires LEAs to permit children who remain at the school to which they transferred until they have completed the highest grade in that school; but terminates an LEA's obligation to provide for transportation at the end of a school year, if the LEA determines that the former school is no longer identified for improvement or subject to corrective action or restructuring. Requires LEAs to use certain amounts for paying for such transportation (and for providing supplemental educational services for eligible low-income children at schools that fail to make AYP one year after being identified for improvement).

Requires an LEA, before identifying a school for improvement (or for failure to make AYP after identification for corrective action, or for restructuring due to failure after corrective action), give the school an opportunity to review school-level data and present evidence. Requires each school identified for improvement, after such review is resolved, to develop or revise a two-year school plan in consultation with parents, school staff, the LEA, and outside experts. Requires such plans to include a mentoring program for teachers. Requires LEAs to provide specified types of technical assistance to schools identified for improvement.

Requires an LEA, for any school served under I-A that fails to make AYP by the end of the first full school year after identification for improvement, to: (1) continue to provide technical assistance to the school and the public school transfer option to all the school's students; and (2) make tutoring and other supplemental educational services available to eligible low-income children. Allows such supplemental educational services to be provided by an LEA, nonprofit entity, or for-profit entity that: (1) has a demonstrated record of effectiveness in increasing student academic achievement; (2) can provide such services consistent with the LEA's instructional program and the academic standards described in the State's plan; and (3) is financially sound. Requires such providers to agree to various criteria, including all content and instruction provided through such services are secular, neutral, and nonideological.

Requires LEAs to promptly notify parents of students in schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.

Requires LEAs to implement systems of corrective actions for schools identified for improvement. Requires LEAs, by the end of the second full school year after such identification, to: (1) continue to provide all students enrolled in the school with the option to transfer to another public school served by the LEA; (2) continue to provide specified types of technical assistance while instituting any corrective action; (3) continue to make supplemental educational services available to children who remain in the school; and (4) identify the school for corrective action. Requires the LEA, in the case of a school identified for corrective action, to do at least one of the following: (1) replace the school staff who are relevant to the failure to make AYP; (2) institute and fully implement a new curriculum, including providing appropriate professional development for all relevant staff, that is based on scientifically based research and offers substantial promise of improving educational achievement for low-achieving students and enabling the school to make AYP; (3) significantly decrease management authority at the school level; (4) appoint an outside expert to advise the school on its progress toward making AYP, based on its school plan; (5) extend the school's school year or school day; or (6) restructure the school's internal organizational structure.

Allows the LEA to delay for not more than one year implementation of requirements relating to failure to make AYP after identification, corrective action, or restructuring, if: (1) a school makes AYP for one year; or (2) a school's failure to make AYP is due to exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances, such as a natural disaster or a precipitous and unforeseen decline in the financial resources of the LEA or school.

Requires LEAs to publish and disseminate information regarding any corrective action at a school to the public and to students' parents.

Sets forth restructuring requirements for schools that continue to fail to make AYP after a full year of corrective action. Requires LEAS to: (1) continue to provide public school transfer options to all students enrolled there, as well as supplemental educational services for eligible children who remain in the school; and (2) plan and implement a major restructuring of the school's governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms and has substantial promise of enabling the school to make AYP. Includes among such restructuring arrangements for a school: (1) reopening as a public charter school; (2) replacing all or most of the staff (which may include the principal) relevant to the AYP failure; (3) making a contract for operation of the public school by a public or private entity with a demonstrated record of effectiveness; or (4) SEA operation of the school. Directs the Secretary to provide technical assistance for such restructuring to certain small, rural LEAs that request it. Requires an LEA to promptly notify teachers and parents of students at a school to be restructured, and provide them adequate opportunity to comment on any such action and participate in developing any such plan.

Prohibits an LEA from continuing to subject a school to requirements of school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or to identify the school for school improvement for the succeeding school year, if the school makes AYP for two consecutive school years.

Requires SEAs to provide: (1) technical assistance for school assessment and improvement; (2) annual review of LEA compliance with school assessment and improvement requirements; and (3) notice to the Secretary of schools or LEAs identified for improvement.

Authorizes States to make certain rewards to LEAs that have exceeded AYP for two consecutive years.

Requires States to identify for improvement LEAs that have failed to make AYP for two consecutive years. Requires such LEAs to make improvement plans. Directs each State to: (1) provide technical or other assistance to identified LEAs to develop and implement their plans and work with schools needing improvement; and (2) implement a system of corrective action for such LEAs. Requires States, if an LEA fails to make AYP after two school years after its identification, to continue technical assistance and to take at least one of the following corrective actions: (1) deferring programmatic funds or reducing administrative funds; (2) instituting and fully implementing a new curriculum that is based on State and local academic content and achievement standards, including providing appropriate professional development based on scientifically based research for all relevant staff, that offers substantial promise of improving educational achievement for low-achieving students; (3) replacing LEA personnel relevant to AYP failure; (4) removing particular schools from LEA jurisdiction, establishing alternative arrangements for such schools' public governance and supervision; and (5) appointing a receiver or trustee to administer LEA affairs in place of the superintendent and school board.

Revises requirements for statewide systems school support, improvement, and recognition.

Revises and renames I-B as Student Reading Skills Improvement Grants to: (1) establish programs for Reading First and Early Reading First initiatives, under new subparts 1 and 2; (2) revise and reauthorize the William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Programs, under subpart 3; and (3) establish a subpart 4 program for Improving Literacy through School Libraries.

Establishes, under I-B-1, the Reading First program to provide: (1) increased funding for improving classroom reading instruction; (2) assistance to SEAs and LEAs to establish scientific research-based reading programs for all children in kindergarten through grade three; and (3) professional development for teachers to identify children at-risk for reading failure and give effective early instruction to overcome specific barriers to reading proficiency. Allocates 80 percent of program funds to States based on poverty rates. Reserves 20 percent of program funds for two-year discretionary performance-based grants to States that reduce the number of children who cannot read. Allows States to use up to15 percent of the funds for professional development. Requires States to distribute at least 80 percent of funds to LEAs on a competitive basis with priority for high poverty areas in which there is a high percentage of students in grades kindergarten through three reading below grade level. Requires funds to be used for diagnostic assessments and instructional materials that include the essential components of reading instruction.

Establishes, under I-B-2, the Early Reading First program of competitive grants for supporting enhanced reading readiness for children ages three through five in high poverty areas where there are high numbers of students who are not reading at grade level. Provides for development of verbal skills, phonemic awareness, pre-reading development, and assistance for professional development for teachers in child care centers or Head Start centers in instructional activities that would prepare children for formal reading instruction in kindergarten and grade one.

Revises and reauthorizes, under I-B-3, the William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Programs.

Sets forth the I-B-4 Improving Literacy Through School Libraries program, to provide students with increased access to up-to-date school library materials, well-equipped, technologically advanced school library media centers, and well-trained, professionally certified school library media specialists. Requires formula grants to SEAs if appropriations reach a specified level or, otherwise, competitive grants to eligible LEAs .

Revises and reauthorizes I-C (Education of Migratory Children). Revises eligibility requirements for receiving funds, and provides States with increased flexibility in use of funds. Directs the Secretary to assist States in developing effective methods for the transfer of student records and for determining minimum data elements to be transferred.

Revises, renames, and reauthorizes I-D (Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk). Requires States to set aside 15 percent (currently ten percent) of subpart 1 State Agency Programs funds for transition of youth in State correctional facilities back to their local schools. Includes among required uses of subpart 2 Local Agency Programs funds the operation of programs in local schools for children and youth returning from local correctional facilities, and allows such programs to serve other at-risk children and youth.

Establishes, as I-E, a National Assessment of Title I. Directs the Secretary to conduct a national assessment of the impact of the policies enacted into law under ESEA title I on States, LEAs, schools, and students. Revises and reauthorizes provisions for: (1) evaluations; (2) demonstrations of innovative practices; and (3) assessment evaluation.

Reauthorizes the Close Up Fellowship Program, administered by the Close Up Foundation, which provides financial aid to enable low-income middle school and secondary school students, their teachers, older Americans, recent immigrants, and children of migrant parents to come to Washington, D.C. to study the operations of the three branches of government.

Establishes a I-F program for Comprehensive School Reform. Authorizes the Secretary to award grants to States to make subgrants to LEAs to provide incentives for schools to develop comprehensive reforms so that all children can meet challenging State content and academic achievement standards. Requires such reforms to be based on scientifically-based research and effective practices, and to emphasize basic academics and parental involvement.

Access to High Standards Act - Establishes, as I-G, Advanced Placement (AP) Programs of assistance to increase the access of low-income students to AP high school courses and AP tests to earn advanced placement and credits at institutions of higher education.

Dropout Prevention Act - Establishes, as I-H, School Dropout Prevention provisions, including: (1) a Coordinated National Strategy (subpart 1); and (2) a National School Dropout Prevention Initiative (subpart 2).

Revises and reauthorizes part I, general provisions of title I, including negotiated Federal rulemaking, State rulemaking, a State committee of practitioners to advise the State in carrying out its responsibilities under title I, LEA spending audits, and State reports on dropout data.

Provides that nothing in title I authorizes Federal mandates with regard to a State's, LEA's, or school's: (1) specific instructional content, academic achievement standards and assessments, curriculum, or program of instruction; or (2) equalized spending per pupil.

Title II: Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High Quality Teachers and Principals - Revises ESEA title II, as Preparing, Training, and Recruiting High Quality Teachers and Principals, to replace and consolidate the current Eisenhower Professional Development and Class-Size Reduction programs by establishing a part A Teacher Quality and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund (II-A) as a State formula grant program (subpart 1), with subgrants to LEAs (subpart 2) and to eligible partnerships (subpart 3), to support various similar and additional activities to improve elementary and secondary school teaching. Allows States and LEAs additional flexibility in the use of II-A funds, in exchange for their demonstrating that student achievement is increasing. Sets forth I-A-4 provisions for accountability and technical assistance. Authorizes the following I-A-5 national activities: (1) a national teacher recruitment campaign, including a clearinghouse; (2) national principal and assistant principal recruitment program grants to high-need LEAs, or consortia of such LEAs, or partnerships of such LEAs with nonprofit organizations, and higher education institutions; (3) grants to eligible entities for advanced certification or credentialing activities; (4) a grant to the University of Northern Colorado to provide assistance to other higher education institutions in training special education teachers; (5) early childhood educator professional development grants to eligible partnerships to improve knowledge and skills of early childhood educators who work in communities that have high concentrations of children living in poverty; and (6) a National Panel on Teacher Mobility to study and report on strategies for increasing mobility and employment opportunities for highly qualified teachers, especially for States with teacher shortages and States with school districts or school that are difficult to staff.

(Sec. 201) Establishes, as II-B, a Mathematics and Science Partnerships program of grants to: (1) SEAs; or (2) if appropriations do not reach a specified level, eligible partnerships of SEAs, higher education mathematics, engineering, or science departments, high-need LEAs, and specified optional entities.

Sets forth II-C, Innovation for Teacher Quality. Revises and reauthorizes, under subpart 1 Transitions to Teaching, requirements for the following programs: (1) the Troops-to-Teachers program for recruiting military retirees into teaching and for innovative preretirement teacher certification programs for members of the Armed Forces; and (2) the Transition to Teaching program for professionals seeking to change careers.

Revises and reauthorizes the National Writing Project under II-C-2 (currently under title X part K).

Education for Democracy Act - Revises and reauthorizes Civic Education programs under II-C-3 (currently under title X, part F). Authorizes the Secretary to make grants to or contracts with: (1) the Center for Civic Education to carry out civic education activities under the We the People... The Citizen and the Constitution program and The Project Citizen program, and under Cooperative Educational Exchange (CEE) programs; and (2) the National Council on Economic Education to carry out economic education activities under CEE programs. Makes eligible for CEE programs Central or Eastern European countries, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and the independent states of the former Soviet Union, the Republic of Ireland, the province of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom, and any developing country with a democratic form of government (as determined by the Secretary with the concurrence of the Secretary of State).

Establishes, as II-C-4, a program for Teaching of Traditional American History. Authorizes the Secretary to make competitive grants to LEAs in partnership with higher education institutions, nonprofit history or humanities organizations, or libraries or museums.

Paul Coverdell Teacher Protection Act of 2001 - Sets forth, as II-C-5, Teacher Liability Protection. Preempts State law, except where it provides additional protection of teachers from liability. Makes such provisions inapplicable to any civil action in State court against a teacher in which all parties are citizens of the State if such State enacts a statute electing that such provisions not apply. Provides that no teacher in a school shall be liable for harm caused by an act or omission on behalf of the school if the teacher was acting within the scope of employment or responsibilities relating to providing educational services, subject to specified requirements and exceptions. Limits punitive damages and liability for non-economic loss.

Enhancing Education Through Technology Act of 2001 - Sets forth, as II-D, Enhancing Education Through Technology, provisions which revise and reauthorize some programs under the current title III (Education for Technology).

Consolidates such program activities for telecommunications and technology access into a formula grant program for State and local technology programs under II-D-1 (State and Local Technology Grants). Includes among authorized State and local activities enabling teachers to use the Internet to retrieve learning resources and to communicate with other teachers, parents, principals, and administrators.

Authorizes certain national activities and a national education technology plan under II-D-2, National Technology Activities.

Sets forth, under II-D-3, Ready-to-Learn Television provisions which revise and reauthorize programs under current III-C.

Prohibits use of II-D funds by certain elementary or secondary schools to purchase computers used to access the Internet or pay direct costs of Internet access, unless such schools have Internet safety policies that include operation of technology protection measures that prevent access to visual depictions that are obscene, or child pornography, or harmful to minors.

(Sec. 202) Provides for continuation of prior awards of: (1) funds under the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2001 for new teacher recruitment initiatives; and (2) grants or contracts under the National Writing Project.

Title III: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students - Revises ESEA title III as Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students (current title VII is Bilingual Education, Language Enhancement, and Language Acquisition Programs). (Current title III Technology for Education programs are eliminated, but some similar activities are consolidated under the new II-D, and the Star Schools program is reauthorized under V-D-7.)

(Sec. 301) Consolidates and revises current Bilingual Education Act (BEA) programs (III-A) and the Emergency Immigrant Education Program (III-B-4) into a program of formula grants to States for education of limited English proficient (LEP) and immigrant children, when appropriations reach a specified level for such III-A to be in effect (otherwise, III-B is in effect). (Transfers the Foreign Language Assistance Program to title V.)

English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act - Sets forth, as title III part A, an Education of Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Children Act (III-A).

Bases III-A grant distribution to States on enrollment levels of limited English proficient (LEP) and immigrant students. Bases within-State distribution on enrollment of LEP students. Allows State reservation of a portion of such funds for grants to LEAs with large influxes of recent immigrant students. Requires local use of 95 percent of III-A funds. Reduces administrative funds if a State fails to have a majority of LEP children become English language proficient.

Requires students who have been in U.S. schools for at least three years to be tested for reading in English. Requires LEAs to obtain informed parental consent prior to placing children in an instructional program that is not taught primarily in English. Allows parents to: (1) choose among instructional programs if more than one type of program is offered; and (2) immediately remove their child from a program for LEP children.

Sets forth certain language program exceptions for programs that serve Native American and Native Pacific Island children and children in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Improving Language Instruction Educational Programs for Academic Achievement Act - Sets forth, as III-B (when appropriations levels are not high enough for III-A to be in effect), provisions for Improving Language Instruction Educational Programs.

Sets forth III-B-1, Program Development and Enhancement, with grants to LEAs, higher education institutions, and community-based organizations for activities for program enhancement and for comprehensive school and systemwide improvement.

Sets forth III-B-2, Research, Evaluation, and Dissemination. Directs the Secretary to conduct such activities through the Office of Educational Research and Improvement in coordination with the Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students. Authorizes the Secretary to make grants to: (1) SEAs to make awards to recognize LEA and other public and nonprofit entity programs demonstrating significant progress in assisting LEP students to learn English and meet academic standards; and (3) for instructional materials development in Native American (including Hawaiian, Pacific Islanders, and outlying area) languages and other low-incidence languages in the United States for which such materials are not readily available.

Sets forth III-B-3, Professional Development, to authorize the Secretary to award grants to SEAs, LEAs, higher education institutions, or consortia of such entities, for professional development programs and activities to improve instruction and services for LEP children.

Reauthorizes and revises, under III-B-4, the Emergency Immigrant Education Program. (Provides for funds for such program as part of III-A formula grants or separately under III-B, depending on whether A or B is in effect.)

Sets forth III-C general provisions, including requirements for parental notification. Directs the Secretary to establish a National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs, to be administered as an adjunct clearinghouse of the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouses system supported by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Title IV: 21st Century Schools - Revises and renames ESEA title IV as 21st Century Schools (currently Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities).

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act - Sets forth title IV, part A, Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities. Reauthorizes and revises programs of drug and violence prevention in elementary and secondary schools (currently under IV, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994).

Sets forth IV-A-1, State Grants. Revises certain fund allocation formulas to give priority to schools with high proportions of low-income students. Requires drug and violence prevention programs to be consistent with certain principles of effectiveness. Requires States to establish policies allowing transfer to a safe public school within their LEA to students who attend persistently dangerous schools or who are victims of violent crimes in school or on school grounds. Allows States to carry out programs through grants and contracts with charitable, religious, and other private organizations, in addition to LEAs. Provides that certain limitations on LEA program expenditures under IV-A do not apply to the hiring and training of school resource officers.

Sets forth, under IV-A-2, National Programs, revising and reauthorizing provisions for: (1) Federal activities; (2) impact evaluation; and (3) hate crime prevention grants to LEAs and community-based organizations to assist localities most directly affected by hate crimes.

Establishes the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Advisory Committee.

Authorizes the Secretary to make grants to: (1) LEAs, for hiring drug prevention and school safety program coordinators, through a National Coordinator Program; (2) States, for programs requiring community service by students who are expelled or suspended from school; (3) LEAs, for programs to reduce alcohol abuse in secondary schools; and (4) LEAs, nonprofit community organizations, or partnerships of these entities, for mentoring programs and activities for children with the greatest need.

Provides for establishment of a School Technology and Resource Center. Authorizes the Secretary, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Energy to enter into an agreement to establish such Center at the Sandia National Laboratories, in partnership with the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center-Southwest and the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement in Little Rock, Arkansas. Directs the Attorney general to administer such Center.

Authorizes the Secretary and the Attorney General to establish a National Center for School and Youth Safety, to carry out emergency response, anonymous student hotline, consultation, information, and outreach.

Gun-Free Schools Act - Sets forth, under IV-A-3, Gun Possession, certain gun-free school requirements (currently under IX-F, the Gun-Free Schools Act), including requiring State laws to provide a minimum one-year expulsion of any student bringing a firearm to school or possessing one there (allowing LEA chief administrative officers to make case-by-case modifications).

Sets forth, as title IV part B, 21st Century Community Learning Centers, provisions which reauthorize and revise before-and-after-school programs for youth (currently under X-I, the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act). Allots funds through a formula to the States based on school-age population and on title I participation. Requires States to use such funds to provide competitive grants to LEAs, community-based organizations, and other private and public organizations to administer such programs. Requires States, if they opt to require local matching funds for such grants, to allow in-kind contributions.

Pro-Children Act of 2001 - Sets forth, as title IV part C, Environmental Tobacco Smoke, prohibitions for schools (provisions similar to those for a tobacco smoke-free environment for schools under part C of title X of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, which is repealed under this Act). Reauthorizes prohibitions against smoking within any indoor facility used for routine or regular provision of children's services (up to age 18), including health, day care, early development, education, or library services. Sets forth procedures for civil penalties and administrative compliance orders to be enforced by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Title V: Promoting Informed Parental Choice and Innovative Programs - Sets forth a new ESEA title V, Promoting Informed Parental Choice and Innovative Programs. Includes and revises, under this new title V, Magnet School Assistance and Public Charter Schools (current parts A and B under current title V, Promoting Equity), as well as certain parts of Innovative Education Program Strategies (current VI), the Foreign Language Assistance Program (current VII-B), and Programs of National Significance (current title X).

(Sec. 501) Revises and reauthorizes as V-A Innovative Programs: (1) subpart 1 State and Local Innovative Programs (current VI-A); (2) subpart 2 State Programs (current VI-B); and (3) subpart 3 Local Innovative Education Programs (current VI-C).

Revises formulas relating to distribution of innovative program funds to LEAs (under V-A-1). Includes among authorized State uses of program funds support for arrangements that provide for independent analysis to measure and report on school district achievement. Adds to authorized local uses of program funds activities involving: (1) professional development and hiring of teachers; (2) promotion of consumer, economic, and personal finance education; (3) expanded and improved school-based mental health services; (4) community service programs using qualified school personnel to train youths to strengthen their communities through nonviolence, responsibility, compassion, respect, and moral courage; (5) improvement of civics and government education; (6) alternative educational programs for students who have been expelled or suspended; (7) hiring and support of school nurses; (8) prekindergarten programs for children ages three through five; (9) academic intervention programs to support academic enrichment and counseling for at-risk students during the school day, operated jointed with community-based organizations; (10) programs for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training in schools; and (11) programs to establish smaller learning communities. Reauthorizes other innovative activities, including those to promote, implement, or expand public school choice.

Revises provisions for Public Charter Schools (as V-B; currently X-C). Reauthorizes: (1) grants for charter school programs (V-B-1); and (2) credit enhancement initiatives to assist charter school facility acquisition, construction, and renovation (V-B-2). Establishes a program of competitive grants to eligible entities to establish or expand voluntary public school choice programs.

Reauthorizes the Magnet Schools Assistance program (as V-C; currently under V-A).

Sets forth, under title V part D (Fund for the Improvement of Education), various programs, including such Fund, which are currently under title X (Programs of National Significance) and other ESEA titles.

Revises provisions for such Fund (current X-A) under V-D-1, redesignating some of the Fund's programs under separate subparts. Authorizes certain Fund programs and activities. Directs the Secretary to carry out studies of national significance regarding: (1) unhealthy public school buildings; (2) the effects of children's exposure to violent entertainment; and (3) sexual abuse in schools.

Sets forth, as V-D-2, Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Programs, to reauthorize, revise, and expand the elementary school counseling demonstration program (under current X-A) to include secondary school counseling programs.

Sets forth, as V-D-3, a Partnerships in Character Education program to revise, reauthorize, and expand a pilot project currently under X-A. Authorizes the Secretary to make grants to eligible entities in partnerships to design and implement State and local character education programs incorporating the elements of caring, civic virtue and citizenship, justice and fairness, respect, responsibility, trustworthiness, and giving, as well as any other elements deemed appropriate by the members of the eligible entity, and any additional elements defined after consultation with the schools and communities served.

Reauthorizes, as Smaller Learning Communities (V-D-4), a program of grants to LEAs for certain activities relating to creation of smaller learning communities (currently under X-A).

Reauthorizes the Reading Is Fundamental, Inexpensive Book Distribution Program for reading motivation (V-D-5) (current X-E).

Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of 2001 - Reauthorizes and revises Gifted and Talented Children programs (as V-D-6; currently under title X, part B).

Star Schools Act - Reauthorizes the Star Schools Program (as V-D-7; current III-B).

Sets forth, as V-D-8, a Ready to Teach program of grants for digital educational programming and other related activities to improve teachers skills and knowledge of core curriculum subjects.

Foreign Language Assistance Act of 2001 - Revises and reauthorizes the program of Foreign Language Assistance (V-D-9) (current VII-B), including: (1) grants to SEAs and LEAs for elementary and secondary school foreign language programs; and (2) incentive payments to elementary schools that provide students a program leading to communicative competency in a foreign language.

Carol M. White Physical Education Program - Sets forth, as V-D-10, Physical Education, to revise provisions similar to the current Physical Education for Progress program (current X-L).

Sets forth, as V-D-11, provisions for grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements for Community Technology Centers.

Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Education Through Cultural and Historical Organizations Act - Sets forth, as V-D-12, provisions for grants and contracts for Educational, Cultural, Apprenticeship, and Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Whaling and Trading Partners in Massachusetts.

Excellence in Economic Education Act of 2001 - Establishes, as V-D-13, an Excellence in Economic Education program authorizing the Secretary to award a competitive grant to a national nonprofit educational organization that has as its primary purpose improving student understanding of personal finance and economics through classroom teaching.

Establishes, under V-D-14, Grants to Improve the Mental Health of Children: (1) a program of grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements with SEAs, LEAs, and Indian tribes for the integration of schools and mental health systems; and (2) a program of Foundations for Learning Grants to LEAs, local councils, community-based organizations, and other public and private nonprofit entities, for promotion of school readiness through early childhood emotional and social development.

Revises Arts Education programs (as V-D-15; currently under title X, part D) to provide for: (1) increased participation of local organizations; (2) collaborative efforts by arts educators and State and local arts agencies; and (3) consultation about grant awards by the Secretary with arts educators and organizations. Reauthorizes arts and education programs that ensure participation in mainstream settings for individuals with disabilities through the Kennedy Center, Very Special Arts (VSA), and other arrangements. Requires Federal arts education funds to be used only to supplement and not supplant non-federal arts activities. Eliminates the Cultural Partnerships for At-Risk Children and Youth program.

Establishes programs for: (1) Parental Assistance and Local Family Information Centers (V-D-16); (2) Combating Domestic Violence (V-D-17); (3) Healthy, High-Performance Schools (V-D-18); (4) Grants for Capital Expenses of Providing Equitable Services for Private School Students (V-D-19); and (5) Additional Assistance for Certain Local Educational Agencies Impacted by Federal Property Acquisition (V-D-20).

Women's Educational Equity Act of 2001 - Sets forth, as V-D-21, the Women's Educational Equity Act (current V-B).

Title VI: Flexibility and Accountability - Revises ESEA title VI as Flexibility and Accountability.

(Sec. 601) Sets forth VI-A, Improving Academic Achievement. Sets forth, as VI-A-1, Accountability provisions. Directs the Secretary to make: (1) grants to States for certain costs relating to developing or administering newly-required State assessments, standards, and related activities; and (2) competitive grants to SEAs for enhanced assessment instruments. Provides funding for: (1) administration of State assessments under the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); and (2) VI-A-1 grants to States and SEAs.

State and Local Transferability Act - Sets forth VI-A-2, Transferability of Funds. Authorizes State and LEA transfers of funds: (1) among specified ESEA formula grant programs (relating to teachers, technology, safe and drug-free schools, and innovative programs); and (2) from such programs to their allocations for ESEA title I, but does not allow transfer of title I funds to other programs. Allows States to transfer up to 50 percent of State activity funds among such programs, as well as the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program. Allows LEAs to transfer up to 50 percent of funds among such programs, but limits this to 30 percent for LEAs failing to meet State AYP requirements and only for improvement activities to address such failure.

State and Local Flexibility Demonstration Act - Sets forth VI-A-3, State and Local Flexibility Demonstration, with: (1) a chapter A program of State flexibility authority agreements for up to seven eligible SEAs, for performance agreements with at least four and not more than ten eligible LEAs in each such State (at least half of which are high poverty LEAs); and (2) a chapter B program of local flexibility demonstration agreements for up to 80 eligible LEAs (up to three LEAs in each State which does not have a chapter A agreement). Provides for consolidation of funds from specified ESEA programs (under the State chapter A program, from I-A, Reading First, Even Start, teachers, technology, safe and drug-free schools, 21st Century Community Learning Centers, and innovative programs; and under the local chapter B program, from teachers, technology, safe and drug-free schools, and innovative programs) for use for any purpose authorized under any ESEA program, for a five-year period, with loss of such authority by any such State or LEA that fails to meet State AYP requirements.

Allows up to 80 LEAs to consolidate all their funds under specified ESEA programs relating to for any purpose authorized under any ESEA program. Grants such authority for a five-year period. Provides that any such State LEA will lose such authority if it fails to meet State AYP requirements for two consecutive years.

Sets forth, as VI-A-4, provisions for State Accountability for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Directs the Secretary to use an annual peer review process to determine whether each State that has a plan under I-A-1 and III-A-1 has: (1) made AYP for each of specified groups of students under title I; and (2) met its annual measurable achievement objectives (annual objectives) under title III. Requires the Secretary to provide technical assistance to States that have failed to make AYP for two consecutive years. Authorizes such assistance for States that have failed to achieve annual objectives for two consecutive years. Directs the Secretary to report annually to specified congressional committees on States that have not made AYP or met annual objectives, and on such technical assistance.

Rural Education Achievement Program - Revises, reauthorizes, and transfers to VI-B ESEA requirements for a Rural Education Initiative, with State formula grants for: (1) subpart 1 Small, Rural School Achievement Program; and (2) subpart 2 Rural and Low-Income School Program.

Sets forth part C general provisions with respect to title VI, including: (1) a prohibition against Federal mandates, direction, or control; and (2) a rule of construction on equalized spending.

Amends the National Education Statistics Act of 1994 with respect to State assessments. Directs the Commissioner of Education Statistics to conduct biennial State NAEP assessments in reading and mathematics in grades 4 and 8. Authorizes the Commissioner to conduct State NAEP assessments: (1) in reading and mathematics in grade 12; and (2) in additional subject matter in grades 4, 8, and 12.

Title VII: Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education - Reauthorizes and revises ESEA requirements for Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education (currently under title IX parts A, B, and C) under this new title VII.

(Sec. 701) Revises and reauthorizes provisions relating to Indian Education, as VII-A. Allows certain LEAs to combine Indian Education Act funds with other Federal funds they receive for Indian students in order to carry out demonstration projects integrating services for such students.

Native Hawaiian Education Act - Revises and reauthorizes, as VII-B Native Hawaiian Education (the Native Hawaiian Education Act, current IX-B).

Alaska Native Educational Equity, Support, and Assistance Act - Revises and reauthorizes, as VII-C, Alaska Native Education (the Alaska Native Educational Equity Support and Assistance Act, current IX-C).

Title VIII: Impact Aid Program - Revises and reauthorizes the Impact Aid Program (continues as title VIII of ESEA).

(Sec. 801) Revises a hold-harmless formula for distributing impact aid payments for Federal acquisition of real property for fiscal years in which insufficient funds are appropriated.

(Sec. 802) Revises impact aid provisions for certain heavily impacted LEAs, under the program of payments for eligible federally connected children.

(Sec. 803) Revises impact aid requirements for construction through school facility emergency and modernization grants.

(Sec. 804) Revises requirements relating to State consideration of impact aid payments in providing State aid.

(Sec. 805) Extends the authorization of appropriations for impact aid.

Title IX: General Provisions - Revises ESEA General Provisions (title IX), including definitions, flexibility in the use of administrative and other funds, coordination of programs, consolidated plans and applications, waivers, uniform provisions, and evaluations.

(Sec. 901) Sets forth additional uniform provisions. Provides that nothing in ESEA shall be construed to affect: (1) home schools, whether or not one is treated as a home school or a private school under State law, nor shall any home schooled student be required to participate in any assessment referenced in ESEA; or (2) any private school that does not receive funds or services under ESEA, nor shall any student who attends such a school be required to participate in any assessment referenced in ESEA.

Requires specified privacy protections for any results from individual assessments referenced in ESEA which become part of the education records of a student.

Requires LEAs, as a condition of receiving ESEA funds, to certify that they have no policy that prevents or otherwise denies participation in constitutionally-protected prayer in public schools.

Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act - Prohibits any SEA, LEA, or public school that receives Department of Education funds from discriminating, in providing equal access to school premises or facilities that have been designated as open or limited public forums, against any group officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America or any other youth group listed as a patriotic society, on the basis of such group's membership or leadership criteria or oath of allegiance.

Prohibits use of ESEA funds for programs of contraceptive (currently, condom) distribution at schools.

Prohibits the Department of Education from using any of its funds to endorse, approve, or sanction any elementary or secondary school curriculum. Prohibits use of ESEA funds to require States, as a condition of ESEA assistance, to have Federal approval or certification of academic content or student achievement standards. Provides that nothing in ESEA shall be construed to mandate national school building standards for a State, LEA, or school.

Requires any secondary school that receives ESEA funds to permit regular U.S. Armed Services recruitment activities on school grounds, in a manner reasonably accessible to all its students.

Prohibits: (1) use of ESEA funds for federally-sponsored national testing, unless specifically authorized by law, with an exception for representative samples in certain international comparative assessments; and (2) use of Federal funds or sanctions for mandatory national certification of teachers and paraprofessionals.

Provides that nothing in ESEA shall be construed to permit the development of a national database of personally identifiable information on individuals involved in studies or in data collection efforts under ESEA.

Requires States receiving ESEA funds to establish policies allowing transfer to a safe public school within their LEA for students who attend persistently dangerous schools or who are victims of violent crimes in school or on school grounds.

Title X: Repeals, Redesignations, And Amendments to Other Statutes - Part A: Repeals - Repeals provisions relating to the Advanced Placement: (1) fee payment program, under the Higher Education Amendments of 1992; and (2) incentive program, under the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. Repeals certain provisions relating to Ready to Learn Television, under the General Education Provisions Act (but reauthorizes such program under ESEA II-D-4).

(Sec. 1011) Repeals provisions under the Goals 2000: Educate America Act for: (1) the National Education Goals Panel; and (2) an International Education Program.

Repeals the following ESEA provisions: (1) title X, Programs of National Significance (many of which are revised and reauthorized under the new title V, part D); (2) title XI, Coordinated Services; (3) title XII, School Facilities Infrastructure Improvement, a program of grants for school construction and renovation; (4) specified provisions relating to title XIII support and assistance programs to improve education (which are redesignated under another Act); and (5) title XIV (General Provisions, which are revised and redesignated as title IX).

Repeals the Troops-to-Teachers Program Act of 1999 (but sets forth a revised form of the Troops-to-Teachers Program under title II of this Act).

Part B: Redesignations - Redesignates and revises the following current parts of ESEA as new parts of the Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 1994: (1) Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers (current title XIII part A as new part K); (2) National Diffusion Network (current XIII-B as new L); (3) Eisenhower Regional Mathematics and Science Education Consortia (current XIII-C as new M); and (4) technology-based technical assistance (current XIII-D as new N).

Part C: Homeless Education - McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance Improvement Act of 2001 - Amends the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act to revise and reauthorize requirements for education for homeless children and youth. Requires schools to: (1) immediately enroll homeless children and youth; and (2) keep children in their school of origin whenever possible and appropriate. Requires public notice of the educational rights of homeless children and youth to be disseminated in school districts. Prohibits States receiving such program funds from segregating a homeless child, either in a separate school or in a separate program within a school, based on that student's status as homeless. Allows States flexibility in use of program funds for Statewide support and technical assistance activities. Increases the amount of program funds available to small States.

Part D: Native American Education Improvement - Native American Education Improvement Act of 2001 - Amends the Education Amendments of 1978 to revise provisions for Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) programs. Requires BIA schools to be accredited within a specified period. Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to take certain corrective actions for BIA schools still unaccredited after such period.

(Sec. 1043) Amends the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988 to revise and reauthorize grant and school endowment programs.

(Sec. 1044) Authorizes the Ojibwa Indian School in Belcourt, North Dakota, to use funds under the Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988 to make certain lease payments.

(Sec. 1045) Amends the Augustus F. Hawkins-Robert T. Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendments Act of 1988 to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from disqualifying from continued receipt of BIA general assistance payment an otherwise eligible Indian because such individual is enrolled at least half-time and making satisfactory in a study or training program.

Part E: Higher Education Act of 1965 - Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) to establish a program for Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology as a new part B of title II of HEA. Provides for continuation of awards under a similar program currently under ESEA.

Part F: General Education Provisions Act - Amends the General Education Provisions Act with respect to student privacy, parental access to information, and administration of certain physical examinations to minors.

Part G: Miscellaneous Other Statutes - Amends Federal law relating to compensation for an Under Secretary of Education.

(Sec. 1072) Amends the Department of Education Organization Act to: (1) direct the Secretary to designate an office and appoint a coordinator of Department of Education activities as they relate to outlying areas; and (2) rename the Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs as the Office of Educational Services for Limited English Proficient Children.

(Sec. 1073) Amends the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 to revise references to specified ESEA and other program requirements that may be waived under such Act.

(Sec. 1074) Amends the Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 1994 to provide for continuation of awards for certain multiyear grants and contracts.

(Sec. 1075) Amends the National Child Protection Act of 1993 to allow certain funds under such Act to be made available for background checks on individuals who are employed, or seek employment, with schools in any capacity, including as a child care provider, teacher, or another member of school personnel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 - Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to revise, reauthorize, and consolidate various programs. Extends authorizations of appropriations for ESEA programs through FY 2007.

# data[].attributes.body
Initial evaluations-
-Initial evaluation may be requested by a parent or public agency,
-Then determinations should be made if the child qualifies (34 C.F.R. § 300.301(b)).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(b) Request for initial evaluation. Consistent with the consent requirements in § 300.300, either a parent of a child or a public agency may initiate a request for an initial evaluation to determine if the child is a child with a disability.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 13: Bulleted list of Recommendations / Best Practices for Compliance

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 13: Bulleted list of Recommendations / Best Practices for Compliance

# data[].attributes.body
-  Provide professional development for teacher on how to collect student data for reliability.
- Develop data-driven decision rules when providing differentiated instructions.
- Administrations need to provide support efforts and motivational strategies when managing intervention students.
-Use national benchmarks to assess progress.
- Select cut-points to accurately identify students.
-RTI fidelity measure should ensure that an intervention is implemented as intended.

# data[].attributes.body
El Paso v. R.R., 2008
This case established the school's obligation to:
- evaluate a student
- when there is reason to suspect a student has a disability,
-and resulting for special education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit.

EL PASO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHARD R., as next friend of R.R.; Mark Berry, Defendants-Appellees.

R.R., by his next friend E.R., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. El Paso Independent School District, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-50830.

Decided: December 16, 2009
Before KING, DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. Todd Aaron Clark, Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Aldridge & Gallegos, P.C., Austin, TX, Elena M. Gallegos, Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Schulze & Aldridge, Albuquerque, NM, Joe Ruben Tanguma, II (argued), Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Aldridge & Gallegos, P.C., Irving, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Charles Mark Berry (argued), El Paso, TX, for RR and Richard R. Coilbert N. Coldwell, Guevara, Rebe, Bauman, Coldwell & Reedman, El Paso, TX, for Berry. Christopher Paul Borreca, Thompson & Horton, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Amici Curiae.
The El Paso Independent School District appeals the district court's award of attorney's fees to R.R. under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The district court determined that R.R. was the prevailing party in his suit against the school district because he had won a judicial order granting him his requested relief; the court awarded attorney's fees to R.R. in the amount of $45,804. We assume, without deciding, that R.R. was the prevailing party in this litigation. But because R.R. rejected a written settlement offer that included all the educational relief that he requested and reasonable attorney's fees, we also conclude that R.R. unreasonably protracted the resolution of this dispute and VACATE the award of attorney's fees to R.R. We AFFIRM the dismissal of EPISD's claim for attorney's fees.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

R.R. claims to suffer from Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Over the past twelve years, R.R. has sought special education and accommodative services from the El Paso Independent School District (EPISD) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. R.R. has been evaluated several times for special education services, admitted to special education programs, and assisted in his education through the provision of accommodative services.

In 2005, R.R. was struggling in school, despite receiving accommodative services that included test preparation and study skills assistance. Later that year, after failing the Texas standardized skills assessment test for the third consecutive year, R.R. requested an evaluation for special education services. In response to this request, the school district set up a committee to evaluate R.R.'s academic placement. The committee determined that because R.R. was very close to passing the Texas standardized skills test, there was no need to either evaluate him for special education or change his current academic placement and accommodative services.

In 2006, after R.R. again failed the Texas standardized test, R.R. requested a full evaluation to determine his eligibility for special education services. In response, EPISD scheduled a meeting for September 25, 2006, to address R.R.'s request. On September 25, R.R. cancelled the scheduled meeting and, on September 26, filed a request for a state due process hearing. In that filing, R.R. sought an order from the Texas Education Agency Hearing Officer directing EPISD to (1) perform a "full independent evaluation" of R.R.; (2) provide written notice to R.R.'s parents whenever the district proposed to change R.R.'s status, accommodations, or evaluation report; (3) provide notice of procedural safeguards to R.R.'s parents; (4) conduct an Admissions, Review, and Dismissal Committee (ARDC) meeting; and (5) pay reasonable attorney's fees.

At the required pre-hearing resolution meeting, held on October 11, 2006, EPISD contended that there was no dispute between the parties because it was willing to provide all requested relief. Specifically, EPISD offered to (1) conduct a full evaluation of R.R. within sixty days of the parents' consent to evaluate; (2) convene an ARDC meeting within thirty days from the completion of the evaluation; (3) continue to comply with the applicable federal and state laws regarding the provision of prior written notice and procedural safeguards to parents; and (4) pay attorney's fees. At the meeting, EPISD asked for a quantification of R.R.'s attorney's fees. R.R. did not quantify his attorney's fees demand and instead asked for an "agreed order." EPISD demurred, contending that an "agreed order" was not appropriate because there were factual and legal disputes between the parties. R.R. then left the meeting.

Later that day, EPISD formalized the offer made at the resolution meeting in a written settlement offer faxed to R.R. The faxed letter included everything offered at the resolution meeting and initially suggested an attorney's fee award of $3,000. However, EPISD stated that it "remain[ed] ready to negotiate a private settlement, and in so doing, ․ [requested] the amount of attorney's fees that w[ould] be necessary to finalize the settlement." Rather than continue negotiating, R.R. refused EPISD's settlement offer, did not make a counter-offer, and proceeded to a due process hearing.

At the due process hearing in November 2006, EPISD reasserted that there was no dispute between the parties because it was willing to grant all requested relief to R.R. As such, EPISD argued that R.R.'s complaint should be dismissed. Notwithstanding this argument, the state hearing officer conducted a two-day hearing on the issues presented in R.R.'s due process complaint. After the hearing, the hearing officer made factual findings and entered judgment in favor of R.R., ordering EPISD to conduct a full evaluation of R.R.

In April 2007, EPISD and R.R. each filed suit in district court under the IDEA. In its suit, EPISD argued that the hearing officer's refusal to dismiss R.R.'s complaint was error because the complaint was non-justiciable. As a result, EPISD urged, R.R.'s subsequent litigation was frivolous, and the court should award EPISD attorney's fees. R.R. also sought an award of attorney's fees, asserting in his complaint that, based on the state hearing officer's ruling, he was the prevailing party. The two suits were subsequently consolidated.

R.R. moved for summary judgment on the prevailing party issue in July 2007. The district court held that R.R. was justified in rejecting EPISD's settlement offer and continuing his litigation to obtain an "enforceable order." As part of this holding, the district court determined that there was a justiciable dispute before the Texas hearing officer because EPISD had not offered an enforceable settlement. Specifically, the district court concluded that EPISD's settlement offer would not have been enforceable in either state or federal court, and as such, R.R. had an interest in continuing litigation to obtain a judicial order that could be enforced against EPISD. The district court then held that R.R. had prevailed in the litigation by obtaining a judicial order entitling him to all of his requested relief. Because the district court determined that R.R.'s litigation was not frivolous, the court also dismissed EPISD's attorney's fee claim.

Following this prevailing party determination, R.R. moved for attorney's fees. In response, EPISD again argued that because R.R. had achieved nothing more than was originally offered, the district court should not award attorney's fees to R.R. The district court disregarded EPISD's contentions, stating that it had considered those arguments in making its prevailing party determination. Instead, the district court granted R.R.'s motion for attorney's fees in August 2008 and awarded $45,804 in fees to R.R.-an award that reflected the full amount of work R.R.'s attorney had done. EPISD now appeals the district court's prevailing party and attorney's fee decisions.

II. DISCUSSION

The IDEA requires that a party be a "prevailing party" in order to be entitled to attorney's fees. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i) ("[T]he court, in its discretion, may award reasonable attorneys' fees ․ to a prevailing party ․"). Thus, in an action for attorney's fees under the IDEA, the threshold question is whether the party seeking attorney's fees is the prevailing party. See Jason D.W. ex rel. Douglas W. v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d 205, 209 (5th Cir.1998) (per curiam). However, "[a] finding that a party is a prevailing party only makes him eligible to receive attorneys' fees under the IDEA; it does not automatically entitle him to recover the full amount that he spent on legal representation." Id.

A. Prevailing Party Status

Under the IDEA, "a prevailing party is one that attains a remedy that both (1) alters the legal relationship between the school district and the handicapped child and (2) fosters the purposes of the IDEA." Jason D.W., 158 F.3d at 209. This test follows from Texas State Teachers Association v. Garland Independent School District, where the Court held that the "touchstone of the prevailing party inquiry must be the material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties in a manner which Congress sought to promote in the fee statute." 489 U.S. 782, 792-93, 109 S.Ct. 1486, 103 L.Ed.2d 866 (1989); see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) ("[P]laintiffs may be considered 'prevailing parties' ․ if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.").

More recently, in Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, the Supreme Court clarified that a prevailing party is one that has obtained a judgment on the merits, a consent decree, or some similar form of judicially sanctioned relief. 532 U.S. 598, 603-04, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001). We now join our sister circuits in applying Buckhannon in the IDEA context and hold that a litigant must attain some judicial imprimatur on a material alteration of the legal relationship in order to be a prevailing party. We have already joined our sister circuits in holding that, after Buckhannon, whether a party is a prevailing party "is a legal question subject to de novo review." Bailey v. Mississippi, 407 F.3d 684, 687 (5th Cir.2005) (collecting cases).

EPISD argues that R.R. is not the prevailing party. EPISD contends that because it offered R.R. all requested relief before litigation, R.R.'s attainment of relief did not alter the legal relationship between the parties and did not foster the purposes of the IDEA. In response, R.R. points to the fact that both the hearing officer and the district court determined that R.R. was entitled to a full evaluation, thereby altering (as the district court held) the legal relationship between R.R. and EPISD and fostering the purposes of the IDEA by enabling the provision of an appropriate public education.

As discussed above, the IDEA provides that "[i]n any action or proceeding brought under this section, the court, in its discretion, may award reasonable attorneys' fees ․ to a prevailing party." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(I). The IDEA features a plethora of provisions dealing with attorney's fees, several of which contemplate reducing the attorney's fee award of a party that ultimately prevails in an administrative or judicial proceeding. For example, a prevailing party that ultimately achieves no more than what was earlier offered in settlement may not recover attorney's fees incurred subsequent to the settlement offer. Id. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i). Similarly, a court may reduce the attorney's fees awarded to a prevailing party found to have unreasonably protracted the litigation. Id. § 1415(i)(3)(F)(i). Particularly at issue here is § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i), which provides that "[a]ttorneys' fees may not be awarded ․ in any action ․ for services performed subsequent to the time of a written offer of settlement ․ [if] the court ․ finds that the relief finally obtained ․ is not more favorable ․ than the offer of settlement." Id. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i) (emphasis added). In imposing this bar against recovering attorney's fees incurred subsequent to the offer of settlement, that provision tacitly assumes that a party may reject such an offer and nevertheless attain prevailing party status: the statute permits an award of attorney's fees for work performed prior to the written offer of settlement, and prevailing party status is a predicate for any such award. See id. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i).

Several of our sister circuits have addressed provisions of the IDEA that contemplate reducing attorney's fee awards for those parties who reject settlement offers and later obtain no more than what was offered. In so doing, these circuits have recognized that such a party still "prevails" by obtaining judicially sanctioned relief, notwithstanding the reduced attorney's fee award. In T.D. v. LaGrange, the Seventh Circuit addressed T.D.'s argument that the IDEA, by virtue of its complex array of provisions dealing with attorney's fees, fell beyond the scope of Buckhannon and that private IDEA settlements could therefore convey prevailing party status. 349 F.3d at 476. In rejecting that argument, the Seventh Circuit discussed generally the provisions of the IDEA that deal with settlement offers and reduction of fees. In this discussion, the Seventh Circuit noted that "if a plaintiff rejects a settlement offer and eventually receives a judicially sanctioned victory that is less beneficial than the settlement offer was, the plaintiff, though being a 'prevailing party,' may not get the fees incurred after the settlement offer." Id. at 476 (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i)). Similarly, the D.C. Circuit and the Third Circuit, in addressing whether Buckhannon applies to the IDEA, recognized that the IDEA contemplates reducing fees when a litigant rejects a settlement offer and does not achieve more favorable relief that what was offered, but that the litigant remains the prevailing party. See, e.g., Alegria ex rel. Alegria v. District of Columbia, 391 F.3d 262, 267 (D.C.Cir.2004) ("A parent who refuses a written offer to settle a complaint, and later prevails at an administrative hearing or in court but obtains a result that is not more favorable than the written settlement offer, would still be eligible for an award of attorneys' fees for work performed prior to the settlement offer ․"); John T., 318 F.3d at 557 ("[Section 1415(i)(3)(D)-(G)] define situations in which attorney's fees [awarded to a prevailing party] may be prohibited or reduced, e.g., when a parent has unjustifiably rejected a settlement offer or when a parent has unreasonably protracted the final resolution.").

However, we have held that parties that extend litigation may be denied prevailing party status. In Michael T. ex rel. Oralee T. v. El Paso Independent School District, 37 Fed.Appx. 714, 2002 WL 1221847, at *1 (5th Cir.2002) (per curiam), an unpublished opinion which is not precedential, see 5th Cir. R. 47.5, but is nevertheless persuasive, we held that a district court did not clearly err (the test in this circuit pre-Buckhannon) in determining that Michael was not the prevailing party because Michael unreasonably withheld consent for an evaluation. Id. The facts in Michael T. were substantially similar to the present matter-EPISD and the attorney for R.R., Mark Berry, were both involved, and the end result was that Michael also achieved an order entitling him to a full evaluation at the due process hearing-but there the district court found that Michael was not the prevailing party because the results Michael achieved through litigation "could have been obtained at any time from the [school] district but for his mother's refusal to give consent to the initial assessment." Id. We affirmed, stating that "we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in determining that the purposes of the IDEA are not fostered by encouraging parents of potentially disabled children to withhold consent to an initial assessment in order to obtain prevailing party status." Id.

We need not resolve the issue today whether a party who rejects a settlement offer and obtains from an administrative hearing officer or the district court no more educational benefit than the settlement offered is technically a "prevailing party." Instead, we assume, without deciding, that R.R. is a prevailing party simply because he achieved a judicial order of relief, and we consider only whether R.R.'s rejection of EPISD's settlement offer should affect the amount of R.R.'s attorney's fees award. In so doing, we leave for another day the question whether denying prevailing party status in these circumstances might also be appropriate under the IDEA.

B. Attorney's fees

In considering the parties' attorney's fees arguments, we examine (1) the award of fees to R.R. for work performed after EPISD's written settlement offer; (2) the award of fees to R.R. for work performed prior to EPISD's written settlement offer; and (3) EPISD's claim for attorney's fees.

1. R.R.'s Attorney's Fees Post-Settlement Offer

The first question is whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to R.R. for work performed after EPISD's written settlement offer-formalizing the offer made at the resolution meeting-which was made the day of the resolution meeting and more than ten days before the administrative proceeding. That question is answered by several provisions of the IDEA.

The IDEA envisions that the parties to a dispute should resolve their differences cooperatively. Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 53, 126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387 (2005) ("The core of the [IDEA] is the cooperative process that it establishes between parents and schools."). To effectuate this goal, the statute requires that "[p]rior to the opportunity for an impartial due process hearing ․ the local education agency shall convene a meeting with the parents and the relevant ․ members of the [educational program t]eam ․" 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(B)(i). The statute further contemplates resolution without resort to litigation by endorsing settlement agreements: "In the case that a resolution is reached to resolve the complaint at [the resolution] meeting described in [20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(B)](i), the parties shall execute a legally binding agreement that is ․ enforceable in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States." Id. § 1415(f)(1)(B)(iii)(II).

Early resolution through settlement is favored under the IDEA. The statute bars an award of attorney's fees for work performed subsequent to a written settlement offer that does not achieve anything more than that which was offered. See supra Section II(A) (discussing 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i)). Notwithstanding that bar, a court may award attorney's fees to a "parent who is the prevailing party and who was substantially justified in rejecting the settlement offer." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(E).

i. Settlement Enforceability

Because it is undisputed that R.R. did not achieve any educational benefits beyond what EPISD offered, the question is whether R.R. was substantially justified in rejecting EPISD's settlement offer. The district court held that EPISD's settlement offer would not have been enforceable if it had been reduced to an agreement. Specifically, the district court determined that a private settlement would have lacked the judicial imprimatur required to be enforceable in federal court. Further, the district court determined that Texas had not waived its immunity from suit in state court for the type of settlement offered by EPISD, and accordingly, EPISD's settlement offer would not have been enforceable in state court. The district court, after determining that R.R. would not have been able to enforce the settlement in either federal or state court, concluded that R.R. had an interest in continuing litigation to obtain an "enforceable" order of relief, and declined to reduce R.R.'s attorney's fee award. With respect, we disagree.

The IDEA states that "district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this section [20 U.S.C. § 1415] without regard to the amount in controversy." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(A); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.516(d). The statute further contemplates that, if the parties are able to resolve their dispute at the resolution meeting, they should "execute a legally binding agreement that is ․ enforceable in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(B)(iii)(II); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(d). Pretermitting any discussion of whether R.R. could have enforced a settlement agreement against EPISD in state court, we determine that a settlement agreement reached at the resolution meeting would have been enforceable in federal court.

Courts have recognized that federal courts can enforce IDEA settlement agreements reached at a resolution meeting. In H.C. ex rel. L.C. v. Colton-Pierrepont Central School District, the Second Circuit considered whether an agreement between the parties reached outside a resolution meeting or mediation was enforceable in federal court. No. 08-4221-CV, 2009 WL 2144016, at *2 (2d Cir. Jul. 20, 2009) (summary order). There, H.C. filed a due process complaint seeking greater educational services in November 2005. H.C. ex rel. L.C. v. Colton-Pierrepont Cent. Sch. Dist., 567 F.Supp.2d 340, 342 (N.D.N.Y.2008). The parties then met at the required resolution meeting later that November, but they were unable to reach an agreement. Id. However, in May 2006, before any administrative hearing had occurred, the parties entered into a written settlement agreement that resolved their dispute. Id.

In June 2006, the school district created a new educational plan for H.C. that reduced the level of services provided to H.C., and, in response, H.C. again made a due process request, seeking more services and enforcement of the May 16 settlement agreement. Id. At the due process hearing, the hearing officer, despite considering the substance of H.C.'s educational claims, declined to exercise jurisdiction over the May 2006 settlement agreement, and the state review officer concurred on appeal. Id. As a party aggrieved by the decisions of the hearing officer and the state review officer, H.C. filed suit in federal district court. The district court concluded, among other things, that the hearing officer erred in determining that he had no authority to enforce the settlement agreement, and the court accordingly remanded to the hearing officer for a new hearing. Id. at 344. The school district then appealed the district court's order to the Second Circuit.

On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's remand order. H.C., 2009 WL 2144016, at *3. In its opinion, the Second Circuit considered "[w]hether the district court had federal question jurisdiction to enforce the [May 2006] settlement agreement." Id. at *2. The court stated that "[while c]ontract enforcement is generally a question of state law[,] ․ Congress has expressly provided for enforcement of IDEA settlement agreements in federal district courts when the agreement at issue was entered into ․ at a 'resolution session' required by § 1415(f)(1)(B)." Id. (emphasis added). However, because the May 2006 settlement agreement was not entered into either at the resolution meeting or through mediation, the Second Circuit remanded the case to the district court to determine whether "there [wa]s a jurisdictional basis for considering plaintiff's contract claim." Id.

District courts across the country have also recognized that IDEA settlement agreements reached at a resolution meeting are enforceable in federal court. See, e.g., J.M.C. v. La. Bd. of Elementary & Secondary Educ., 584 F.Supp.2d 894, 898 (M.D.La.2008) (stating that an agreement reached at a resolution meeting would have been enforceable in federal court); L.K. ex rel. L.K. v. Burlingame Sch. Dist., No. C 08-02743, 2008 WL 2563155, at *4 n. 8 (N.D.Cal. June 23, 2008) ("The Court also notes that ․ the [IDEA] permits settlement agreements reached ․ through a resolution session under 1415(f) to be enforceable in federal courts ․"); Traverse Bay Area Intermediate Sch. Dist. v. Mich. Dep't of Educ., No. 5:06-CV-139, 2007 WL 2219352, at *7 (W.D.Mich. July 27, 2007) ("[W]ritten settlement agreements reached during the mediation process or in a resolution session which comply with the [IDEA] requirements are now enforceable in state and federal courts."); Bowman v. District of Columbia, No. 05-01933, 2006 WL 2221703, at *2 (D.D.C. Aug. 2, 2006) (recognizing that a district court has jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement reached either at the resolution meeting or during mediation).

Here, EPISD offered R.R. all of his requested educational relief at the resolution meeting. We conclude that if R.R. had accepted EPISD's offer, he could have enforced the resulting settlement agreement in federal court. As such, there was no need for R.R. to reject EPISD's settlement offer and continue litigation solely to obtain an "enforceable" order of relief.

ii. Substantially Justified Settlement Rejection

Given that R.R. did not need to continue litigation to obtain an enforceable agreement covering all requested relief, we conclude that R.R. was not "substantially justified" in rejecting EPISD's settlement offer. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(E). Further, R.R.'s own filings indicate that he recognized that a settlement agreement made at the resolution meeting was enforceable.

Because R.R. was not substantially justified in rejecting EPISD's settlement offer, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D) applies and prohibits an attorney's fees award for work performed subsequent to the time of EPISD's written settlement offer. See Shelly C. ex rel. Shelbie C. v. Venus Indep. Sch. Dist., 878 F.2d 862, 864 (5th Cir.1989) (recognizing that the IDEA bars an award of attorney's fees for work performed subsequent to a settlement offer of all requested relief); Duane M., 861 F.2d at 119 (same). Accordingly, the district court abused its discretion by awarding attorney's fees to R.R. for work performed subsequent to EPISD's written settlement offer.

2. R.R.'s Attorney's Fees for Pre-Settlement Offer Work

The next question is whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding R.R. attorney's fees for work performed during and prior to the resolution meeting. We determine that the district court abused its discretion because R.R. was not entitled to an award of attorney's fees for such work.

i. Fees for Participating in the Resolution Meeting

The IDEA allows an attorney's fees award for work performed in any "action or proceeding." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i). However, the IDEA specifically excludes resolution meetings from the scope of that definition. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(iii) ("A [resolution meeting] shall not be considered ․ a meeting convened as a result of an administrative hearing or judicial action; or ․ an administrative hearing or judicial action."); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.517(c)(2)(iii). Accordingly, R.R. cannot be awarded attorney's fees for work performed at the resolution meeting, and the district court below abused its discretion in awarding fees for work performed at that meeting. See, e.g., D.D. ex rel. Davis v. District of Columbia, 470 F.Supp.2d 1, 2 (D.D.C.2007) ("It is undisputed that attorneys' fees for time actually spent at a resolution session ․ generally are not compensable under the [IDEA]."); J.Y. ex rel. Thomas v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, No. C07-1226, 2007 WL 4111202, at * 7 (W.D.Wash. Nov. 16, 2007) ("Plaintiff[s] may not be awarded fees associated with participating in resolution sessions.").

ii. Fees for Work Performed Prior to the Resolution Meeting

Finally, we review whether R.R. is entitled to attorney's fees for work his attorney performed prior to the resolution meeting. The IDEA states that a court shall reduce fees "whenever the court finds that ․ the parent, or the parent's attorney ․ unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the controversy." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(F)(i). As such, we must determine whether R.R.'s rejection of EPISD's settlement offer unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the controversy such that a further reduction in the fee award is warranted.

As discussed above, when a party rejects an offer of settlement and later achieves at an administrative or judicial proceeding no more than what was previously offered, a court may, but is not required to, award reasonable attorney's fees for work performed prior to the written offer of settlement under § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i). On the other hand, if a party accepts an offer of settlement, that party may not be the prevailing party and thus not be entitled to an award of attorney's fees.

We need not speculate about these alternate situations. Here, EPISD wisely included the payment of reasonable attorney's fees to R.R. as part of its settlement offer. Consequently, R.R. was offered all requested educational relief and reasonable attorney's fees, leaving absolutely no need to continue litigating. Instead, R.R. and his attorney rejected EPISD's settlement, walked out of the resolution meeting, continued litigation, and unreasonably protracted the resolution of this dispute for over three years. See Jason D.W., 158 F.3d at 211 ("[F]ailing to settle can constitute protraction under [the IDEA]."); Shelly C., 878 F.2d at 863 (reversing summary judgment in part because the district court did not consider whether the parent's attorney unreasonably protracted resolution of the dispute when the parties ultimately settled). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court here abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to R.R. for work performed prior to EPISD's written settlement offer of all requested relief and reasonable attorney's fees. "[T]he IDEA only guarantees the right to a free education; it does not explicitly guarantee the right to attorney's fees incurred in pursuit of that education." T.D. v. LaGrange, 349 F.3d at 477.

3. EPISD's Claim For Attorney's Fees

EPISD also requests that we reverse the district court's dismissal of its suit for attorney's fees. The IDEA provides that a court "may award reasonable attorneys' fees ․ to a prevailing party who is a ․ local educational agency against the attorney of a parent who files a complaint ․ that is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, or against the attorney of a parent who continued to litigate after the litigation clearly became frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(II) (emphasis added). A court may also "award reasonable attorneys' fees ․ to a prevailing State educational agency or local educational agency against the attorney of a parent, or against the parent, if the parent's complaint or subsequent cause of action was presented for any improper purpose ․" Id. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(III) (emphasis added); see also Weber, supra note 10, at 29 (discussing these provisions). As such, prevailing party status is a predicate for an award of attorney's fees to EPISD.

Here, there is no indication that EPISD did prevail or would have prevailed on R.R.'s underlying request for educational relief. Indeed, EPISD's whole argument rests on the fact that it offered to provide R.R. all of his requested educational relief. Thus, even though EPISD has "prevailed" by successfully arguing for a reduction in R.R.'s fees award, EPISD has not prevailed in arguing that R.R. is not entitled to his requested educational relief. Thus, we cannot say that EPISD was the "prevailing party" such that it is entitled to attorney's fees under the IDEA. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of EPISD's claim for attorney's fees.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the award of attorney's fees to R.R. We affirm the dismissal of EPISD's claim for attorney's fees.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part. Costs shall be borne by Mark Berry.

FOOTNOTES

1. R.R. has acted through his parents in this litigation. As a procedural matter, EPISD brought suit against R.R.'s father and R.R.'s attorney. For simplicity, we refer to R.R., his attorney, and his parents as "R.R.," unless otherwise noted or made apparent from context.

2. This meeting is held during the "resolution session," 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(B), and is described under the heading "preliminary meeting," id. § 1415(f)(1)(B)(i). For clarity, we refer to this meeting as the "resolution meeting."

3. See, e.g., T.D. v. LaGrange Sch. Dist. No. 102, 349 F.3d 469, 478-79 (7th Cir.2003) ("[T]o be a prevailing party [post-Buckhannon,] a litigant must have obtained a judgment on the merits, a consent decree, or some similar form of judicially sanctioned relief ․ on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefits the parties sought in bringing suit." (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also J.D. ex rel. Davis v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., 571 F.3d 381, 386-87 (4th Cir.2009) ("As the Supreme Court noted in Buckhannon, an award of attorneys' fees requires a material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties ․,[but] a party need not prevail on every issue ․ [O]btaining judicially sanctioned and enforceable final relief on some claims is sufficient." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Doe v. Boston Pub. Sch., 358 F.3d 20, 29-30 (1st Cir.2004) ("Consistent with each of the circuit courts that have considered the application of Buckhannon to the IDEA, we hold that IDEA plaintiffs who achieve their desired result via private settlement may not, in the absence of judicial imprimatur, be considered 'prevailing parties.' "); John T. ex rel. Paul T. v. Del. County Intermediate Unit, 318 F.3d 545, 556 (3rd Cir.2003) ("The [Buckhannon] Court acknowledged that a party benefitting from a settlement agreement, for example, could be a prevailing party, provided the change in the legal relationship of the parties was in some way judicially sanctioned." (internal quotation marks omitted)).

4. An administrative hearing officer's order provides the requisite "judicial imprimatur" for a party to be considered a "prevailing party" for attorney's fee purposes, despite the fact that the administrative hearing officer does not have the authority to award attorney's fees. The IDEA provides that a court may award attorney's fees to any party that prevails in an "action or proceeding," 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i), and the statute implies that administrative hearings are "proceedings." See, e.g., id. § 1415(d)(2)(F) ("due process proceedings"); id. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(i) ("administrative proceedings"); id. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i)(I) ("administrative proceeding"). Our sister circuits have also recognized that attorney's fees can be awarded to a party who prevails at an administrative hearing. See, e.g., A.R. ex rel. R.V. v. N.Y. City Dep't of Educ., 407 F.3d 65, 76 (2d Cir.2005) ("In order to give effect to the IDEA's intent to permit awards to winning parties in administrative proceedings even where there has been no judicial involvement, as the parties agree that we must, we conclude that the combination of administrative imprimatur, the change in the legal relationship of the parties arising from it, and subsequent judicial enforceability, render such a winning party a 'prevailing party' under Buckhannon's principles."); T.D. v. LaGrange, 349 F.3d at 479 ("[W]e held in Brown v. Griggsville Comm. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 4, that the IDEA does allow fees to the prevailing party in administrative hearings. 12 F.3d 681, 683-84 (7th Cir.1993). While we recognize that this opinion was issued before Buckhannon, we do not perceive that Buckhannon requires a different conclusion."). These authorities are consonant with our pre-Buckhannon precedent holding that success at an administrative proceeding entitles a party to attorney's fees. See Duane M. v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd., 861 F.2d 115, 120 (5th Cir.1988) ("The legislative history of section 1415[ ] reflects Congress' unequivocal intent to award attorneys' fees to parents for legal representation at due process hearings which the [IDEA] requires. To hold that prevailing parties in these hearings cannot bring a separate suit for attorneys' fees would defeat that intent ․").

5. EPISD spends over half of its brief on appeal arguing that R.R. did not present a justiciable case or controversy to either the state due process hearing officer or the district court. We respond simply by noting that EPISD itself admitted in its settlement offer to R.R. that "[t]here are genuine issues of fact and law in dispute in this matter; thus, an agreed order is not in order." (Offer of Settlement from EPISD to R.R., Oct. 11, 2006.)

6. Section 1415(i)(3)(D)(i) provides:Attorneys' fees may not be awarded and related costs may not be reimbursed in any action or proceeding under this section for services performed subsequent to the time of a written offer of settlement to a parent if-(I) the offer is made within the time prescribed by Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the case of an administrative proceeding, at any time more than 10 days before the proceeding begins;(II) the offer is not accepted within 10 days; and(III) the court or administrative hearing officer finds that the relief finally obtained by the parents is not more favorable to the parents than the offer of settlement.20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i).

7. Section 1415(i)(3)(F) contemplates that an attorney's fee award will be reduced under several enumerated circumstances:Except as provided in subparagraph (G), whenever the court finds that-(i) the parent, or the parent's attorney, during the course of the action or proceeding, unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the controversy;(ii) the amount of the attorneys' fees otherwise authorized to be awarded unreasonably exceeds the hourly rate prevailing in the community for similar services by attorneys of reasonably comparable skill, reputation, and experience;(iii) the time spent and legal services furnished were excessive considering the nature of the action or proceeding; or(iv) the attorney representing the parent did not provide to the local educational agency the appropriate information in the notice of the complaint described in subsection (b)(7)(A),the court shall reduce, accordingly, the amount of the attorneys' fees awarded under this section.20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(F).

8. See also Dell v. Bd. of Educ., 918 F.Supp. 212, 217 (N.D.Ill.1995) ("[T]his court concludes that the relief finally obtained by Plaintiffs was not, in fact, more favorable than Defendant's offer, in spite of the fact that both hearing officers' decisions are replete with findings that Defendant violated Plaintiffs' son's rights ․ Thus, although Plaintiffs are 'prevailing parties' for purposes of a fee award ․ the relief they won consists only of reimbursement of $2,000.00 for the reasonable and customary expense of an independent evaluation of their son's needs. Because that sum is not more favorable than the $3,000.00 payment offered by Defendant School District before the administrative hearing, [Plaintiffs] are barred from recovery of fees for services rendered at that hearing or in these proceedings.").

9. We review an award of attorney's fees for abuse of discretion, and we review the factual findings upon which the award is based for clear error. Jason D.W., 158 F.3d at 208.

10. Several commentators also recognize that IDEA settlement agreements reached at a resolution meeting are enforceable in federal court. See, e.g., Andrea F. Blau, Available Dispute Resolution Processes within the Reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004: Where Do Mediation Principles Fit In?, 7 Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J. J. 65, 72 (2007) ("Decisions reached between the parties [at a resolution meeting] are binding and enforceable."); Allan G. Osborne & Charles J. Russo, Resolution Sessions Under the IDEA: Are They Mandatory?, 218 West Educ. L. Rep. 7, 9 (2007) ("A settlement agreement [reached at a resolution meeting] is enforceable by a state or federal court ․"); Mark C. Weber, Reflections on the New Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 58 Fla. L.Rev. 7, 31 (2006) ("If the parent and school district reach an agreement in the resolution session, the parties execute a legally binding document, which may be enforced directly in court ․").

11. If R.R. had accepted EPISD's written settlement offer, made the day of the resolution meeting, then the parties would have entered into the "legally binding agreement" contemplated by 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(B)(iii). Accordingly, we do not have occasion to decide today whether a district court would have jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement entered into outside a resolution meeting.

12. (See, e.g., R.R.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss ¶ 18, May 22, 2007 ("[S]ettlements with a school district (except those that result from a resolution meeting ․) are not enforceable ․" (emphasis added)); R.R.'s Reply to EPISD's Opp'n. to Mot. for Summ. J. 2, Dec. 14, 2007 ("Likewise, any written settlement agreement that is 'reached to resolve the complaint at a [resolution meeting]' ․ is enforceable in a state or federal court.").)

13. As a threshold matter, the IDEA states that § 1415(i)(3)(F) shall not apply "if the court finds that the ․ local educational agency unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the action or proceeding ․" 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(G). Nothing in the record indicates that EPISD unreasonably protracted resolution of this dispute.

14. In considering this question, we note that extended litigation under the IDEA is disfavored because it imposes heavy costs on the litigants and delays implementation of an appropriate educational plan for children with disabilities. See Schaffer, 546 U.S. at 58-59, 126 S.Ct. 528 (discussing the costs of litigating IDEA disputes and Congress's intent to reduce IDEA litigation).

15. See, e.g., Doe v. Boston, 358 F.3d at 29-30 (" Consistent with each of the circuit courts that have considered the application of Buckhannon to the IDEA, we hold that IDEA plaintiffs who achieve their desired result via private settlement may not, in the absence of judicial imprimatur, be considered 'prevailing parties.' "); T.D. v. LaGrange, 349 F.3d at 476-78 (recognizing that a private settlement without judicial imprimatur is insufficient to convey prevailing party status); John T., 318 F.3d at 557 (same).

16. See, e.g., District of Columbia v. Ijeabuonwu, 631 F.Supp.2d 101, 104 (D.D.C.2009) (recognizing that a school district must be a prevailing party in order to be entitled to attorney's fees under the IDEA); Parenteau v. Prescott Unified Sch. Dist., No. CV-07-8072, 2009 WL 2169154, at *7 (D.Ariz. July 17, 2009) (same).

KING, Circuit Judge:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FindLaw's United States Fifth Circuit case and opinions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EL PASO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHARD R., as next friend of R.R.; Mark Berry, Defendants-Appellees. R.R., by his next friend E.R., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. El Paso Independent School District, Defendant-Appellant. Before KING, DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. Todd Aaron Clark, Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Aldridge & Gallegos, P.C., Austin, TX, Elena M.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 10: Local Administrative Law/Policy/Rule

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 10: Local Administrative Law/Policy/Rule

# data[].attributes.body
AIC(LEGAL) - ACCOUNTABILITY: INTERVENTIONS AND SANCTIONS

If campus performance is low, under Education Code 39.054(e), a campus intervention team will be assigned.
-The campus intervention team makes recommendations such as,  reallocation of resources, technical assistance, change and implement school procedure, provide staff development, and other actions considered appropriate (Northside ISD-Bexar County, 2019).

Northside ISD-Bexar County. (2019). A18 (Legal)-L. Northside ISD Board Policy Manual: https://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Download/184?filename=A18(LEGAL).html&title=INTRODUCTION&subtitle=

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Interventions and Sanctions for School Districts

Grounds for Commissioner Action

The commissioner of education shall take any of the actions authorized by Education Code, Chapter 39A, Subchapter A, to the extent the commissioner determines necessary if:

1. A district does not satisfy:

1. The accreditation criteria under Education Code 39.052 [see AIA];

2. The academic performance standards under Education Code 39.053 or 39.054 [see AIA]; or

3. Any financial accountability standard as determined by commissioner rule [see CFA]; or

2. The commissioner considers the action to be appropriate on the basis of a special accreditation investigation under Education Code 39.057.

Authorized Commissioner Actions

If a district is subject to commissioner action, the commissioner may:

1. Issue public notice of the deficiency to the board;

2. Order a hearing to be conducted by the board to notify the public of:

1. The insufficient performance;

2. The improvements in performance expected by the Texas Education Agency (TEA); and

3. The interventions and sanctions that may be imposed if the performance does not improve;

3. Order the preparation of a student achievement improvement plan that addresses each academic achievement indicator under Education Code 39.053(c) for which the district's performance is insufficient, the submission of the plan to the commissioner for approval, and the implementation of the plan;

4. Order a hearing to be held before the commissioner or the commissioner's designee at which the president of the board and the district's superintendent shall appear and explain the district's low performance, lack of improvement, and plans for improvement;

5. Arrange a monitoring review of the district;

6. Appoint a TEA monitor to participate in and report to TEA on the activities of the board or superintendent;

7. Appoint a conservator to oversee the operations of the district;

8. Appoint a management team to direct the operations of the district in areas of insufficient performance or require the district to obtain certain services under a contract with another person; or

9. Authorize the district to enter into a memorandum of understanding with an institution of higher education that provides for the assistance of the institution of higher education in improving the district's performance.

Regardless of whether the commissioner lowers a district's status or rating, the commissioner may take action under Education Code Chapters 39 and 39A or 19 Administrative Code 97.1057 if the commissioner determines that the action is necessary to improve any area of performance by the district or campus.

Subject to 19 Administrative Code 97.1057(h)-(k), once the commissioner takes action under 19 Administrative Code Subchapter EE (accreditation status, standards, and sanctions), the commissioner may impose on the district or campus any other sanction under Education Code Chapter 39 or 39A, or Subchapter EE, singly or in combination, to the extent the commissioner determines is reasonably required to achieve the purposes specified in 19 Administrative Code 97.1053.

In making a determination to impose district and campus accreditation sanctions under 19 Administrative Code Chapter 97, Subchapter EE, the commissioner shall meet the requirements of 19 Administrative Code 97.1059. 19 TAC 97.1059

Conservator or Management Team

The commissioner shall clearly define the powers and duties of a conservator or management team appointed to oversee the operations of a district.

At least every 90 days, the commissioner shall review the need for the conservator or management team and shall remove the conservator or management team unless the commissioner determines that continued appointment is necessary for effective governance of the district or delivery of instructional services.

A conservator or management team, if directed by the commissioner, shall prepare a plan for the implementation of the appointment of a board of managers or the revocation of accreditation.

The conservator or management team may:

1. Direct an action to be taken by the principal of a campus, the superintendent of the district, or the board; and

2. Approve or disapprove any action of the principal of a campus, the superintendent of the district, or the board.

The conservator or management team may not:

1. Take any action concerning a district election, including ordering or canceling an election or altering the date of or the polling places for an election;

2. Change the number of or method of selecting the board;

3. Set a tax rate for the district; and

4. Adopt a budget for the district that provides for spending a different amount, exclusive of required debt service, from that previously adopted by the board.

Board of Managers

The commissioner may appoint a board of managers to exercise the powers and duties of a district's board if the district is subject to commissioner action and:

1. Has a current accreditation status of accredited-warned or accredited-probation;

2. Fails to satisfy any standard under Education Code 39.054(e); or

3. Fails to satisfy financial accountability standards as determined by commissioner rule.

Revocation of Accreditation

The commissioner may revoke the accreditation of a district if the district is subject to commissioner action, and for two consecutive school years, including the current school year, the district has:

1. Received an accreditation status of accredited-warned or accredited-probation;

2. Failed to satisfy any standard under Education Code 39.054(e); or

3. Failed to satisfy financial accountability standards as determined by commissioner rule.

In addition to revoking a district's accreditation, the commissioner may:

1. Order closure of the district and annex the district to one or more adjoining districts under Education Code 13.054; or

2. In the case of a home-rule school district, order closure of all programs operated under the district's charter.

Intervention to Improve High School Completion Rate

If a district is subject to commissioner action and the district has failed to satisfy any standard under Education Code 39.054(e) because of the district's dropout rates, the commissioner may impose sanctions against a district designed to improve high school completion rates, including:

1. Ordering the development of a dropout prevention plan for approval by the commissioner;

2. Restructuring the district or appropriate campuses to improve identification of and service to students who are at risk of dropping out of school, as defined by Education Code 29.081;

3. Ordering lower student-to-counselor ratios on campuses with high dropout rates; and

4. Ordering the use of any other intervention strategy effective in reducing dropout rates, including mentor programs and flexible class scheduling.

Campus Intervention Team and Targeted Improvement Plan

Actions Based on Campus Performance

If the performance of a campus is below any standard under Education Code 39.054(e), the commissioner shall:

1. Take actions, to the extent the commissioner determines necessary, as provided by Education Code, Chapter 39A; and

2. Assign a campus intervention team.

To the extent the commissioner determines necessary, the commissioner may:

1. Order a hearing to be held before the commissioner or the commissioner's designee at which the president of the board, the superintendent, and the campus principal shall appear and explain the campus's low performance, lack of improvement, and plans for improvement; or

2. Establish a school community partnership team composed of members of the campus-level planning and decision-making committee and additional community representatives as determined appropriate by the commissioner.

Texas Accountability Intervention System

If a campus's performance is below any standard under Education Code 39.054(e), the campus shall engage in the Texas Accountability Intervention System (TAIS) continuous improvement process. The commissioner shall assign members to a campus intervention team as outlined in 19 Administrative Code 97.1063 and Education Code 39.106.

If a campus is assigned an unacceptable rating under Education Code 39.054(e) for a fifth consecutive year, the commissioner shall order the appointment of a board of managers to govern the district or the closure of the campus.

Campus Intervention Team

The campus intervention team shall follow the requirements of 19 Administrative Code 97.1061 and Education Code 39.106.

A campus intervention team assigned by the commissioner may include teachers, principals, other educational professionals, and superintendents recognized for excellence in their roles and appointed by the commissioner to serve as members of a team. Education Code 39A.052

On-Site Needs Assessment

A campus intervention team shall:

1. Conduct, with the involvement and advice of the school community partnership team, if applicable:

1. If the commissioner determines necessary, a comprehensive on-site needs assessment; or

2. A targeted on-site needs assessment relevant to an area of insufficient performance of the campus; and

2. Recommend appropriate actions as provided by Education Code 39A.054.

An on-site needs assessment must determine the factors resulting in the campus's low performance and lack of progress, including the contributing education-related factors.

In conducting a comprehensive on-site needs assessment, the campus intervention team shall use each of the guidelines and procedures at Education Code 39A.053(c).

In conducting a targeted on-site needs assessment, the campus intervention team shall use the appropriate guidelines and procedures described above relevant to each area of insufficient performance.

Recommendations

On completing the on-site needs assessment, the campus intervention team shall, with the involvement and advice of the school community partnership team, if applicable, recommend actions relating to any area of insufficient performance, including:

1. Reallocation of resources;

2. Technical assistance;

3. Changes in school procedures or operations;

4. Staff development for instructional and administrative staff;

5. Intervention for individual administrators or teachers;

6. Waivers from state statutes or rules;

7. Teacher recruitment or retention strategies and incentives provided by the district to attract and retain appropriately certified and experienced teachers; or

8. Other actions the campus intervention team considers appropriate.

Targeted Improvement Plan

In addition to the duties relating to the on-site needs assessment, the campus intervention team shall:

1. Assist the campus in developing a targeted improvement plan;

2. Conduct a public meeting at the campus with the campus principal, the members of the campus-level planning and decision-making committee, parents of students attending the campus, and community members residing in the district to review the campus performance rating and solicit input for the development of the targeted improvement plan [see Notice of Public Meeting, below];

3. Assist the campus in submitting the targeted improvement plan to the board for approval and presenting the plan in a public hearing [see Public Hearing, below]; and

4. Assist the commissioner in monitoring the progress of the campus in executing the targeted improvement plan.

Notice of Public Meeting

The campus intervention team must provide written notice of the public meeting to the parents of students attending the campus and post notice of the meeting on the campus's internet website. The notice must include the date, time, and place of the meeting. Education Code 39A.056

Public Hearing

After a targeted improvement plan or an updated targeted improvement plan is submitted to the board, the board shall conduct a hearing to:

1. Notify the public of:

1. The insufficient performance of the campus;

2. The improvements in performance expected by TEA; and

3. The intervention measures or sanctions that may be imposed under Education Code, Chapter 39A if the performance does not improve within a designated period; and

2. Solicit public comment on the targeted improvement plan or updated targeted improvement plan.

The board must post the targeted improvement plan on the district's internet website before the hearing.

The board may conduct one hearing relating to one or more campuses subject to a targeted improvement plan or an updated targeted improvement plan.

Submission to Commissioner

The board shall submit the targeted improvement plan or updated targeted improvement plan to the commissioner for approval. The campus intervention team shall assist the campus in submitting the targeted improvement plan to the commissioner. Education Code 39A.058

Executing Plan

In executing the targeted improvement plan, the campus intervention team shall, if appropriate:

1. Assist the campus in implementing research-based practices for curriculum development and classroom instruction, including bilingual education and special education programs, and financial management;

2. Provide research-based technical assistance, including data analysis, academic deficiency identification, intervention implementation, and budget analysis, to strengthen and improve the instructional programs at the campus; and

3. Require the district to develop a teacher recruitment and retention plan to address the qualifications and retention of the teachers at the campus.

Continuing Duties of the Campus Intervention Team

For each year a campus is assigned an unacceptable performance rating, the campus intervention team shall:

1. Assist in updating the targeted improvement plan to identify and analyze areas of growth and areas that require improvement; and

2. Submit each updated targeted improvement plan to the board.

Needs Improvement Rating

If a district or campus is assigned an overall or domain performance rating of D:

1. The commissioner shall order the district or campus to develop and implement a targeted improvement plan approved by the board; and

2. The interventions and sanctions provided by Education Code, Chapter 39A based on failure to satisfy performance standards underEducation Code 39.054(e) apply to the district or campus only as provided below.

The interventions and sanctions based on failure to satisfy performance standards under Education Code 39.054(e) apply to a district or campus ordered to develop and implement a targeted improvement plan if the district or campus is assigned:

1. An overall or domain performance rating of F; or

2. An overall performance rating of D as provided below.

If a district or campus is assigned an overall performance rating of D for a school year after the district or campus is ordered to develop and implement a targeted improvement plan, the commissioner shall implement interventions and sanctions that apply to an unacceptable campus and those interventions and sanctions shall continue for each consecutive school year thereafter in which the campus is assigned an overall performance rating of D.
Education Code 39A.0545
Campus Planning and Site-Based Decision-Making

The commissioner may authorize a school community partnership team established under Education Code 39A.051 to supersede the authority of and satisfy the requirements of establishing and maintaining a campus-level planning and decision-making committee.

The commissioner may authorize a targeted improvement plan or an updated targeted improvement plan to supersede the provisions of and satisfy the requirements of developing, reviewing, and revising a campus improvement plan.

Submission of Campus Improvement Plan

Compliance Through Federal Accountability

Notwithstanding the provisions of Education Code Chapter 39A, if the commissioner determines that a campus subject to interventions or sanctions has implemented substantially similar intervention measures under federal accountability requirements, the commissioner may accept the substantially similar intervention measures as measures in compliance with Education Code Chapter 39A. Education Code 39A.063

Campus Turnaround Plan

If a campus has been identified as unacceptable for two consecutive school years, the commissioner shall order the campus to prepare and submit a campus turnaround plan.

Updated Targeted Improvement Plan

A campus intervention team shall assist the campus in:

1. Developing an updated targeted improvement plan, including a campus turnaround plan to be implemented by the campus;

2. Submitting the updated targeted improvement plan to the board for approval and presenting the plan in a public hearing as provided by Education Code 39A.057;

3. Obtaining approval of the updated plan from the commissioner; and

4. Executing the updated plan on approval by the commissioner.

The updated targeted improvement plan submitted to the board must include all plans and details that are required to execute the campus turnaround plan without any additional action or approval by the board.

Public Notice

Within 60 days of receiving a campus's preliminary accountability rating, the district must notify parents, community members, and stakeholders that the campus received an unacceptable rating for two consecutive years and request assistance in developing the campus turnaround plan in accordance with 19 Administrative Code 97.1064.

Upon approval of the board, the district must submit the campus turnaround plan electronically to TEA by March 1 unless otherwise specified. A campus may implement, modify, or withdraw its campus turnaround plan with board approval if the campus receives an academically acceptable rating for the school year following the development of the campus turnaround plan.

Required Contents

A campus turnaround plan must include:

1. Details on the method for restructuring, reforming, or reconstituting the campus;

2. A detailed description of the academic programs to be offered at the campus, including:

1. Instructional methods;

2. Length of school day and school year;

3. Academic credit and promotion criteria; and

4. Programs to serve special student populations;

3. If a district charter is to be granted for the campus under Education Code 12.0522:

1. The term of the charter; and

2. Information on the implementation of the charter;

4. Written comments from:

1. The campus-level committee established under Education Code 11.251, if applicable;

2. Parents; and

3. Teachers at the campus;

5. A detailed description of the budget, staffing, and financial resources required to implement the plan, including any supplemental resources to be provided by the district or other identified sources; and

6. A detailed description for developing and supporting the oversight of academic achievement and student performance by the board of trustees under Education Code 11.1515.

Implementing Entities

A campus ordered to prepare a campus turnaround plan shall implement the updated targeted improvement plan as approved by the commissioner.

The commissioner may appoint a monitor, conservator, management team, or board of managers to the district to ensure and oversee district-level support to low-performing campuses and the implementation of the updated targeted improvement plan.

In making appointments, the commissioner shall consider individuals who have demonstrated success in managing campuses with student populations similar to the campus at which the individual appointed will serve.
Education Code 39A.102, .108
Effective Date

A campus turnaround plan must take effect not later than the school year following the third consecutive school year that the campus has received an unacceptable performance rating. Education Code 39A.106

Commissioner Approval or Rejection

Not later than June 15 of each year, the commissioner shall, in writing, either approve or reject any campus turnaround plan prepared and submitted to the commissioner by a district. If the commissioner rejects a campus turnaround plan, the commissioner must also send the district an outline of the specific concerns regarding the turnaround plan that resulted in the rejection. Education Code 39A.107(a-1)

The commissioner may approve a campus turnaround plan only if the commissioner determines that the campus will satisfy all student performance standards required under Education Code 39.054(e) not later than the second year the campus receives a performance rating following the implementation of the campus turnaround plan.

Education Code 12.0522(b) does not apply to a district charter approved by the commissioner. An approved district charter may be renewed or continue in effect after the campus is no longer subject to the commissioner's order under Education Code 39A.101.

If the commissioner does not approve a campus turnaround plan, the commissioner shall order:

1. Appointment of a board of managers to govern the district;

2. Alternative management of the campus; or

3. Closure of the campus.

Implementation

Following approval of a campus turnaround plan by the commissioner, the district, in consultation with the campus intervention team, may take any actions needed to prepare for the implementation of the plan. Education Code 39A.108

Assistance and Partnerships

A district may:

1. Request that a regional education service center provide assistance in the development and implementation of a campus turnaround plan; or

2. Partner with an institution of higher education to develop and implement a campus turnaround plan.

Change in Campus Performance Rating

If a campus for which a campus turnaround plan has been ordered receives an acceptable performance rating for the school year following the order, the board may:

1. Implement the campus turnaround plan;

2. Implement a modified version of the campus turnaround plan; or

3. Withdraw the campus turnaround plan.

A district required to implement a campus turnaround plan may modify the plan if the campus receives an acceptable performance rating for two consecutive school years following implementation of the plan.

Continued Unacceptable Performance Rating

If a campus is considered to have an unacceptable performance rating for three consecutive school years after the campus is ordered to submit a campus turnaround plan, the commissioner shall order:

1. Appointment of a board of managers to govern the district; or

2. Closure of the campus.

Parent Petition for Action

"Parent" means the parent who is indicated on the student registration form at that campus and the signature of only one parent of a student is required.

If the commissioner is presented, in the time and manner specified by commissioner rule, with a written petition signed by the parents of a majority of the students enrolled at a campus with an unacceptable performance rating for three consecutive school years, specifying an authorized action that the parents request the commissioner to order, the commissioner shall order the specific action requested.

If the board presents to the commissioner, in the time and manner specified by commissioner rule, a written request that the commissioner order specific authorized action other than the specific action requested in the parents' petition and a written explanation of the basis for the board's request, the commissioner may order the action requested by the board.

Repurposing of Closed Campus

If the commissioner orders the closure of a campus, that campus may be repurposed to serve students at that campus location only if the commissioner finds that the repurposed campus offers a distinctly different academic program and approves a new campus identification number for the repurposed campus. A campus may be repurposed if the campus

1. Serves a majority of grade levels not served at the original campus; or

2. Is operated under a contract, approved by the school board, with a nonprofit organization exempt from federal taxation under Section 501(c)(3), Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that:

1. Has a governing board that is independent of the district;

2. Has a successful history of operating school district campuses or open-enrollment charter schools:

1. That cumulatively serve 10,000 or more students; and

2. A majority of which have been assigned an overall performance rating of B or higher under Education Code 39.054 for the preceding school year; and

3. Has been assigned an overall performance rating of B or higher under Education Code 39.054 for the preceding school year.

Student Enrollment and Assignment

Any student assigned to a campus that has been closed must be allowed to transfer to any other campus in the district that serves that student's grade level and on request must be provided transportation to the other campus.

The commissioner may grant an exemption allowing students assigned to a closed campus to attend the repurposed campus if there is no other campus in the district at which the students may enroll.

Noncontracted Repurposed Campus

The majority of students assigned to a campus that has been closed and repurposed may not have attended that campus in the previous school year if the campus was repurposed to serve a majority of grade levels not served at the original campus.

Enrollment Provision in Contract

A contract approved by the school board with a nonprofit organization must provide that a student residing in the attendance zone of the campus immediately before the campus was repurposed shall be admitted for enrollment at the repurposed campus.

Targeted Technical Assistance

If the commissioner determines that the basis for the unacceptable performance of a campus for more than two consecutive school years is limited to a specific condition that may be remedied with targeted technical assistance, the commissioner may require the district to contract for the appropriate technical assistance. Education Code 39A.114

Commissioner Authority

Alternative Management

The commissioner shall appoint a monitor, conservator, management team, or board of managers whenever such action is required, as determined by 19 Administrative Code 1073. Action under any other section of 19 Administrative Code Chapter 97, Subchapter EE is not a prerequisite to acting under this section. 19 TAC 97.1073

Solicitation of Proposals

If the commissioner orders alternative management of a campus, the commissioner shall solicit proposals from qualified nonprofit entities to assume management of the campus or appoint a school district as provided below. The commissioner may solicit proposals from qualified for-profit entities if a nonprofit entity has not responded to the commissioner's request for proposals.

The commissioner may appoint a school district to assume management of the campus if the district:

1. Is not the district in which the campus is located; and

2. Is located within the boundaries of the same regional education service center as the campus.

If a school district is appointed, the district shall assume management of the campus in the same manner as a qualified entity or in accordance with commissioner rule.

The commissioner may annually solicit proposals for the alternative management of a campus. The commissioner shall notify a qualified entity that has been approved as a provider under this section.

Qualifications of Managing Entity

To qualify for consideration as a managing entity, the entity must submit a proposal that provides information relating to the entity's management and leadership team that will participate in management of the campus under consideration, including information relating to individuals who have:

1. Documented success in whole school interventions that increased the educational and performance levels of students in campuses considered to have an unacceptable performance rating;

2. A proven record of effectiveness with programs assisting low-performing students;

3. A proven ability to apply research-based school intervention strategies;

4. A proven record of financial ability to perform under the management contract; and

5. Any other experience or qualifications the commissioner determines necessary.

In selecting a managing entity, the commissioner shall give preference to a qualified entity that:

1. Meets any of the commissioner's qualifications; and

2. Has documented success in educating students from similar demographic groups and with similar educational needs as the students who attend the campus to be operated by the managing entity.

Contract with Managing Entity

If the commissioner has ordered alternative management of a campus, the district shall execute a contract with an approved provider to serve as a managing entity for the campus. The term of the contract may not exceed five years with an option to renew the contract. The district must execute the contract and relinquish control of the campus before January 1 of the school year.

The management contract must include:

1. A provision describing the district's responsibilities in supporting the operation of the campus; and

2. Provisions approved by the commissioner requiring the managing entity to demonstrate improvement in campus performance, including negotiated performance measures.

Performance measures must be consistent with the priorities of Education Code Chapters 39 and 39A.

The management contract must be approved by the commissioner before the contract is executed. As appropriate, the commissioner may require the district, as a term of the contract, to support the campus in the same manner as the district was required to support the campus before the execution of the contract.

Extension of Management Contract

The commissioner may require a district to extend the term of a management contract with a managing entity if the commissioner determines that extending the contract on expiration of the initial term is in the best interest of the students attending the campus. The terms of the contract must be approved by the commissioner. Education Code 39A.154

Evaluation of Managing Entity

The commissioner shall evaluate a managing entity's performance on the first and second anniversaries of the date of the management contract.

If the evaluation fails to demonstrate improvement as negotiated under the management contract by the first anniversary of the date of the contract, the district may:

1. Terminate the contract, with the commissioner's consent, for nonperformance or breach of contract; and

2. Select another provider from an approved list provided by the commissioner.

If the evaluation fails to demonstrate significant improvement, as determined by the commissioner, by the second anniversary of the date of the management contract, the district shall:

1. Terminate the contract; and

2. Select another provider from an approved list provided by the commissioner or resume operation of the campus if approved by the commissioner.

If the commissioner approves the district's resumed operation of the campus, the commissioner shall assign a technical assistance team to assist the campus.

Cancellation of Management Contract

If a campus receives an unacceptable performance rating for two consecutive school years after a managing entity assumes management of the campus, the commissioner shall cancel the contract with the managing entity. Education Code 39A.156

Return of Management to District

Unless a campus has an unacceptable performance rating for three consecutive school years [see Continued Unacceptable Performance Rating, above], at the end of a management contract term or on the cancellation of a management contract, the board shall resume management of the campus. Education Code 39A.157

Applicability of Accountability Provisions

Funding

The funding for a campus operated by a managing entity may not be less than the funding of the other campuses in the district on a per student basis so that the managing entity receives at least the same funding the campus would otherwise have received. Education Code 39A.159

Open Meetings and Public Information

With respect to the management of a campus by a managing entity:

1. A managing entity is considered to be a governmental body for purposes of the Texas Open Meetings Act and Public Information Act; and

2. Any requirement in the Texas Open Meetings Act or Public Information Act that applies to a school district or the board of trustees of a district applies to a managing entity.

Board of Managers

General Powers and Duties

A board of managers may exercise all of the powers and duties assigned to a board of trustees of a school district by law, rule, or regulation.

A board of managers appointed by the commissioner is required to take appropriate actions to resolve the conditions that caused a campus to be subject to the commissioner's order, including amending the district's budget, reassigning staff, or relocating academic programs. The commissioner may adopt rules necessary to implement this subsection.

Board of Managers of District

If the commissioner appoints a board of managers to govern a district:

1. The powers of the board are suspended for the period of the appointment; and

2. The commissioner shall appoint a district superintendent.

A board of managers appointed to govern a school district may amend the budget of the district.

Education Code Chapter 39A applies to a school district governed by a board of managers in the same manner it applies to any other district.

Board of Managers of Campus

If the commissioner appoints a board of managers to govern a campus:

1. The powers of the board of trustees of the school district in relation to the campus are suspended for the period of the appointment; and

2. The commissioner shall appoint a campus principal.

A board of managers appointed to govern a campus may submit to the commissioner for approval amendments to the budget of the school district for the benefit of the campus. If the commissioner approves the amendments, the board of trustees of the school district shall adopt the amendments.

Composition of Board of Managers

A board of managers appointed by the commissioner must, if possible, include community leaders, business representatives who have expertise in leadership, and individuals who have knowledge or expertise in the field of education. Education Code 39A.204

Training of Board of Managers

The commissioner must provide each individual appointed to a board of managers with training in effective leadership strategies. Education Code 39A.205

Compensation

The commissioner may authorize payment of a board of managers from TEA funds.

A conservator or a member of a management team appointed to serve on a board of managers may continue to be compensated as determined by the commissioner.

Replacement of Member of Board of Managers

The commissioner may at any time replace a member of a board of managers. The commissioner may adopt rules necessary to implement this section. Education Code 39A.207

Expiration of Appointment

A board of managers shall, during the period of the appointment, order the election of members of the board of trustees of the school district in accordance with the law. The members of the board of trustees do not assume any powers or duties after the election until the appointment of the board of managers expires.

Not later than the second anniversary of the date the board of managers of a school district was appointed, the commissioner shall notify the board of managers and the board of trustees of the date on which the appointment of the board of managers will expire. Following each of the last three years of the period of the appointment, one-third of the members of the board of managers shall be replaced by the number of members of the board of trustees who were elected at an election that constitutes, as closely as possible, one-third of the membership of the board of trustees.

If, before the second anniversary of the date the board of managers of a school district was appointed, the commissioner determines, after receiving local feedback, that insufficient progress has been made toward improving the academic or financial performance of the district, the commissioner may extend the authority of the board of managers for a period of up to two additional years.

On the expiration of the appointment of the board of managers, the board of trustees assumes all of the powers and duties assigned to a board of trustees by law, rule, or regulation.

Following the expiration of the period of appointment of a board of managers for a school district, the commissioner shall provide training in effective leadership strategies to the board of trustees.

Removal of Board of Managers

The commissioner may remove a board of managers appointed to govern a school district only if the campus that was the basis for the appointment of the board of managers receives an acceptable performance rating for two consecutive school years.

If a campus that was the basis for the appointment of a board of managers receives an unacceptable performance rating for two additional consecutive years following the appointment of the board of managers, the commissioner may remove the board of managers and, in consultation with the local community, may appoint a new board of managers to govern the district.

Following the removal of a board of managers, or at the request of a managing entity to oversee the implementation of alternative management, the commissioner may appoint a conservator or monitor for the district to ensure district-level support for low-performing campuses and to oversee the implementation of the updated targeted improvement plan.

Challenge of Intervention or Sanction

Review of Sanctions by SOAH

A district that challenges the commissioner's decision to close the district or a campus or to pursue alternative management of a campus must appeal the decision as provided below.

A challenge is under the substantial evidence rule [see Government Code, Chapter 2001, Subchapter G]. The commissioner shall adopt procedural rules for a challenge under this section.

Notwithstanding other law:

1. The State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) shall conduct an expedited review of a challenge;

2. The administrative law judge shall issue a final order not later than the 30th day after the date on which the hearing is finally closed;

3. The decision of the administrative law judge is final and may not be appealed; and

4. The decision of the administrative law judge may set an effective date for an action under this section.

Annual Review

The commissioner shall annually review the performance of a district or campus subject to intervention and sanction to determine the appropriate actions to be implemented.

The commissioner must review at least annually the performance of a district for which the accreditation status or performance rating has been lowered due to insufficient student performance and may not raise the accreditation status or performance rating until the district has demonstrated improved student performance.

If the review reveals a lack of improvement, the commissioner shall increase the level of state intervention and sanction unless the commissioner finds good cause for maintaining the current status.

Increasing Intensity

If a district or campus does not exhibit improvement in student performance, the commissioner may increase the intensity of intervention and sanction that would otherwise be required by statute or rule, including ordering campus closure, district annexation, or appointment of a board of managers.

For purposes of this section, improvement means an increase in the scaled score for the overall academic performance rating under Education Code Chapter 39.

Special Accreditation Investigations

The commissioner may authorize a special accreditation investigation:

1. When excessive numbers of absences of students eligible to be tested on state assessment instruments are determined;

2. When excessive numbers of allowable exemptions from the required state assessment are determined;

3. In response to complaints to TEA of alleged violations of civil rights or other requirements imposed on the state by federal law or court order;

4. In response to established compliance reviews of the district's financial accounting practices and state and federal reporting requirements;

5. When extraordinary numbers of student placements in disciplinary alternative education programs, other than placements under Education Code 37.006 and 37.007, are determined;

6. In response to an allegation involving a conflict between members of the board or between the board and the district administration if it appears that the conflict involves a violation of a role or duty of the board members or the administration clearly defined by the Education Code. If TEA's findings indicate the board has observed a lawfully adopted policy, TEA may not substitute its judgment for that of the board;

7. When excessive numbers of students in special education programs are assessed through modified assessment instruments;

8. In response to an allegation regarding, or an analysis using a statistical method result indicating, a possible violation of an assessment instrument security procedure;

9. When a significant pattern of decreased academic performance has developed as a result of the promotion in the preceding two school years of students who did not perform satisfactorily on the state assessments;

10. When excessive numbers of students eligible to enroll fail to complete an Algebra II course or any other advanced course as determined by the commissioner;

11. When resource allocation practices indicate a potential for significant improvement in resource allocation;

12. When a disproportionate number of students of a particular demographic group is graduating with a particular endorsement;

13. When an excessive number of students is graduating with a particular endorsement;

14. When a school district for any reason fails to produce, at the request of TEA, evidence or an investigation report relating to an educator who is under investigation by the State Board for Educator Certification;

15. In response to a complaint with respect to alleged inaccurate data that is reported through PEIMS or through other reports required by state or federal law or rule or court order and that is used byTEA to make a determination relating to public school accountability, including accreditation, underEducation Code Chapter 39;

16. In response to repeated complaints concerning imposition of excessive paperwork requirements on classroom teachers; or

17. As the commissioner otherwise determines necessary.

Education Code 39.057(a)-(c)
TEA shall adopt written procedures for conducting special accreditation investigations, including procedures that allow TEA to obtain information from district employees in a manner that prevents a district or campus from screening the information. Education Code 39.058(a); 19 TAC 102.1401

Commissioner Action

Based on the results of a special accreditation investigation, the commissioner may:

1. Take appropriate action under Education Code Chapter 39A, [see Interventions and Sanctions for School Districts, above];

2. Lower the district's accreditation status or a district's or campus's performance rating; or

3. Take action under both items 1 and 2 above.

Regardless of whether the commissioner lowers the accreditation status or a district's or campus's performance rating, the commissioner may impose one of the district- or campus-level interventions or sanctions under Education Code 39A.002 [see Interventions and Sanctions for School Districts, above].
Education Code 39.057(d), (e)
Miscellaneous Provisions

Acquisition of Professional Services

In addition to other authorized interventions and sanctions, the commissioner may order a district or campus to acquire professional services at the expense of the district or campus to address the applicable financial, assessment, data quality, program, performance, or governance deficiency. The commissioner's order may require the district or campus to:

1. Select or be assigned an external auditor, data quality expert, professional authorized to monitor district assessment instrument administration, or curriculum or program expert; or

2. Provide for or participate in the appropriate training of district staff or board members in the case of a district, or campus staff, in the case of a campus.

Costs Paid by District

The costs of providing a monitor, conservator, management team, campus intervention team, technical assistance team, managing entity, or service provider shall be paid by the district. If the district fails or refuses to pay the costs in a timely manner, the commissioner may:

1. Pay the costs using amounts withheld from any funds to which the district is otherwise entitled; or

2. Recover the amount of the costs in the manner provided for recovery of an over allocation of state funds under Education Code 48.272.

Monitoring Reviews and On-Site Investigations

Except as provided by Education Code 7.028(a), the commissioner may direct TEA to conduct monitoring reviews and random on-site visits of a district at any time, as authorized by Education Code 7.028, only as necessary to ensure:

1. Compliance with federal law and regulations;

2. Financial accountability, including compliance with grant requirements; and

3. Data integrity for purposes of:

1. The Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS);

2. Accountability under Education Code Chapter 39 and 39A; and

4. Qualification for funding under Chapter 48.

A monitoring review may include desk reviews and on-site visits, including random on-site visits. In conducting a monitoring review, TEA may obtain information from administrators, other district employees, parents of students enrolled in the district, and other persons as necessary.

The commissioner may at any time convert a monitoring review to a special accreditation investigation under Education Code 39.057, provided the commissioner promptly notifies the district of the conversion. TEA shall give written notice to the superintendent and the board of any impending monitoring review.

TEA shall report in writing to the superintendent and president of the board and shall make recommendations concerning any necessary improvements or sources of aid such as regional education service centers. A district that takes action with regard to the recommendations provided by TEA shall make a reasonable effort to seek assistance from a third party in developing an action plan to improve district performance using improvement techniques that are goal-oriented and research-based.
Education Code 7.028, 39.056
Immunity from Civil Liability

Campus Name Change Prohibited

In reconstituting, repurposing, or imposing any other intervention or sanction on a campus, the commissioner may not require that the name of the campus be changed. Education Code 39A.905

Transitional Interventions and Sanctions

For a campus that received an unacceptable performance rating for the 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 school years, the commissioner may apply the interventions and sanctions authorized by Chapter 39 as that chapter existed on January 1, 2015, to the campus.

If a campus receives an unacceptable performance rating for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years, the commissioner shall apply the interventions and sanctions authorized when a campus has an unacceptable performance rating for three consecutive school years under current law.

For a campus that received an acceptable performance rating for the 2013-14 school year and an unacceptable performance rating for the 2014-15 and 2015-16 school years, the commissioner shall apply interventions and sanctions in current law to the campus. If the campus receives an unacceptable performance rating for the 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 school years, the commissioner shall apply the interventions and sanctions authorized when a campus has an unacceptable performance rating for three consecutive school years under current law.

These transition provisions expire September 1, 2020.

Special Program Performance: Intervention Stages

The commissioner shall assign a district to an intervention stage based on performance levels under 19 Administrative Code 97.1005 (Performance-Based Monitoring Analysis System) [see AIB] according to the criteria and requirements in 19 Administrative Code 97.1071.

Intervention actions taken under this section are intended to assist the district in raising its performance and/or achieving compliance under 19 Administrative Code 97.1005 and do not preclude or substitute for a sanction under another provision of Chapter 97, Subchapter EE.

Intervention Pause

Except as otherwise provided by 19 Administrative Code 97.1062 and unless extended by the commissioner, TEA will cease to enforce the interventions under Education Code 39A.101-39A.111 until conclusion of the second consecutive school year of operation under:

1. A partnership as defined by 19 Administrative Code 97.1077(a)(2), (b), or (c) of this title [see ELA]; or

2. Designation as a mathematics innovation zone under Education Code 28.020 and applicable rules.

Any intervention or sanction not covered by the provision above shall continue.

If a campus ceases to qualify for the intervention pause at any point during a school year, TEA will resume previously ordered interventions and sanctions, order interventions and sanctions based on the rating from that school year, and count that rating for purposes of consecutive years of performance.

Failure to Submit EOP

If TEA receives notice from the Texas School Safety Center of a district's failure to submit a multihazard emergency operations plan [see CKC], the commissioner may appoint a conservator for the district under Education Code Chapter 39A. The conservator may order the district to adopt, implement, and submit a multihazard emergency operations plan. If a district fails to comply with a conservator's order to adopt, implement, and submit a multihazard emergency operations plan within the time frame imposed by the commissioner, the commissioner may appoint a board of managers under Education Code Chapter 39A to oversee the operations of the district.Education Code 37.1082(a)-(b)

Note: The following provisions apply to a district with a central administrative office that is located in a county with a population of more than two million and that has a student enrollment that is more than 125,000 and less than 200,000, and that is operating under a turnaround plan.

Student Board Member

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The commissioner of education shall take any of the actions authorized by Education Code, Chapter 39A, Subchapter A, to the extent the commissioner determines necessary if: A district does not satisfy: The accreditation criteria under Education Code 39.052 [see AIA]; The academic performance standards under Education Code 39.053 or 39.054 [see AIA]; or Any financial accountability standard as determined by commissioner rule [see CFA]; or The commissioner considers the action to be appropriate on the basis of a special accreditation investigation under Education Code 39.057.

# data[].attributes.body
Texas Administrative Code §247.2(g) Standard 1.7. The educator shall comply with state regulations, written local school board policies, and other state and federal laws.

As a first year interventions teacher, I am expected to know the laws and regulations to be able to comply and support the district’s RTI initiatives. I make an extra effort to stay current with RTI laws and regulations by attending professional development.

-

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Enforceable Standards.
(1) Professional Ethical Conduct, Practices and Performance. (A) Standard 1.1. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in deceptive practices regarding official policies of the school district, educational institution, educator preparation program, the Texas Education Agency, or the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) and its certification process. (B) Standard 1.2. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misappropriate, divert, or use monies, personnel, property, or equipment committed to his or her charge for personal gain or advantage. (C) Standard 1.3. The educator shall not submit fraudulent requests for reimbursement, expenses, or pay. (D) Standard 1.4. The educator shall not use institutional or professional privileges for personal or partisan advantage. (E) Standard 1.5. The educator shall neither accept nor offer gratuities, gifts, or favors that impair professional judgment or that are used to obtain special advantage. This standard shall not restrict the acceptance of gifts or tokens offered and accepted openly from students, parents of students, or other persons or organizations in recognition or appreciation of service. (F) Standard 1.6. The educator shall not falsify records, or direct or coerce others to do so. (G) Standard 1.7. The educator shall comply with state regulations, written local school board policies, and other state and federal laws. (H) Standard 1.8. The educator shall apply for, accept, offer, or assign a position or a responsibility on the basis of professional qualifications. (I) Standard 1.9. The educator shall not make threats of violence against school district employees, school board members, students, or parents of students. (J) Standard 1.10. The educator shall be of good moral character and be worthy to instruct or supervise the youth of this state. (K) Standard 1.11. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misrepresent his or her employment history, criminal history, and/or disciplinary record when applying for subsequent employment. (L) Standard 1.12. The educator shall refrain from the illegal use, abuse, or distribution of controlled substances, prescription drugs, and toxic inhalants. (M) Standard 1.13. The educator shall not be under the influence of alcohol or consume alcoholic beverages on school property or during school activities when students are present. (2) Ethical Conduct Toward Professional Colleagues. (A) Standard 2.1. The educator shall not reveal confidential health or personnel information concerning colleagues unless disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law. (B) Standard 2.2. The educator shall not harm others by knowingly making false statements about a colleague or the school system. (C) Standard 2.3. The educator shall adhere to written local school board policies and state and federal laws regarding the hiring, evaluation, and dismissal of personnel. (D) Standard 2.4. The educator shall not interfere with a colleague's exercise of political, professional, or citizenship rights and responsibilities. (E) Standard 2.5. The educator shall not discriminate against or coerce a colleague on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, gender, disability, family status, or sexual orientation. (F) Standard 2.6. The educator shall not use coercive means or promise of special treatment in order to influence professional decisions or colleagues. (G) Standard 2.7. The educator shall not retaliate against any individual who has filed a complaint with the SBEC or who provides information for a disciplinary investigation or proceeding under this chapter. (H) Standard 2.8. The educator shall not intentionally or knowingly subject a colleague to sexual harassment. (3) Ethical Conduct Toward Students. (A) Standard 3.1. The educator shall not reveal confidential information concerning students unless disclosure serves lawful professional purposes or is required by law. (B) Standard 3.2. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly treat a student or minor in a manner that adversely affects or endangers the learning, physical health, mental health, or safety of the student or minor. (C) Standard 3.3. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misrepresent facts regarding a student. (D) Standard 3.4. The educator shall not exclude a student from participation in a program, deny benefits to a student, or grant an advantage to a student on the basis of race, color, gender, disability, national origin, religion, family status, or sexual orientation. (E) Standard 3.5. The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in physical mistreatment, neglect, or abuse of a student or minor. (F) Standard 3.6. The educator shall not solicit or engage in sexual conduct or a romantic relationship with a student or minor. (G) Standard 3.7. The educator shall not furnish alcohol or illegal/unauthorized drugs to any person under 21 years of age unless the educator is a parent or guardian of that child or knowingly allow any person under 21 years of age unless the educator is a parent or guardian of that child to consume alcohol or illegal/unauthorized drugs in the presence of the educator. (H) Standard 3.8. The educator shall maintain appropriate professional educator-student relationships and boundaries based on a reasonably prudent educator standard. (I) Standard 3.9. The educator shall refrain from inappropriate communication with a student or minor, including, but not limited to, electronic communication such as cell phone, text messaging, email, instant messaging, blogging, or other social network communication. Factors that may be considered in assessing whether the communication is inappropriate include, but are not limited to: (i) the nature, purpose, timing, and amount of the communication; (ii) the subject matter of the communication; (iii) whether the communication was made openly, or the educator attempted to conceal the communication; (iv) whether the communication could be reasonably interpreted as soliciting sexual contact or a romantic relationship; (v) whether the communication was sexually explicit; and (vi) whether the communication involved discussion(s) of the physical or sexual attractiveness or the sexual history, activities, preferences, or fantasies of either the educator or the student.

# data[].attributes.body
Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) helps -----support local initiatives.
-Including evidence-based interventions developed by  local leaders and educators.
-Accountability and actions is expected effect positive change to low performing schools where student progress is not happening.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A New Education Law

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was signed by President Obama on December 10, 2015, and represents good news for our nation's schools. This bipartisan measure reauthorizes the 50-year-old Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the nation's national education law and longstanding commitment to equal opportunity for all students.

The new law builds on key areas of progress in recent years, made possible by the efforts of educators, communities, parents, and students across the country.

For example, today, high school graduation rates are at all-time highs. Dropout rates are at historic lows. And more students are going to college than ever before. These achievements provide a firm foundation for further work to expand educational opportunity and improve student outcomes under ESSA.

The previous version of the law, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, was enacted in 2002. NCLB represented a significant step forward for our nation's children in many respects, particularly as it shined a light on where students were making progress and where they needed additional support, regardless of race, income, zip code, disability, home language, or background. The law was scheduled for revision in 2007, and, over time, NCLB's prescriptive requirements became increasingly unworkable for schools and educators. Recognizing this fact, in 2010, the Obama administration joined a call from educators and families to create a better law that focused on the clear goal of fully preparing all students for success in college and careers.

Congress has now responded to that call.

The Every Student Succeeds Act reflects many of the priorities of this administration.

ESSA Highlights

President Obama signs the Every Student Succeeds Act into law on December 10, 2015.

ESSA includes provisions that will help to ensure success for students and schools. Below are just a few. The law:

Advances equity by upholding critical protections for America's disadvantaged and high-need students.

Requires-for the first time-that all students in America be taught to high academic standards that will prepare them to succeed in college and careers.

Ensures that vital information is provided to educators, families, students, and communities through annual statewide assessments that measure students' progress toward those high standards.

Helps to support and grow local innovations-including evidence-based and place-based interventions developed by local leaders and educators-consistent with our Investing in Innovation and Promise Neighborhoods

Sustains and expands this administration's historic investments in increasing access to high-quality preschool.

Maintains an expectation that there will be accountability and action to effect positive change in our lowest-performing schools, where groups of students are not making progress, and where graduation rates are low over extended periods of time.

History of ESEA

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law in 1965 by President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who believed that "full educational opportunity" should be "our first national goal." From its inception, ESEA was a civil rights law.

ESEA offered new grants to districts serving low-income students, federal grants for textbooks and library books, funding for special education centers, and scholarships for low-income college students. Additionally, the law provided federal grants to state educational agencies to improve the quality of elementary and secondary education.

NCLB and Accountability

NCLB put in place measures that exposed achievement gaps among traditionally underserved students and their peers and spurred an important national dialogue on education improvement. This focus on accountability has been critical in ensuring a quality education for all children, yet also revealed challenges in the effective implementation of this goal.

Parents, educators, and elected officials across the country recognized that a strong, updated law was necessary to expand opportunity to all students; support schools, teachers, and principals; and to strengthen our education system and economy.

In 2012, the Obama administration began granting flexibility to states regarding specific requirements of NCLB in exchange for rigorous and comprehensive state- developed plans designed to close achievement gaps, increase equity, improve the quality of instruction, and increase outcomes for all students.

What's Next?

Over the next few weeks, the U.S. Department of Education will work with states and districts to begin implementing the new law. Visit this page for updates and sign up for news about ESSA.

Have questions?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was signed by President Obama on December 10, 2015, and represents good news for our nation's schools. This bipartisan measure reauthorizes the 50-year-old Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the nation's national education law and longstanding commitment to equal opportunity for all students.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 12:  Personal Connection to the Legal and Ethical Standards

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 12:  Personal Connection to the Legal and Ethical Standards

# data[].attributes.body
The context emphasizes the need to identify, plan, and implement intervention instruction for ALL of my students, not just previously identified special needs population. Previous to the RTI initiative, many students were not eligible to receive certain services because they were not eligible for services under the special education program. Based on the standards, schools should no longer wait to evaluate a student based on a parent recommendation. In terms of my personal educational goals, I can not relate, as I have not experienced learning problems.  I can implement what I have learned to assess and properly provide high quality instruction.