1. (a) Annually, beginning September 1, 1998, an entity must meet the accreditation standards at acceptable levels of performance set by the Board.
2. (b) An entity shall be rated "Accredited," "Accredited-Under Review," "Not Accredited," or "Accredited-Preliminary Status."
3. (c) Accreditation ratings shall be based on an entity's performance over the appropriate period under TEC §21.045(d) (Relating to Oversight of Educator Preparation Programs) and shall be issued in the spring of each year to be in effect during the following academic year.
4. (d) Upon initial approval by the Board of an entity applying to prepare educators for certification, an entity will be rated Accredited-Preliminary Status. Program completers may be recommended for certification while an entity is rated Accredited-Preliminary Status. New entities shall be rated Accredited-Preliminary Status until the first accreditation ratings are issued following the academic year in which one or more of the entity's candidates completes the program; at that point, based on the performance of the completer(s), the entity will be held accountable and shall be rated Accredited or Accredited-Under Review.
5. (e) An entity is accountable for the performance of all program completers. A candidate is designated a program completer in a field according to whether the entity's requirements for certification have been satisfied, regardless of whether the individual attempted, passed, or failed the certification test(s) required for that field; for identifying candidates as program completers under this chapter, entities are prohibited from considering whether the candidate has taken the appropriate test(s) for certification or the candidate's success or failure on the certification test(s). The pass rates of program completers on examinations and the performance of beginning teachers determine the accreditation rating. The performance on a content-area assessment taken for the first time by a degreed candidate who earned a baccalaureate degree from another entity shall be included in an entity's ASEP performance only if the candidate has taken related college-level coursework and/or other comprehensive pre-service training at the current entity prior to attempting the test; the executive director shall identify the specific content-area assessments applicable to this rule.
6. (f) Accreditation relating to test performance is based upon initial and final pass rates. The Board shall set the acceptable pass rates and timely advise entities accordingly. In setting the levels for acceptable pass rates, the Board shall consider relevant information including, but not limited to, impact data, the recommendation of the ASEP Advisory Committee, and input received from other sources.

7. (g) Accreditation of entity

   1. (1) For an entity to be rated Accredited to prepare educators, performance prior to issuance of the rating must be as follows for each demographic group (all students, African American, Hispanic, white, other, male, female):

      1. (A) Acceptable initial pass rates or acceptable final pass rates; and
      2. (B) Effective following approval by the Board of an appraisal of beginning teachers as required by TEC §21.045(a), acceptable performance on an appraisal of beginning teachers.
   2. (2) Based upon performance required by paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection, an entity rated Accredited-Under Review may request reconsideration of that status by the executive director if the status is based upon ten or fewer completers in the "all students" demographic group. In evaluating the reconsideration request, the executive director shall consider the advice of a subcommittee of members of the ASEP Advisory Committee. The executive director may award the status of Accredited. If the executive director does not award the Accredited status, the entity may request reconsideration by the Board. The Board's decision shall be final.
   3. (3) If the executive director or Board awards the Accredited status under paragraph (2) of this subsection, the executive director shall send a letter to the entity's chief executive officer concerning the low performance and directing the entity to develop an action plan for addressing program deficiencies and improving the performance of candidates in the program. The executive director may prescribe information to be included in the action plan. The action plan must be sent by the chief executive officer of the entity to the executive director no later than 45 calendar days following the entity's receipt of the letter from the executive director.

   4. (4) Based upon performance required by paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection, the performance of a small gender or ethnic group (i.e., a group comprising 15 or fewer completers) shall be used in ASEP according to subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph.

      1. (A) If the performance of a small gender or ethnic group is acceptable, that performance shall be used in determining the accreditation rating for the entity.

      2. (B) If the performance of a small gender or ethnic group is unacceptable, clauses (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph shall apply based on the performance (initial and final pass rates) of that same gender or ethnic group from the previous completer cohort:

         1. (i) If either the initial or final pass rate of the previous cohort was acceptable, the current cohort's low performance shall not cause the entity to be rated Accredited-Under Review. If the entity will be rated Accredited, the executive director shall send a letter to the entity's chief executive officer concerning the group's low performance and directing the entity to develop an action plan for addressing program deficiencies and improving the performance of candidates in that group. The action plan must be sent by the chief executive officer of the entity to the executive director no later than 45 calendar days following the entity's receipt of the letter from the executive director.

         2. (ii) Impact of data from small groups:

            1. (I) If both the initial and final pass rates of the previous cohort were unacceptable, the current group's performance shall cause the entity to be rated Accredited-Under Review. However, the entity may request reconsideration of that status by the executive director. In evaluating the reconsideration request, the executive director shall consider the advice of a subcommittee of members of the ASEP Advisory Committee. The executive director may award the status of Accredited. If the executive director does not award the Accredited status, the entity may request reconsideration from the Board. The Board's decision shall be final.
            2. (II) If the executive director or Board awards the entity Accredited status, the executive director shall send a letter to the entity's chief executive officer concerning the group's low performance and directing the entity to develop an action plan for addressing program deficiencies and improving the performance of candidates in that group. The executive director may prescribe information to be included in the action plan. The action plan must be sent by the chief executive officer to the executive director no later than 45 calendar days following the entity's receipt of the letter from the executive director.

   5. (5) The agency shall evaluate the accuracy of an entity's ASEP data and data submitted for the purpose of meeting reporting requirements under Title II of the Higher Education Act, Amendments of 1998, 20 U.S.C. §1021, et. seq. If there are reasonable grounds to believe that the information provided by the entity has been inaccurately or fraudulently reported, the executive director is authorized to conduct an investigation. The entity shall cooperate with the investigation and provide the information and documentation requested by the executive director.

      1. (A) If the entity does not cooperate in the investigation, the executive director may determine the entity's annual accreditation status based on available, accurate data, as determined by the executive director by a preponderance of the evidence.
      2. (B) If, upon investigation, it is determined that ASEP or Title II data submitted by the entity are inaccurate and are not corrected by the entity within the time and in the form set by the executive director, or the data have been fraudulently submitted by the entity, the executive director may sanction the educator preparation program, up to and including a reduction in the accreditation rating.
8. (h) An entity not meeting ASEP performance standards shall receive the rating of Accredited-Under Review. An entity receiving the rating of Accredited-Under Review for three consecutive years, and which does not meet ASEP standards for a fourth consecutive year, shall be rated Not Accredited for the fourth consecutive and subsequent years, except as provided by subsections (i) and (j) of this section.
9. (i) If an entity disagrees with its accreditation status, the entity may appeal the accreditation status to the executive director. If the entity does not agree with the executive director's decision, the entity may appeal the decision to the Board. The Board's decision shall be final.
10. (j) An entity that is rated Not Accredited because of failure to meet ASEP standards shall be rated Not Accredited for at least one academic year. During or subsequent to the year of being rated Not Accredited, the program may apply for reinstatement and the Board may reinstate the program as Accredited-Preliminary Status for the following academic year. If reinstated, the entity shall continue to be rated Accredited-Preliminary Status until the first accreditation rating is issued following the academic year in which one or more of the program's new candidates (i.e., candidates admitted to the program subsequent to the program's reinstatement) completes the program; at that point, based on the performance of the new candidates under ASEP, the program shall be rated Accredited or Accredited-Under Review.
11. (k) An entity must notify persons enrolled in an educator preparation program of any change of accreditation status. Candidates enrolled in an entity that is rated Accredited-Under Review but then becomes Not Accredited may complete their program and be recommended for certification.

Source Note:The provisions of this §229.3 adopted to be effective February 3, 2002, 27 TexReg 603.