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 fall of each year to be in effect during the current academic year.
4. (d) Upon initial approval by the Board of an entity desiring 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 candidates who completed the program and candidates in the program, 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 candidates for certification. 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 excluded from an entity's ASEP performance. This exclusion applies only to an individual's first attempt on the content-area assessment for the certificate being sought; subsequent attempts will be used for evaluating an entity's accreditation status under this chapter. For purposes of calculating the first-year pass rate, these individuals' second attempt on the content-area test will be considered their first attempt. The executive director shall identify the specific assessments subject to exclusion under this subsection. Pass rates on examinations and the performance of beginning teachers determine the accreditation rating.
6. (f) Accreditation relating to test performance will be based upon first-year and cumulative pass rates. In no event shall the first-year or cumulative pass rates provided for in this section be less than 66 2/3%.

7. (g) Accreditation of entity

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

      1. (A) acceptable first-year pass rates or acceptable cumulative 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 less than ten candidates 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 from the Board. The Board's decision shall be final.

   3. (3) Based upon performance required by paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection, if an ethnic or gender group's current performance is acceptable, the group's current performance shall be used for determining the ASEP rating, regardless of the number of candidates in that group. If the group's current performance is unacceptable and the pass rate represents the performance of 30 or more candidates, the group's current performance shall be used for determining the ASEP rating. If the group's current performance is unacceptable and the pass rate represents the performance of fewer than 30 candidates, the group's current performance shall be combined with data for that same demographic group from one or two prior reporting periods as follows:

      1. (A) The group's current performance shall be combined with the performance of the same group from the previous ASEP report. If the combined performance is acceptable, the combined performance shall be used for determining the ASEP rating, regardless of the number of candidates represented in the combined performance.
      2. (B) If the combined performance is unacceptable and represents the performance of 30 or more candidates, the combined performance shall be used for determining the ASEP rating. If the combined performance is unacceptable and represents the performance of fewer than 30 candidates, the combined performance shall be combined with data from the second previous ASEP report.
      3. (C) If that resulting combined performance (current performance combined with data from the two previous ASEP reports) is acceptable, then that combined performance shall be used for determining the ASEP rating, regardless of the number of candidates represented in that combined performance. If that resulting combined performance is unacceptable and represents more than 30 candidates, that combined performance shall be used for determining the ASEP rating. If that resulting combined performance is unacceptable, represents fewer than 30 candidates, and would potentially cause the entity to be rated Accredited-Under Review, 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.

   4. (4) 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 take action against 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 admitted to a program rated Accredited-Under Review which becomes Not Accredited may complete their program and be recommended for certification. Any candidate admitted into the certification program during the period that the entity is rated Not Accredited the candidate can not be recommended for certification by that program.

Source Note:The provisions of this §229.9 adopted to be effective February 3, 2002, 27 TexReg 603.