PART 2. TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY
CHAPTER 67. STATE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
SUBCHAPTER CC. COMMISSIONER'S RULES CONCERNING OPEN EDUCATION RESOURCE INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) adopts new §67.1315, concerning open education resource (OER) instructional materials. The new section is adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the September 6, 2024 issue of the Texas Register (49 TexReg 6950) and will be republished. The adopted new rule implements House Bill (HB) 1605, 88th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2023, by providing clarification on the requirements for a school district's OER transition plan.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION: HB 1605, 88th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2023, significantly revised Texas Education Code (TEC), Chapter 31, which addresses instructional materials in public education. Specifically, the bill added TEC, §31.0751, to require school districts to adopt an OER instructional materials transition plan to qualify for additional state aid under TEC, §48.308. School districts participating in an OER instructional material support program are not required to adopt a transition plan.
New §67.1315 provides clarification on the requirements for a school district's OER transition plan, including when a plan must be submitted and what it must contain. The new rule also specifies that the commissioner may request and review OER instructional material transition plans and reject a plan subsequent to review.
At adoption, a change was made to subsection (e) to limit the timeframe for rejection of a transition plan by the commissioner from "at any time" to "before funding is released."
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES: The public comment period on the proposal began September 6, 2024, and ended October 7, 2024. Following is a summary of public comments received and agency responses.
Comment: A publisher commented that the proposed rule could create a barrier to OER implementation as only districts implementing OER materials would have to create a transition plan and those implementing non-OER instructional materials would not.
Response: The agency disagrees that the rule will create a barrier to OER implementation as the requirements of the transition plan are enabling systems necessary to successful instructional materials implementation. Additionally, the OER transition plan is statutorily required in TEC, §31.0751.
Comment: A publisher commented that it is unclear which districts would need to create an OER transition plan as a definition is not provided for "an OER instructional material support program."
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. TEC, §31.0752, defines "Open Education Resource Instructional Material Support Program" as a program developed and maintained by the agency "to assist school districts and open-enrollment charter schools in adopting and using open education resource instructional material." Since the definition is provided in statute, it is not replicated in the rule.
Comment: A publisher commented that the rule does not specify when it would be in effect.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. According to TEC, §31.0751(a), the OER instructional material transition plan is required to qualify for additional state aid under TEC, §48.308. TEC, §48.308(a), states that "a school district is entitled to additional state aid for each school year...for the costs incurred or for which the district is obligated to pay during the school year in which the aid is provided for the printing and shipping of open education resource instructional materials...." Since an OER instructional material transition plan is required to qualify for this additional state aid, this rule would take effect in the first year this aid is available.
Comment: Texas Classroom Teachers Association (TCTA) opposed the use of the term "internalization" in proposed §67.1315(d)(4), stating it is undefined and not found in HB 1605. TCTA believes this term shifts teacher responsibilities away from lesson design and is premature given the current lack of high-quality instructional materials and OER materials. TCTA recommended removing "internalization" from subsection (d)(4) or revising subsection (d)(4)(B) to read, "lesson design, internalization, when appropriate, and student work analysis protocols."
Response: The agency disagrees. Subsection (d)(4)(B) indicates that the plan should ensure clear expectations for the implementation of internalization protocols. The commenter's recommended revision would require that the plan also ensure clear expectations for the implementation of lesson design protocols. A lesson design protocol is not included in OER materials, so this requirement is not necessary.
Comment: TCTA opposed the inclusion of the term "acceptable" in proposed §67.1315(d)(6), stating it implies district control over teacher flexibility, which, in TCTA's view, contradicts TEC, §31.0751(b). TCTA further commented that the statute mandates that OER transition plans preserve teachers' ability to address their students' needs.
Response: The agency disagrees. The use of the term "acceptable" in subsection (d)(6) does not imply that the district has control over the instructional flexibility provided by TEC, §31.0751(b), as the term is used in conjunction with the term "guidance."
STATUTORY AUTHORITY. The new section is adopted under Texas Education Code (TEC), §31.003(b), as added by House Bill (HB) 1605, 88th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2023, which authorizes the commissioner of education to adopt rules consistent with TEC, Chapter 31, as necessary to implement a provision of the chapter that the commissioner or the agency is responsible for implementing; and TEC, §31.0751, as added by HB 1605, 88th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2023, which requires school districts to adopt an open education resource instructional material transition plan, unless otherwise exempt.
CROSS REFERENCE TO STATUTE. The new section implements Texas Education Code, §31.003(b) and §31.0751, as added by House Bill 1605, 88th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2023.
§67.1315.Open Education Resource Instructional Material Transition Plan.
(a) The open education resource (OER) instructional material transition plan shall be submitted, when required by this section, in a format determined by the commissioner of education.
(b) A school district or an open-enrollment charter school is required to have a locally maintained OER transition plan that complies with this section to access funding allotted under Texas Education Code (TEC), §48.308.
(c) A school district or an open-enrollment charter school is required to submit an OER instructional material transition plan only when:
(1) first adopting a State Board of Education (SBOE)-approved OER product for a grade level or subject/course; or
(2) expanding implementation of an SBOE-approved OER product to additional campuses and/or grade levels.
(d) The OER instructional material transition plan adopted by the local board of trustees or the governing body of an open-enrollment charter school shall include the plan of the district or charter school to ensure the following:
(1) clear communication and stakeholder change management plans and timelines;
(2) timely access to print materials and related manipulatives through OER procurement and distribution;
(3) sufficient planning and instructional time evidenced by instructional calendars and master schedules aligned to the requirements of the materials;
(4) clear expectations for the implementation of:
(A) instructional materials;
(B) internalization and student work analysis protocols; and
(C) curriculum-embedded assessments;
(5) processes for stakeholder communication and public posting, as outlined in TEC, §26.006, if materials have been modified by the school district or open-enrollment charter school;
(6) the maintenance of instructional flexibility through clear guidance for acceptable teacher modifications to instructional pacing, sequencing, and lesson content to address the needs of each student; and
(7) sufficient professional learning and development for school leaders, instructional coaches, and teachers, including:
(A) pre-service product onboarding and orientation; and
(B) ongoing, job-embedded, curriculum-based professional learning, including cycles of observation and feedback.
(e) The commissioner may request and review OER instructional material transition plans before funding is released and reject a plan subsequent to review.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on November 25, 2024.
TRD-202405763
Cristina De La Fuente-Valadez
Director, Rulemaking
Texas Education Agency
Effective date: December 15, 2024
Proposal publication date: September 6, 2024
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1497
SUBCHAPTER CC. COMMISSIONER'S RULES CONCERNING SAFE SCHOOLS
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) adopts new §103.1213, concerning safe schools. The new section is adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the September 6, 2024 issue of the Texas Register (49 TexReg 6951) and will be republished. The new rule requires school safety and security-related reporting through Sentinel in accordance with Texas Education Code (TEC), §37.1083 and §37.115. Sentinel is a comprehensive system designed to enhance the safety and security of students, faculty, and staff in school buildings across Texas.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION: In accordance with TEC, §37.1083, each school district and open-enrollment charter school must submit information requested by TEA in their efforts to monitor the implementation and operation of school district safety and security requirements. The statute allows TEA to review school district records as necessary to ensure compliance.
In addition, TEC, §37.115, requires the establishment of local teams to conduct threat assessments in accordance with rules promulgated by TEA.
New §103.1213(a) outlines school safety reporting requirements for school districts and open-enrollment charter schools under TEC, §37.1083 and §37.115. In response to public comment, subsection (a) was modified at adoption to reference TEC, §37.115, and TEC, Chapter 37, Subchapters D and G.
New subsection (b) provides the terms and definitions applicable to the new section.
New subsection (c) delineates Sentinel as a repository for all safety and security-related data submitted to TEA by school districts, open-enrollment charter schools, campuses, and other entities.
New subsection (d) affirms the confidentiality of documents or information collected, identified, developed, or produced relating to the monitoring of school district safety and security requirements.
New subsection (e) requires school systems to report through Sentinel information related to Behavioral Threat Assessments (BTAs), District Vulnerability Assessments (DVAs), emergency management, and Intruder Detection Audits (IDAs). In response to public comment, subsection (e)(1)(A) and (B) were modified at adoption to specify an August 1, 2025 begin date for requirements related to BTAs, and the requirement to use Sentinel to transfer disciplinary records was removed. A reference to TEC, §37.1083(h)(1), was added in subsection (e)(3)(D), and a statutory reference was corrected in subsection (e)(1)(B).
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES: The public comment period on the proposal began September 6, 2024, and ended October 7, 2024. Following is a summary of public comments received and agency responses.
Comment: One Texas administrator had a concern that Sentinel only allowed only three members from each district to access the system.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. The Intruder Detection Audit (IDA) Dashboard restricted the number of authorized users; however, Sentinel does not. The number of authorized users is unlimited, but consideration should be given to operational necessity.
Comment: One Texas administrator noted concerns discovered during brief interactions with the Sentinel platform, specifically that the platform does not provide an opportunity to include teacher input in threat assessments, which is viewed as an extremely important component, and that the parental consent mechanism in Sentinel is structured in a way that may actually hinder the ability to conduct a threat assessment.
Response: The agency disagrees as the Behavioral Threat Assessment (BTA) team would be able to incorporate teacher-provided information by way of teacher inquiry and interview sessions. Additionally, the parent notification component is included as part of the statutory requirement of parent notification in TEC, §37.115, and is provided for proper documentation of those attempts.
Comment: One Texas administrator raised concerns about the requirement for districts to "submit information related to events requiring an emergency response, including the discovery of a firearm on campus, in the Sentinel portal." The administrator pointed out that there is no proposed definition to clarify what qualifies as an "emergency response," leaving room for significant interpretation. The commenter stated that this could raise questions, such as whether the term applies to responses to events like fire alarms, vehicle accidents, or medical emergencies.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. Certain notifications are statutorily required, including events such as bomb threats or terroristic threats, as outlined in TEC, §37.113. In addition, "notice of an event requiring a district's emergency response including the discovery of a firearm on a campus" is taken directly from TEC, §37.1083(h). Submission of information in the Sentinel portal does not relieve a district of the requirement to notify local law enforcement of certain activities listed in TEC, §37.015.
Comment: One Texas administrator suggested finding ways to connect Sentinel with frequently used school-based tools like Raptor, allowing schools to update information automatically. The administrator commented that in many cases, the information required in Sentinel already exists in another safety system that the school is using, and an import feature would save countless staff hours.
Response: The agency disagrees, as most of the information captured within Sentinel is unique to the state programs for which the agency is responsible.
Comment: The Texas Association of School Boards (TASB) and one parent raised concerns about the cybersecurity measures in place to ensure that data within the Sentinel system cannot be hacked or breached. They emphasized that the information involved is highly sensitive and could compromise the safety of many if accessed by unauthorized individuals, referencing the compromise of the Raptor system last year despite its supposed security. Additionally, they stressed the importance of student data confidentiality, seeking reassurance that security protocols for sensitive data collected through Sentinel align with best practices, comply with state and federal privacy laws, and adequately safeguard student information.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. This application is subject to standard agency security and privacy requirements and is designed to protect all confidential data in compliance with both state and federal laws, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
Comment: TASB and one Texas administrator emphasized that any electronic exchange of personally identifiable student record information should be narrowly tailored to serve essential safety purposes. They also recommended including as little student information as possible, noting that school districts are already required to forward any threat assessment documentation to a student's new district.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. The information and reporting required through Sentinel is narrowly tailored to comply with state law to achieve the essential function of protecting student safety. In addition, the agency recognizes that protection of personally identifiable information is of the utmost importance and will adhere to state and federal requirements regarding the protection of student privacy. Under FERPA, an educational agency may disclose certain information without consent only if certain conditions are met (34 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §99.31). In addition, an educational agency or institution may disclose personally identifiable information from an education record to appropriate parties in connection with an emergency if knowledge of the information is necessary to protect the health or safety of the student or other individuals (34 CFR §99.36).
Comment: The Texas Public Charter Schools Association (TPCSA) suggested that TEA consider attestation for certain documents rather than requiring a full document upload for each requirement. Alternatively, they proposed requiring complete documentation from a subset of campuses rather than from each campus every year. They also noted that a four-year cycle to update documents would align with TEA's audit cycle.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. The document repository is a tool to support districts and is only required to be utilized once the district is informed of a District Vulnerability Assessment (DVA) as part of the required four-year review cycle.
Comment: TPCSA recommended that TEA clarify rule language related to "additional required documentation." They pointed out that in two sections, DVA and Intruder Detection Audit (IDA), the language requires that "any documentation requested by TEA for a DVA/IDA must be uploaded to Sentinel." However, it is unclear what is meant by "any documentation," and no timeline for submission is included.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. "Additional required documentation" provides the agency the flexibility to request documentation that may be unique to the district's situation pertaining to any one of the school safety programs in a timeline determined by the agency or a timeline determined by the agency in collaboration with the school district.
Comment: TPCSA suggested that TEA update the emergency management portion of the rule to help ease implementation challenges.
Response: The agency disagrees, as the emergency management requirements are critical to ensuring effective coordination during statewide or localized emergencies. These requirements play a vital role in enabling timely and accurate reporting to the State Operations Center, which is essential for facilitating a coordinated response and ensuring the safety of all affected individuals, while only collecting the minimal amount of information to ease the requirements on districts. Therefore, any changes to this language could undermine the effectiveness of emergency response efforts.
Comment: A district administrator expressed concern that the definition of "emergency response" in the rule is overly broad, and the requirement to submit information into Sentinel could become unduly burdensome. The commenter noted that the broad definition could include incidents such as 911 misdials, student fights, other relatively minor student disciplinary matters, and even reports of gas or electrical smells, which could result in excessive reporting, diverting attention and resources from more serious threats, and creating unnecessary administrative overload.
Response: The agency disagrees as the language describing "events requiring an emergency response" comes directly from TEC, §37.1083(h).
Comment: TPCSA noted that the proposed rule requires closure information to be "immediately recorded" in Sentinel during a localized emergency. They pointed out that updating Sentinel during an emergency may not be the most urgent task for schools and recommended that TEA allow schools to provide closure information within three business days.
Response: The agency disagrees with the suggestion to allow schools three business days to report closure information. Timely submission of this data is critical, as it is often requested by the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) or state leadership during a statewide or localized emergency. Delaying the reporting of closure information would hinder the ability to make informed and effective decisions that impact broader response efforts. Immediate updates are essential to ensure coordinated actions across the state, helping to protect the safety and well-being of affected communities during emergencies.
Comment: TPCSA noted that the Sentinel system requires localized emergency reporting but is not designed to accommodate localized situations. Schools are unable to report a single campus closure--only a whole district closure--even though individual campuses may close due to various issues, such as air conditioning failure, flooding, or a weapon on campus. They suggested that a section for notes or a dropdown menu with a "reason for closure" would help TEA track the types of localized emergencies more effectively.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. The Sentinel system allows for reporting closures down to the specific campus level; however, this currently needs to be managed at the district level. TEA is actively considering a more localized approach to campus closures, which would include the addition of campus-level administration for greater flexibility in reporting.
Comment: TPCSA, TASB, and three district administrators expressed concerns regarding the proposed timeline for the implementation of the BTA system in Sentinel. They requested that schools be allowed to continue using their existing systems for the 2024-2025 school year and transition into full implementation in the 2025-2026 school year or beyond. They emphasized that the current timeline is rushed and inconsistent with effective program development, posing significant challenges for large districts with established processes. The administrators urged TEA to extend the timeline, allowing for a phased rollout and for districts with strong programs to continue using their current methods. They requested that TEA provide a longer implementation runway to minimize unintended consequences and ensure a smooth transition.
Response: The agency agrees and has modified subsection (e)(1)(A) at adoption to be effective beginning August 1, 2025.
Comment: Four Texas district administrators expressed concern that the requirement to upload all BTAs, inclusive of student discipline records, conducted prior to August 1, 2025, into the Sentinel system represents a monumental task that will consume significant district resources. The commenters stated that this retrospective reporting mandate places a heavy administrative burden on schools, particularly without the allocation of additional funding or personnel to support such an extensive effort.
Response: The agency agrees, and subsection (e)(1)(B), relating to implementation timeline, has been modified at adoption to apply to new BTAs conducted after August 1, 2025. Student discipline records will continue to be transferred via Texas Records Exchange (TREx) or other method determined by the agency.
Comment: One Texas district administrator noted that the specific instruction provided by the Texas School Safety Center (TxSSC) in their training curricula does not align with the guidance and instruction found within the Sentinel Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management Manual and Field Guide. The commenter emphasized that the threat assessment model described in the Field Guide for Sentinel and the one offered in the state's official training appear to be two distinct models.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. The TEA Manual and Field Guide have been thoroughly reviewed by TxSSC, and adjustments were made to ensure alignment with their feedback. Such collaboration ensures consistency between the training materials provided by TxSSC and Sentinel and ensures a consistent approach to behavioral threat assessments across the state. In addition, the TEA Manual and Field Guide have been updated to include references to primary sources and research.
Comment: Two district administrators expressed concerns that requiring staff to input information into multiple systems, including retroactively uploading over 5,000 historical BTAs into Sentinel, would hinder collaboration, reduce efficiency, and consume valuable time that could be spent supporting students. They emphasized that their current comprehensive systems, which integrate bullying, harassment, and BTAs, are critical for a holistic approach to student safety. The commenters stated that requiring the use of both Sentinel and existing systems would create unnecessary administrative burdens, and they recommended either allowing districts to integrate their current systems with Sentinel or enabling Sentinel to integrate with existing platforms.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. The current rule aligns with the statutory requirements outlined in TEC, §37.115. It is designed to ensure that critical information is captured and accessible to support early intervention and collaboration of cases when there is potential harm to others and is standardized across the state. The rule does not prohibit a district from using local resources or additional systems for further documentation and management beyond the scope of legislative requirements.
Comment: One district administrator noted that their district operates with four different calendars due to having schools across Texas, but Sentinel currently only allows for one calendar to be used.
Response: The agency agrees and is in the process of making changes to allow for the input of calendars for each campus by the 2025-2026 school year.
Comment: One Texas district administrator commented that this requirement is not an issue for larger districts, noting that smaller districts are likely pleased with the changes. The commenter stated that since 2018, larger districts have created their own models or signed contracts with Navigate360 and have already invested significant resources into these systems.
Response: This comment is outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking.
Comment: One Texas school district administrator commented that this requirement is an unfunded mandate. The administrator stated that focus is on the whole child and the safe and supportive school program context. The commenter feels it will make their schools less safe and want to know when a transfer happens.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. Sentinel will be the transfer mechanism beginning August 1, 2025. Furthermore, it will streamline and nearly automate the process with a few verification steps.
Comment: One district administrator noted that, like many other school districts, their district developed its own threat assessment instrument and trained staff to implement it. The commenter stated that their locally developed system, based on models provided by TxSSC, has been successfully used by its more than 70 campuses for six years.
Response: This comment is outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking.
Comment: One district administrator expressed strong objections to being required to use a lesser threat assessment instrument at this time.
Response: This comment is outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking.
Comment: One open-enrollment charter school administrator explained that the majority of their school classrooms are located at licensed hospital facilities, making it challenging to implement many of the requirements for DVAs and IDAs. The commenter stated that since they do not own, operate, or lease any school buildings or facilities, the buildings at the hospital sites are outside the direct control of the open-enrollment charter school. The commenter emphasized that when a classroom is located at a hospital site, this needs to be considered.
Response: This comment is outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking.
Comment: One district administrator expressed support for a system that allows for a statewide repository of threat and safety information on students, calling it a worthwhile endeavor and stating that public schools in Texas should be aware if a student enrolling from another school--whether public, private, or charter--has previous threat or safety concerns. However, the commenter stated that the required BTA reporting through Sentinel would be a step backward in school safety, at least for the students and communities they serve, and that it would make their schools less secure.
Response: This comment is outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking.
Comment: One Texas school administrator expressed concern that the proposed reporting requirements would significantly increase the number of written reports and paperwork for principals, as each campus principal is responsible for school safety at their respective campus. The commenter pointed out that a district-level staff member who is not physically present on the school campus would not have the necessary knowledge to accurately enter campus-level information into Sentinel.
Response: The agency agrees and is in the process of creating campus principal and principal designee accounts for a more localized management process.
Comment: TPCSA suggested that TEA improve the Sentinel system and its accompanying rules to minimize manual entry and the duplication of efforts. They noted that Sentinel requires significant documentation, which is often already managed or reported through other systems. TPCSA stated that without the ability to import data from these systems, schools are spending hours manually recreating documents in Sentinel.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. Sentinel is designed to streamline the school safety requirements outlined in statute, offering a more efficient solution than the previous methods of managing documentation. Most of the required reporting within Sentinel is unique to TEA's Office of School Safety and Security requirements. Prior to Sentinel, schools relied on a mix of emails, Qualtrics surveys, paper-based submissions, and other systems, which often resulted in inconsistent and fragmented data collection. Sentinel consolidates these processes into a unified platform, reducing duplication of efforts and improving the efficiency of data management across schools.
Comment: TPCSA recommended that schools be allowed to import their school calendars rather than manually recreating them. They noted that Sentinel requires each campus calendar, but currently, schools must manually recreate the calendar instead of uploading a copy.
Response: The agency disagrees. Requiring school districts or charter schools to input their calendars directly into Sentinel allows for the statewide aggregation of days when schools are closed during a local or statewide emergency. Additionally, manually inputting specific instructional days enables the system to coordinate other critical school safety processes, such as IDAs and DVAs. This ensures that these audits and assessments are conducted during instructional hours, optimizing state resources and enhancing the effectiveness of safety protocols.
Comment: TPCSA suggested that TEA update the rule to reflect the true fiscal impact on schools. They pointed out that while TEA notes no fiscal impact, schools are assigning and training staff to manually input or upload data into a new, often parallel, system and that this process affects small schools without dedicated safety personnel as well as large districts with many campuses.
Response: The agency disagrees as the information required to be reported through the new system is the same as that which is mandated by other existing processes, as outlined in TEC §§37.1083, 37.1084, and 37.115. The transition to the Sentinel system is designed to consolidate and streamline reporting requirements, not to introduce additional burdens. This shift allows for more efficient data management while ensuring compliance with statutory safety obligations, ultimately reducing duplicative efforts over time.
Comment: Five district administrators noted that the rule mandates the use of a new, untested threat assessment instrument that does not align with established, research-based models such as those provided by TxSSC, Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines (CSTAG), or Salem-Keizer, all of which have been empirically validated. They stated that the proposed tool has not been adequately researched or piloted, and its implementation ahead of the 2025 school year raises concerns about its effectiveness and statutory compliance. The administrators stressed that TEC, §37.115, requires the use of research-based best practices for threat assessments, yet the proposed rule exceeds statutory authority by mandating an unproven tool. They urged TEA to update the rule to allow flexibility, either by establishing minimum BTA tool requirements or adopting a list of approved models that schools can use, with the option to upload findings into Sentinel. Furthermore, they emphasized the need for a longer transition timeline to avoid disrupting existing, effective systems.
Response: The agency offers the following clarification. The BTA process developed by the agency is grounded in extensive research and informed by multiple evidence-based models, including National Threat Assessment Center, Salem-Keizer, and CSTAG. Additionally, it draws from successful state models such as those implemented in Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Rather than relying on a single framework, the agency has adopted best practices from a variety of sources to ensure a comprehensive and effective approach to threat assessments. A list of these resources is now available in the TEA Manual and Field Guide.
Comment: One Texas district administrator noted that student disciplinary records would also be required to be uploaded into Sentinel.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. In accordance with TEC, §25.036, student disciplinary records and BTAs are currently uploaded into TREx for transfer to a district receiving a transferred student. Sentinel will be the secure platform for BTA transfer in the future.
Comment: TPCSA suggested that Sentinel be connected with existing TEA tools, such as AskTED, to eliminate duplicative reporting requirements for information that TEA already possesses. They pointed out that the current rule requires schools to manually update information such as the superintendent's name and contact details, school addresses, and emergency contact information, even though schools already provide this data through processes in the AskTED tool.
Response: The agency agrees that duplicative reporting of information already available through TEA's systems, such as AskTED, places an unnecessary burden on district staff. TEA is actively working with the relevant teams to integrate Sentinel with AskTED to minimize redundancies and streamline data reporting efforts. This integration will ensure that information, such as superintendent contact details and school addresses, will automatically synchronize across systems, reducing the need for manual updates and allowing district staff to focus on more critical tasks.
Comment: Four Texas district administrators and TPCSA raised concerns about the Sentinel system's focus solely on threat assessments, which they believe fragments information and undermines a multidisciplinary approach to student safety. They requested flexibility in choosing from approved BTA tools or uploading data from existing systems like Raptor and PowerSchool. They also recommended creating a repository in the Sentinel BTA module for documents related to emergency operations and safety procedures. Additionally, the administrators objected to mandating a specific assessment tool, given their existing systems already meet state requirements. They urged TEA to collaborate with third-party vendors to integrate Sentinel with current digital platforms and requested a longer transition timeline if the Sentinel tool remains mandatory.
Response: The agency disagrees. Allowing school systems to continue using their own unique threat assessment systems creates significant misalignment across the state. This lack of standardization results in inconsistencies in how data is collected, shared, and understood between districts, making it difficult for state and regional entities to provide cohesive support. Furthermore, it impedes the ability to efficiently coordinate threat responses and hinders the seamless communication between districts and external agencies due to varying processes, language, and protocols. Standardizing the system ensures a uniform approach, fostering greater collaboration and more effective statewide threat management.
Comment: TPCSA expressed that TEA and TxSSC need to agree on which entity will ultimately manage the DVAs, audits, and reporting timelines. They noted that Sentinel's DVA requires information that duplicates the Emergency Operations Plans (EOPs) required by TxSSC, resulting in multiple audits since TxSSC conducts audits every three years, while TEA audits every four years, both requiring mostly the same documentation. TPCSA stated that schools need TEA and TxSSC to create a clear auditing process that ensures safety while reducing redundancy and unnecessary administrative burden.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. TxSSC is statutorily charged with reviewing local education agencies' EOPs, while the DVAs assess the implementation of these reviewed EOPs down to the campus and staff level. To streamline this process and reduce redundancy, TxSSC is automatically uploading the reviewed EOP for each district into Sentinel, thereby minimizing the need for multiple uploads by districts. This coordinated approach ensures that safety audits and assessments are thorough and effective, without placing an unnecessary administrative burden on districts.
Comment: Two Texas district administrators expressed concerns that the proposed rule would mandate BTA teams under the Safe and Supportive Schools Program to use Sentinel instruments, manuals, and the field guide, requiring retraining for all team members. They believe this change would make campuses less safe by leading to fewer reports due to the cumbersome nature of the system. The commenters stated that the new threat assessment tool is less sophisticated than the ones currently in use, and its manual maintenance requirements are labor-intensive and inefficient. The commenters also stated that this unfunded mandate places a financial burden on districts statewide, contradicting TEA's proposal, and that switching systems after six years will also necessitate extensive retraining, adding to the already numerous state-mandated training requirements.
Response: The agency disagrees as the use of Sentinel instruments, manuals, and the field guide is aligned with TxSSC training, ensuring consistency in the application of threat assessment protocols. The agency will provide resources and support, including training opportunities, to assist in the transition. This alignment with TxSSC processes will not only standardize reporting but also enhance the overall effectiveness of school safety procedures, ultimately improving the protection of students across all districts.
Comment: TPCSA noted that ensuring a secure system to store and transfer students' BTAs as they move between school districts is a significant advantage. They stated that previously, with the TREx system, schools would sometimes forget to send BTAs to a new district because it was a separate, manual process with no secure transfer method.
Response: The agency agrees. In accordance with TEC, §25.036, student disciplinary records and BTAs are currently uploaded into TREx for transfer to a district receiving a transferred student. Sentinel will be the secure platform for that transfer in the future and will further support the transfer process by streamlining the process through connections with other student data systems like the Texas Student Data System (TSDS).
Comment: Three Texas district administrators expressed concerns that mandating a specific BTA exceeds the commissioner's authority, stating that TEC, §37.1083, does not specifically delegate authority to the agency to establish a statewide BTA instrument and does not grant the commissioner authority beyond monitoring and technical assistance.
Response: The agency disagrees. TEC, §37.1083(k), includes explicit rulemaking authority. In addition, TEC, §37.1083(b), mandates coordinated monitoring of school district safety and security requirements. The current system suffers from a lack of coordination with districts collecting, reporting, and sharing information in disparate formats that lead to administrative inefficiency at the local and state level. TEC, §37.1083(c), similarly mandates technical assistance from the agency in coordination with TxSSC to support the implementation and operation of safety and security requirements. TEC, §37.1083(h) and (i), additionally allow the agency to require districts to submit information necessary for the agency to monitor the implementation and operation of school district safety and security requirements and compliance with TEC, Chapter 37, Subchapters D and G.
Similarly, TEC, §37.115(l), includes explicit rulemaking authority. TEC, §37.115(b)(4), requires the agency to adopt rules that incorporate research-based best practices for school safety, including providing for multidisciplinary and multiagency collaboration to assess risks and threats in schools and provide appropriate interventions, including rules for the establishment and operation of threat assessment teams. TEC, §37.115(k), further dictates that a team must report to the agency in accordance with guidelines developed by the agency information regarding the number and description of the type of threats reported and the outcome of each assessment, including any disciplinary action taken to include a change in school placement; any action taken by law enforcement; or a referral to counseling or other services, among other information listed in the statute.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY. The new section is adopted under Texas Education Code (TEC), §37.1083, which requires school districts and open-enrollment charter schools to submit information requested by the Texas Education Agency in their efforts to monitor the implementation and operation of school district safety and security requirements. This section grants the commissioner rulemaking authority related to administration, implementation, and operation of school safety and security requirements; and TEC, §37.115, which grants the commissioner rulemaking authority related to the implementation of threat assessments.
CROSS REFERENCE TO STATUTE. The new section implements Texas Education Code, §37.1083 and §37.115.
§103.1213.Required Reporting through Sentinel.
(a) In accordance with Texas Education Code (TEC), §37.1083 and §37.115, each school district and open-enrollment charter school shall submit information requested by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) in their efforts to monitor the implementation and operation of school district safety and security requirements. TEA may review school district records as necessary to ensure compliance with this section and TEC, Chapter 37, Subchapters D and G.
(b) The following words and terms, when used in this section, have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
(1) Discipline record--a student's cumulative record of formal disciplinary actions reported through the Public Education Information Management System from the date that the student was first enrolled in a public school and that the local education agency has retained in accordance with the records retention policy.
(2) School system--a term that has the meaning assigned by §61.1031(a)(6) of this title (relating to School Safety Requirements).
(3) Sentinel--TEA's formal school safety system designed to collect, process, store, and distribute school safety and security information.
(c) Sentinel serves as a repository for all safety and security-related data submitted to TEA by school districts, open-enrollment charter schools, campuses, and other entities.
(d) Any document or information collected, identified, developed, or produced relating to the monitoring of school district safety and security requirements under this section is confidential under Texas Government Code, §418.177 and §418.181, and not subject to disclosure under Texas Government Code, Chapter 552.
(e) Each school system shall report the following information through Sentinel.
(1) Behavioral Threat Assessments (BTAs).
(A) Effective August 1, 2025, when conducting a BTA under TEC, §37.115, members of a threat assessment team shall utilize the threat assessment instrument, manual, and field guide in Sentinel, which are consistent with the model policies published by the Texas School Safety Center (TxSSC).
(B) Effective August 1, 2025, school systems shall utilize Sentinel to securely transfer under TEC, §25.036, any threat assessment conducted on a student to a receiving school system when a student transfers to a new school district. All BTAs for a student are subject to the transfer requirement. Any BTAs conducted prior to August 1, 2025, that are associated with a student transfer shall be uploaded into Sentinel in a manner determined by TEA.
(2) District Vulnerability Assessments (DVAs).
(A) In accordance with TEC, §37.1083, the TEA Office of School Safety and Security will monitor the implementation of requirements related to school safety and security, to include conducting detailed vulnerability assessments.
(B) Any documentation requested by TEA for a DVA must be uploaded to Sentinel.
(3) Emergency management.
(A) On or before June 30th of each year, all school systems shall input their upcoming school year calendar into Sentinel. Any changes to the school year calendar shall be updated in Sentinel within three business days after approval by district leadership.
(B) On or before June 30th of each year, school systems must verify that all district facilities listed in Sentinel reflect the correct address and campus emergency contact information.
(C) If a school system closes for a localized emergency, closure information must be immediately recorded in Sentinel.
(D) All school systems shall submit information related to events requiring an emergency response, including the discovery of a firearm on a campus in accordance with TEC, §37.1083(h)(1), in the Sentinel portal. This is inclusive of notifications regarding a bomb threat or terroristic threat, as outlined in TEC, §37.113. Submission of information in the Sentinel portal does not substitute the requirement for local law enforcement notification of certain activities in TEC, §37.015.
(E) Upon completed review of a school system's multihazard emergency operations plan, the TxSSC may upload a copy of that plan, including all required appendices, to the Sentinel portal.
(F) Subsequent to a school system superintendent change, the direct contact information of the superintendent (or person acting in that capacity) must be updated in Sentinel within three business days of a corresponding board meeting.
(4) Intruder Detection Audits (IDAs).
(A) In accordance with TEC, §37.1084, the TEA Office of School Safety and Security will establish a school safety review team in each region served by a regional education service center. Teams shall annually conduct on-site general intruder detection audits of school district campuses in the team's region.
(B) Any documentation requested by TEA for an IDA must be uploaded to Sentinel.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on November 25, 2024.
TRD-202405759
Cristina De La Fuente-Valadez
Director, Rulemaking
Texas Education Agency
Effective date: December 15, 2024
Proposal publication date: September 6, 2024
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1497