Source: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/texreg/archive/February242017/Adopted%20Rules/19.EDUCATION.html
Timestamp: 2018-01-18 02:02:22
Document Index: 319341780

Matched Legal Cases: ['§33', '§7', '§45', '§45', '§33', '§7', '§33', '§7', '§45', '§45', '§5', '§89', '§89', '§89', '§89', '§89', '§89', '§1400', '§89', '§89', '§89', '§300', '§89', '§89', '§89', '§89', '§89', '§89', '§89', '§89', '§29', '§29', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§300', '§29', '§29', '§300', '§89', '§300', '§300', '§89']

The State Board of Education (SBOE) adopts an amendment to §33.65, concerning the bond guarantee program (BGP) for school districts. The amendment is adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the December 16, 2016, issue of the Texas Register (41 TexReg 9840). The adopted amendment increases the multiplier used in calculating the capacity of the Permanent School Fund (PSF).
REASONED JUSTIFICATION. The Texas Education Code (TEC), §7.102(c)(33), authorizes the SBOE to adopt rules for the implementation of the PSF BGP as authorized in the TEC, Chapter 45, School District Funds, Subchapter C, Guaranteed Bonds. The TEC, §45.063, authorizes the SBOE to adopt rules necessary for the administration of the program. Section 33.65 is the rule the SBOE adopted to implement the program.
Under the TEC, §45.053, the board has authority to increase the multiplier used in the calculation of the PSF capacity to guarantee bonds. The adopted amendment to 19 TAC §33.65 increases the multiplier in subsection (e)(1) to three and one-half times the cost value of the PSF effective March 1, 2017, and three and three-fourths times the cost value of the PSF effective September 1, 2017. A change was made at adoption to clarify in subsection (e)(1) that under no circumstances could the capacity of the fund exceed the limits set by federal regulation.
The amendment was approved by the SBOE for first reading and filing authorization at its November 18, 2016, meeting and for second reading and final adoption at its February 3, 2017, meeting.
In accordance with the TEC, §7.102(f), the SBOE approved the amendment for adoption by a vote of two-thirds of its members to specify an effective date earlier than the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year. The earlier effective date will enable the Bond Guarantee Program (BGP) to recommence providing guarantees to open-enrollment charter schools. This part of the guarantee program is currently frozen due to a lack of available capacity.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES. Following is a summary of the public comments received and the corresponding responses regarding the proposed amendment to 19 TAC §33.65.
Comment. Two individuals commented that increasing the multiplier used to calculate the capacity of the PSF BGP to allow access to additional charter schools would subject the PSF to risks because a charter school revenue bond does not offer the same safeguards as a school district unlimited tax bond. The individuals added that the eligibility criteria for charter schools to obtain a PSF bond guarantee should be stricter because of this difference in safeguards.
Response. The SBOE disagrees. The current review process and safeguards are sufficient to protect the PSF.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY. The amendment is adopted under the Texas Education Code (TEC), §7.102(c)(33), which requires the State Board of Education (SBOE) to adopt an annual report on the status of the guaranteed bond program and authorizes the SBOE to adopt rules as necessary to administer the bond guarantee program; TEC, §45.053(d), which grants the SBOE the authority to increase by rule the multiplier used in calculating the capacity of the fund; TEC, §45.063, which authorizes the SBOE to adopt rules necessary for the administration of the bond guarantee program; and Texas Constitution, Article VII, §5(d), which authorizes the legislature to use the permanent school fund to establish a bond guarantee program that has been enacted under the TEC, Chapter 45, Subchapter C.
(1) Each month the commissioner will estimate the available capacity of the PSF. If necessary, the commissioner will confirm that the PSF has sufficient capacity to guarantee the bonds before the issuance of the final approval for the guarantee in accordance with subsection (g)(3) of this section. The calculation of capacity will be based on a multiplier of three and one-half times the cost value of the PSF effective March 1, 2017, and a multiplier of three and three-fourths times the cost value of the PSF effective September 1, 2017, with the proviso that under no circumstances could the capacity of the fund exceed the limits set by federal regulation. The commissioner may reduce the multiplier to maintain the AAA credit rating of the PSF. Changes to the multiplier made by the commissioner are to be ratified or rejected by the State Board of Education (SBOE) at the next meeting for which the item can be posted.
TRD-201700574
19 TAC §§89.1151, 89.1165, 89.1175, 89.1180, 89.1183, 89.1185, 89.1186, 89.1191 - 89.1193
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) adopts amendments to §§89.1151, 89.1165, 89.1175, 89.1180, 89.1183, 89.1185, 89.1186, 89.1191, and 89.1193 and new §89.1192, concerning special education services. The amendments to §§89.1151, 89.1165, 89.1175, 89.1180, 89.1183, 89.1185, 89.1186, and 89.1191 and new §89.1192 are adopted without changes to the proposed text as published in the November 25, 2016, issue of the Texas Register (41 TexReg 9209) and will not be republished. The amendment to §89.1193 is adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the November 25, 2016, issue of the Texas Register (41 TexReg 9209). The adopted amendments and new section add a rule regarding a court's award of attorneys' fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1400, et seq.; clarify the circumstances under which a party may request and the procedural rules that apply to an expedited due process hearing requested under IDEA; amend a rule regarding the assignment of mediators to mediations requested under IDEA; and make minor technical corrections and clarifications.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION. IDEA and its implementing regulations provide that parents and public agencies may request mediation and due process hearings when disputes arise regarding the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of a child with a disability or the provision of a free appropriate public education to the child. IDEA requires TEA, as the state educational agency, to offer mediation as a dispute resolution mechanism and to conduct due process hearings and have procedural safeguards in effect to ensure that each public agency in the state meets the IDEA requirements.
Chapter 89, Division 7, is revised to clarify dispute resolution rules as follows.
Section 89.1151, Special Education Due Process Hearings, is amended to make minor technical changes to use plain language and for consistency.
Section 89.1165, Request for Special Education Due Process Hearing, is amended to make a minor technical change to use plain language.
Section 89.1175, Representation in Special Education Due Process Hearings, is amended to make minor technical changes to use plain language.
Section 89.1180, Prehearing Procedures, is amended to make minor technical changes to use plain language and for consistency.
Section 89.1183, Resolution Process, is amended to make minor technical changes to use plain language.
Section 89.1185, Hearing Procedures, is amended to make minor technical changes to use plain language.
Section 89.1186, Extensions of Time, is amended to make minor technical changes to use plain language.
Section 89.1191, Special Rule for Expedited Due Process Hearings, is amended to clarify that an expedited due process hearing may be requested by a parent to appeal a disciplinary placement decision or a manifestation determination or by a school district to appeal a current placement decision that is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or others. The rule is also amended to clarify that the timelines that apply to expedited due process hearings are mandatory and that requests for expedited due process hearings may not be amended or challenged as insufficient. Finally, the rule is amended to make minor technical edits.
New §89.1192, Attorneys' Fees, is added to clarify that, consistent with IDEA, a court may award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party in a due process hearing under certain circumstances.
Section 89.1193, Special Education Mediation, is amended in subsection (f) to align with IDEA and clarify that TEA will select mediators on a random, rotational, or other impartial basis. New language in subsection (f) also explains that TEA will provide the parties with written notice of the specific mediator selected to conduct the mediation. In addition, the rule is amended to make minor technical changes. In response to public comment, subsection (f) was modified at adoption to provide that selection of a mediator on an impartial basis includes allowing the parties to agree on the mediator, to instruct parties who mutually agree on a mediator to advise TEA of the desired mediator, and to specify that parties must not contact a mediator until TEA has provided the parties with written notice of the mediator assignment.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES. The public comment period on the proposal began November 25, 2016, and ended December 27, 2016, and included public hearings that were held on Thursday, December 8, 2016, and Friday, December 9, 2016. Following is a summary of public comments received, including those received at the public hearings, and corresponding agency responses.
Comment: Disability Rights Texas (DRTx) commented in support of the proposed amendment to 19 TAC §89.1191. DRTx considers the proposed amendment to be consistent with federal law and appropriate.
Comment: DRTx commented that proposed new 19 TAC §89.1192 is unnecessary, confusing, and does not assist courts in ruling on requests for attorneys' fees.
Agency Response: The agency disagrees. The rule was proposed in response to guidance from the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs that each state should address 34 Code of Federal Regulations, §300.517, in its state policies and procedures.
Comment: DRTx, the Texas Council of Administrators of Special Education, the Texas Association of School Boards, 13 parent attorneys, 6 school district attorneys, a school district attorney on behalf of her law firm and 4 school district clients, 2 parent advocates, and 3 school district administrators commented that the provision in proposed 19 TAC §89.1193(f) that reserves for the agency the right to make the final mediator selection based on various program considerations should not be adopted. According to the commenters, the current procedure of allowing the parties to agree on a mediator has historically worked very well and is essential to successful mediations because it enables the parties to be vested in the process and to work with a mediator they trust.
Sixteen attorneys commented that they use their professional judgment to select a mediator based on the issues, temperament of the parties, and tone of the dispute. The attorneys also noted that differing skill sets among the mediators play a role in their selection decisions. An administrator commented that the parties have greater knowledge than the agency in determining which mediator is best suited to a particular dispute. Another administrator commented that school districts would be far less likely to agree to mediation if not allowed to jointly select the mediator.
Agency Response: The agency appreciates the comments and provides the following clarification. The proposed amendment was not intended to eliminate entirely the current procedure that allows the parties to agree on a mediator. The proposed amendment was intended to give the agency some flexibility to propose another mediator in certain situations. The current procedure has resulted in a majority of the mediations being assigned to several mediators from the same region. Not only does this result in mediations not being conducted as promptly as they could if they were distributed more evenly among the contract mediators, but it hinders the agency's ability to maintain a sufficient number of qualified mediators willing to contract with the state to provide mediation services. Due to the commenters' concerns, however, the agency has modified the proposed amendment at adoption. Specifically, the agency has deleted the provision in proposed 19 TAC §89.1193(f) stating that the agency will consider the parties' request for a mediator but reserves the right to make the final mediator selection. The agency has replaced the provision with a sentence stating, "Selecting mediators on an impartial basis includes permitting the parties involved in a dispute to agree on a mediator from the TEA's list of mediators." In addition, a conforming change was made to state, "If the parties agree to a mediator, they must advise the TEA of the desired mediator." In response to another comment, the agency has made revisions to clarify the statement prohibiting the parties from contacting a mediator to discuss the mediator's availability. Because the agency believes that the prompt scheduling of mediations and the equitable distribution of cases are worthy program considerations, the agency will seek input from stakeholders regarding possible options for modifying the mediation procedures in the future.
Comment: An attorney and a parent advocate commented that the proposed amendment to 19 TAC §89.1193(f) is based on the internal administration of the program, not on the goal of fostering successful dispute resolution. In addition, two attorneys stated that the success of the mediation should be a more important consideration than the desire to level out the distribution of work among mediators.
Agency Response: The agency disagrees. IDEA requires the agency to have procedures in place to ensure the availability of qualified mediators. Equitable distribution of the cases furthers the goal of maintaining a sufficient number of qualified mediators willing to contract with the state to provide mediation services. The agency believes that this a worthy and needed program consideration. In addition, the agency is also concerned that the inequitable distribution of mediation assignments results in delays in conducting mediations. However, the agency has modified the proposed amendment based on other comments to allow the parties to continue to agree on a specific mediator. The agency will seek input from stakeholders regarding possible options for modifying the mediation procedures in the future.
Comment: Fourteen attorneys commented that they believe the proposed amendment to 19 TAC §89.1193(f) has fiscal implications. The commenters predicted that the proposed amendment would lead to failed mediations, which would result in more due process hearings and the significant costs associated with them.
Agency Response: The agency disagrees. The agency strongly believes that all of the contract mediators are capable of conducting successful mediations. However, the agency has modified the proposed amendment based on other comments to allow the parties to continue to agree on a specific mediator. The agency will seek input from stakeholders regarding possible options for modifying the mediation procedures in the future.
Comment: One attorney commented that allowing the parties to select the mediator serves to ensure impartiality in the selection process, and that by reserving the right to make the final mediator selection, the proposed amendment does not align with the IDEA mandate that the process be impartial.
Agency Response: The agency disagrees. The IDEA does not prohibit agency selection of a mediator. However, the agency has modified the proposed amendment based on other comments to allow the parties to continue to agree on a specific mediator. The agency will seek input from stakeholders regarding possible options for modifying the mediation procedures in the future.
Comment: One contract mediator commented in favor of the proposed amendment to 19 TAC §89.1193(f), stating that by retaining the right to make the final mediator selection, the agency removes the appearance of partiality that may exist because of the "significant power imbalance" between a parent and the school district and the mistrust that a parent may have of a school district's preferences. The commenter noted that the proposed amendment would further reduce the appearance of partiality by eliminating "any temptation for a party representative to implicitly condition future 'business' on a mediator's acquiescing to a representative's desire to control the mediation process." The mediator further commented that the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) does not allow parties opting to use the SOAH mediation process to choose their mediator and stated that the program has been very successful.
Agency Response: The agency appreciates the comments. However, the agency has modified the proposed amendment based on other comments to allow the parties to continue to agree on a specific mediator. The agency will seek input from stakeholders regarding possible options for modifying the mediation procedures in the future.
Comment: A contract mediator commented in favor of the proposed amendment to 19 TAC §89.1193(f), noting that the agency would be able to maintain a more balanced pool of trained mediators if it retained the right to make the final mediator selection. The commenter further noted that a more even distribution of cases throughout the mediator pool would allow the agency to better evaluate stakeholder feedback and would enhance mediator training.
Agency Response: The agency appreciates the comments and agrees that there are benefits to having a more equitable distribution of mediation cases. However, the agency has modified the proposed amendment based on other comments to allow the parties to continue to agree on a specific mediator and has removed the language stating that the agency reserves the right to make the final mediator selection. The agency will seek input from stakeholders regarding possible options for modifying the mediation procedures in the future.
Comment: Two contract mediators commented in support of the proposed amendment to §89.1193(f), noting that as stewards of taxpayer resources, the agency should be allowed to make a selection decision that would contain program costs.
Agency Response: The agency agrees. However, the agency has modified the proposed amendment based on other comments to allow the parties to continue to agree on a specific mediator and has removed the language stating that the agency reserves the right to make the final mediator selection. The agency will seek input from stakeholders regarding possible options for modifying the mediation procedures in the future.
Comment: Eighteen attorneys commented that the proposed provision in 19 TAC §89.1193(f) that prohibits the parties from contacting a mediator to discuss the mediator's availability to conduct the mediation unnecessarily slows down the mediation process and should not be adopted.
Agency Response: The agency disagrees and provides the following clarification. In order to preserve and promote mediator impartiality, the agency does not allow contract mediators to communicate with the parties or their representatives before a case has been assigned to the mediator. The purpose of the provision is to inform the parties that no mediator contact is permitted at this early stage in the process. In addition, when the agency is aware that a desired mediator is unavailable to conduct the mediation, it promptly advises the parties of this fact so that an available mediator may be assigned without further delay. While the agency does not agree that the provision should be deleted, the language has been modified at adoption for clarity. Specifically, a sentence has been added to clarify that the parties must not contact a mediator on the TEA's list of mediators until the TEA has provided the parties with the written notice of the mediator assignment.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY. The amendments and new section are adopted under the Texas Education Code (TEC), §29.001, which requires the Texas Education Agency to develop and modify as necessary a statewide plan that includes rules for the administration and funding of the delivery of services to children with disabilities in the state of Texas so that a free appropriate public education (FAPE) is available to all of those children between the ages of 3 and 21; TEC, §29.0162, which gives the commissioner authority to adopt rules related to the qualification of non-attorney representatives at due process hearings; 34 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), §300.100, which requires a state to submit a plan to the Secretary of Education that provides assurances that the state has policies and procedures in effect to ensure that it meets the conditions in 34 CFR, §§300.101-300.176; 34 CFR, §300.121, which requires that a state have procedural safeguards in effect to ensure that each public agency in the state meets the dispute resolution requirements in 34 CFR, §§300.500-300.536, and also requires that children with disabilities and their parents be afforded those procedural safeguards; 34 CFR, §300.506, which requires a state to establish and implement procedures to allow parents and public education agencies who are in dispute regarding the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of a child with a disability, or the provision of a FAPE to the child the opportunity to resolve the dispute through a mediation process; 34 CFR, §300.507, which provides that a state has the authority to establish an explicit time limitation for filing a request for a hearing; 34 CFR, §300.508, which mandates that a state must implement procedures to require either party in a due process hearing to provide a copy of the request for a hearing to the other party; 34 CFR, §300.511, which requires a state to ensure that parents and public education agencies have the opportunity for an impartial due process hearing conducted by the state when they are involved in a dispute regarding the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of a child with a disability, or the provision of a FAPE to the child; 34 CFR, §300.512, which allows for state law determination of whether parties may be represented at due process hearings by non-attorney representatives; 34 CFR, §300.517, which allows a court the discretion to award reasonable attorneys' fees to the prevailing party in any action or proceeding brought under IDEA and describes the circumstances for making the award; and 34 CFR, §300.532, which provides that a state may establish procedural rules governing expedited due process hearings.
CROSS REFERENCE TO STATUTE. The amendments and new section implement the Texas Education Code, §29.001 and §29.0162, and 34 Code of Federal Regulations, §§300.100, 300.121, 300.506-300.508, 300.511, 300.512, 300.517, and 300.532.
§89.1193.Special Education Mediation.
(a) In accordance with 34 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), §300.506, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) has established a mediation process to provide parents and public education agencies with an opportunity to resolve disputes involving any matter arising under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or 34 CFR, §300.1 et seq. Mediation is available to resolve these disputes at any time.
(b) The mediation procedures must ensure that the process is:
(d) The TEA will maintain a list of individuals who are qualified mediators and knowledgeable in laws and regulations relating to the provision of special education and related services.
(1) must not be an employee of the TEA or the public education agency that is involved in the education or care of the child who is the subject of the mediation process;
(2) must not have a personal or professional conflict of interest, including relationships or contracts with schools or parents outside of mediations assigned by the TEA; and
(f) The TEA will select mediators on a random, rotational, or other impartial basis. Selecting mediators on an impartial basis includes permitting the parties involved in a dispute to agree on a mediator from the TEA's list of mediators. If the parties agree to a mediator, they must advise the TEA of the desired mediator. The TEA will provide the parties with written notice of the specific mediator assigned to conduct the mediation. The parties must not contact a mediator on the TEA's list of mediators until the TEA has provided the parties with the written notice of the mediator assignment.
(g) If a mediator is also a hearing officer under §89.1170 of this title (relating to Impartial Hearing Officer), that individual may not serve as a mediator if he or she is the hearing officer in a pending due process hearing involving the same student who is the subject of the mediation process or was the hearing officer in a previous due process hearing involving the student who is the subject of the mediation process.
(h) The TEA will bear the cost of the mediation process.
(i) A mediation session must be scheduled in a timely manner and held in a location that is convenient to the parties.
TRD-201700579