PART 2. TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY
CHAPTER 61. SCHOOL DISTRICTS
SUBCHAPTER CC. COMMISSIONER'S RULES CONCERNING SCHOOL FACILITIES
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) adopts new §61.1031, concerning school safety requirements. The new section is adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the November 11, 2022 issue of the Texas Register (47 TexReg 7519) and will be republished. The adopted new section implements requirements for school safety to ensure a safe and secure environment in Texas public schools.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION: In light of recent events and ongoing public concern, the commissioner, as authorized by Texas Education Code (TEC), §7.061 and §37.115(b), is adopting new §61.1031 to address the safety of students and staff alike in our public schools by ensuring minimum school safety standards.
The adopted new rule requires that all public school system instructional facilities have access points that are secured by design, maintained to operate as intended, and appropriately monitored.
Adopted new subsection (a) establishes definitions for the rule.
In response to public comment, subsection (a)(7) was added at adoption to define a "secure vestibule."
Adopted new subsection (b) requires that standards outlined in the rule apply to all public school instructional facilities, whether owned, operated, or leased.
Adopted new subsection (c) outlines the safety and security standards compliance requirements that apply to public school instructional facilities. The adopted new rule requires specific standards for exterior doors and primary entrances. Other safety and security standards apply depending on whether instructional facilities are within an exterior secured area or are actively monitored. The adopted new subsection also establishes the components for a communication infrastructure required across all public school instructional facilities.
In response to public comment, subsection (c)(2) was modified at adoption, adjusting exterior door requirements for primary entrances when a secure vestibule is present.
In response to public comment, subsection (c)(3)(D) was modified at adoption to expand current and future capabilities of electronic devices utilized to gain entry to a door that is keyed for re-entry.
In response to public comment, subsection (c)(9)(A) was modified at adoption to clarify the use of one or more distinctive, exterior secure master key boxes designed to permit emergency access to both law enforcement agencies and emergency responder agencies from the exterior of a building.
In response to public comment, subsection (c)(9)(B) was added at adoption to afford flexibility in how local law enforcement is provided electronic or physical master key(s) to access district buildings.
In response to public comment, subsection (c)(10)(B) was modified at adoption to include "software" and "or online applications" as clarifying terms related to panic alert technology.
In response to public comment, subsection (c)(10)(B)(i) was modified at adoption to provide flexibility related to local determination and to provide additional clarity.
In response to public comment, subsection (c)(10)(B)(ii) was modified at adoption to clarify that an alert must be triggered automatically if a district employee makes a 9-1-1 call using integrated telecommunications devices.
In response to public comment, subsection (c)(10)(B)(iv) was modified at adoption to specify that notice to a 9-1-1 center must include the location of where the alert originated.
In response to public comment, subsection (c)(10)(B)(v) was modified at adoption to remove the requirement that an alert system must automatically notify relevant campus staff of any exterior door where the electronic lock cannot engage.
In response to public comment, subsection (c)(11) was added at adoption to ensure compliance with state and federal Kari's Laws and RAY BAUM's Act and corresponding rules and regulations pertaining to 9-1-1 service for school telephone systems.
Adopted new subsection (d) requires public school systems to implement certain operating requirements related to access control, exterior door numbering, and maintenance.
In response to public comment, subsection (d)(2) was modified at adoption to clarify the requirements for interior door numbering on site plans provided for emergency response personnel.
In response to public comment, subsection (d)(2)(D) was added at adoption to require school maps be oriented to true north.
In response to public comment, subsection (d)(3)(A)(v) was reworded at adoption to provide clarity.
Adopted new subsection (e) requires public school systems to comply with 19 TAC §61.1040(j), School Facilities Standards for Construction on or after November 1, 2021.
Adopted new subsection (f) establishes that the provisions of the adopted rule control in the event of any conflict between the provisions of the adopted rule and 19 TAC §61.1040.
In response to public comment, new subsection (g) was added at adoption to require compliance with Texas Government Code, §469.052.
In response to public comment, new subsection (h) was added at adoption to require school systems to adopt a 3-year records control schedule that complies with the minimum requirements established by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission schedule, record series item number 5.4.017.
Adopted new subsection (i) requires implementation of the requirements in subsections (c) and (d) beginning in school year 2022-2023. The adopted new subsection requires a school system to certify compliance of these requirements as part of the ongoing security audits under TEC, §37.108(b); maintain the certification locally; and report as required by the Texas School Safety Center. The adopted new subsection also establishes that any and all non-compliance must be reported to the school system's safety and security committee, school system board, and Texas School Safety Center.
In addition, adopted new subsection (i) allows for provisional compliance if the school system has taken the necessary steps to initiate upgrades of facilities components and, during the 2023-2024 school year, if the contractor or supplier has been procured and has provided a time frame for completion.
In response to public comment, subsection (i)(3) was added at adoption to address the agency's ability to modify rule requirements to meet individual site requirements.
Adopted new subsection (j) addresses the future expiration of certain provisions of subsection (i) of the rule.
In response to public comment, 911 was changed to 9-1-1 throughout the rule.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES: The public comment period on the proposal began November 11, 2022, and ended December 12, 2022. A public hearing on the proposal took place on December 5, 2022. Following is a summary of public comments received and corresponding agency responses.
Comment: The Texas State Teachers Association recommended that the frequency of security system inspections be at least monthly versus weekly and/or at a frequency to be determined by the board of trustees.
Response: The agency disagrees. The unpredictability of security hardware defects or failures makes monthly inspections less desirable when considering the safety of students across Texas.
Comment: Three school administrators recommended clarifying the use of primary entrances and secured vestibules. More specifically, the commenters recommended that initial doors should not be required to be locked as they are not the doors that allow entry into the instructional facility. The doors inside of the security vestibule allow access to the instructional facility and should be required to be locked and latched.
Response: The agency agrees and has added new subsection (a)(7) at adoption to define "secure vestibule." In addition, subsection (c)(2) was modified at adoption to reference secure vestibules.
Comment: Texas Commission on State Emergency Communications recommended replacing 911 with 9-1-1 throughout the proposed rule to ensure universal standardization. Additionally, the commenter recommended that new subsection (c)(11) be added to reflect state and federal compliance with Kari's Laws and the federal RAY BAUM's Act and corresponding rules and regulations pertaining to 9-1-1 service for school telephone systems, including a multi-line telephone system.
Response: The agency agrees. At adoption, 911 has been changed to 9-1-1 throughout the rule and new subsection (c)(11) has been added to address compliance with state and federal laws and corresponding rules and regulations pertaining to 9-1-1 service for school telephone systems.
Comment: Texas Commission on State Emergency Communications and two 9-1-1 entities recommended additions to subsection (d)(2) to clarify requirements for interior door numbering on site plans provided for emergency response personnel.
Response: The agency agrees and has modified subsection (d)(2)(A)-(C) at adoption to reflect the recommendations.
Comment: A school administrator recommended that overhead doors at an instructional facility be allowed to be opened for ventilation purposes and shop work.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. In accordance with subsection (c)(3)(A)(ii) of the rule, for the purposes of ventilation, a school system may designate in writing as part of its multi-hazard emergency operations plan under TEC, §37.108, specific exterior doors that are allowed to remain open for specified periods of time if explicitly authorized by the school safety and security committee established by TEC, §37.109, when a quorum of members are present, and only if it is actively monitored or within an exterior secured area. Actively monitored is defined as supervised by an adult who can visibly review visitors prior to entrance, who can take immediate action to close and/or lock the door, and whose duties allow for sufficient attention to monitoring. Exterior secured area has the definition outlined in subsection (a)(2).
Comment: A school board trustee expressed opposition to the requirement that fencing surround school facilities.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. Fencing is not a requirement in the proposed rule; it is listed as an option for creating an exterior secured area in subsection (a)(2).
Comment: Five school administrators relayed concerns regarding the implementation timeline for the rule, citing, for example, the timeline being difficult to achieve in the current construction environment.
Response: The agency agrees and has added new subsection (i)(3) at adoption to address the commenters' concern. The new language specifies that TEA may modify rule requirements or grant provisional certification for individual site needs.
Comment: The Equity Center, nine school administrators, and three individuals relayed concerns regarding funding related to implementation of the rule, citing, for example, funding being insufficient or assumed costs being unbearable.
Response: This comment is outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking.
Comment: Four school administrators relayed concerns regarding funding related to implementation of the proposed rule, citing, for example, funds being better targeted by hiring law enforcement personnel and/or bolstering access control.
Response: This comment is outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking.
Comment: A school administrator inquired whether the rule is inclusive of all state organizations and schools, such as higher education, or just Kindergarten-Grade 12.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. The commissioner of education has no rulemaking authority over other state organizations.
Comment: State Representative Ken King recommended that school safety proposals include a requirement for school maps to be oriented to true north.
Response: The agency agrees and has added new subsection (d)(2)(D) at adoption to specify that the site layout and exterior and interior door designation document should be oriented in a manner that depicts true north.
Comment: Texas Parent to Parent, Disability Rights Texas, Texas Council of Administrators of Special Education (TCASE), and an individual suggested the rule be more inclusive of individuals with disabilities.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. A school system's response during a crisis is outlined in its multiphase, multi-hazard emergency operations plan to include provisions to better ensure the safety of students and staff members with disabilities.
Comment: A school administrator recommended there be a detailed audit of existing systems per school campus/per local education agency to determine what needs may exist to reach compliance and/or what existing infrastructure may require updating.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. Several audit tools have been previously provided to school systems to accomplish this recommendation. The agency has determined that the rule as adopted is sufficient. Additionally, new subsection (h) was added at adoption to ensure school systems have a related records control schedule that complies with minimum requirements established by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission schedule.
Comment: Three school administrators recommended additional clarification be added related to fencing around an entire campus to create an exterior secured area under subsection (a)(2); what qualifies as visibly reviewing a visitor under subsection (a)(1); playground fencing requirements, as related to subsection (a)(2); guidance outlining student transitions during passing periods; clarity surrounding certain operating requirements in subsection (d); and added clarity related to the certification procedure outlined in subsection (g).
Response: The agency disagrees and has determined that the rule as adopted is sufficient to address concerns within the scope of the proposed rulemaking.
Comment: Early Independent School District (ISD) requested a vendor list related to silent panic alert technology as outlined in the proposed rule. Leander ISD relayed that the district is unable to determine what systems are available to identify when a lock cannot engage. Additionally, Albany ISD commented that it would be difficult for different existing systems to properly communicate with each other to meet the requirements outlined in the proposed rule.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. The agency is unable to recommend or otherwise endorse a vendor for providing services. These determinations are made at the local level.
Comment: The Arc of Texas commented that protocols related to school safety and security should be widely understood by all staff and students in Texas schools. The commenter stated that it is essential for any new school safety requirements to incorporate the needs of staff and students with disabilities. The commenter further stated that Section 504 plans may outline accommodations these students would need during emergency situations.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. School systems are required to train staff, including substitutes, on standard response protocols annually. In addition, TEC, §37.114, outlines a maximum number of mandatory school drills to be conducted each semester of the school year. A school system's response during a crisis is outlined in its multiphase, multi-hazard emergency operations plan to include provisions to better ensure the safety of students and staff members with disabilities. The remaining portions of this comment are beyond the scope of the proposed rulemaking.
Comment: Three school administrators questioned requirements surrounding emergency key access as outlined in the proposed rule. The administrators' questions and comments included a preference to provide a designated number of master keys to all local law enforcement agencies that might respond to a crisis, a query related to law enforcement accessing existing "Knox box" devices under the control of local fire agencies, and a recommendation that consideration be given that a key requires fine motor skills to operate when under stress.
Response: The agency agrees. Recognizing that the agency does not have authority to mandate a local fire marshal and/or other local authority having jurisdiction to provide "Knox box" access to law enforcement, subsection (c)(9)(B) has been added at adoption to allow additional local control in providing first responders ease in access to facilities during a critical event. Additionally, subsection (c)(9)(A) has been modified at adoption to provide additional clarity.
Comment: Enseo LLC recommended a wearable button for non-stationary workers as a research-based best practice. The commenter recommended that in subsection (c)(10)(B)(ii), the order be reversed and conditional, indicating that the primary purpose of a panic alarm is to call for help when use of a phone may be impossible or otherwise unsafe. The commenter proposed changing subsection (c)(10)(B)(i) to read, "an alert must be capable of being triggered by all or most campus staff, including temporary or substitute staff, from an integrated or enabled device."
Response: The agency agrees in part and has modified subsection (c)(10)(B)(i) at adoption to allow for added flexibility in local determination. Regarding the recommendation for a wearable button, the agency disagrees. Mandating a wearable button is too specific to allow flexibility at the local level.
Comment: Raptor Technologies recommended the addition of the word "software" in subsection (c)(10)(B) to provide additional clarification regarding panic alert technology.
Response: The agency agrees and has modified subsection (c)(10)(B) at adoption to include the word "software."
Comment: Harlingen Consolidated ISD recommended that subsection (c)(10)(B) read, "include a panic alert button, duress, or equivalent alarm system, via standalone hardware or integrated into other telecommunications devices or online applications, that includes the following functionality: (i) An alert must be capable of being triggered manually by campus staff in person or remotely;" and that subsection (c)(10)(B)(v) read, "For any exterior doors that feature electronic locking mechanisms that allow for remote locking or one touch lockdown, the alert system will trigger those doors to automatically lock and to automatically notify relevant campus staff of any door where the lock cannot engage."
Response: The agency disagrees. The standards proposed are too specific to allow for flexibility at the local level. However, subsection (c)(10)(B) was modified at adoption to provide additional clarity.
Comment: Eastman, National Safety Security Protection Association, and the National Glass Association recommended that, unless they are inside a secure area, doors and windows or glazing be certified as complying to a minimum Level 1 of ASTM F3561 or for retrofit have a glazing which meets ANSI Z97.1 standards.
Response: The agency disagrees. The standards proposed are too specific to allow for flexibility at the local level.
Comment: National Safety Security Protection Association recommended the proposed rule provide clear guidelines and require locking all interior and exterior doors with a penalty imposed for noncompliance. The commenter stated that proper facility hardening should be mandated.
Response: The agency disagrees. The rule requirements as adopted are clear and enforceable.
Comment: MutuaLink commented that adding exterior door numbers to the inside of the door seems to serve no purpose as the door number is a reference for emergency responders to "rally" at an entry control point for incidents.
Response: The agency disagrees. The rule is aligned with standards in the International Fire Code and International Business Code.
Comment: The Texas Society of Architects recommended clear recognition in the rule of existing standards related to communications capacity between educators and emergency personnel to provide more measurable compliance standards and performance objectives.
Response: The agency agrees. At adoption, subsection (c)(10) was modified and new subsection (c)(11) was added. Subsection (c)(11) references state and federal Kari's Laws and federal RAY BAUM's Act and corresponding rules and regulations.
Comment: Alvin ISD recommended allowing for storing site plans electronically versus having a physical copy on hand at a facility. Specifically, the commenter stated that keeping a copy in the front office will be burdensome and requested that an electronic copy that can be made available when needed be allowed. The commenter stated that most school districts have Google Drive and keep documentation electronically stored.
Response: The agency disagrees. Accessing an electronic copy during a crisis may require district personnel be on site and/or delay timely response capabilities at the site of an emergency.
Comment: Cypress-Fairbanks ISD recommended that, to ensure equity for districts that have made investments in their security infrastructure, the proposed rule pre-award date be changed to no later than June 1, 2019.
Response: The agency disagrees. Dates for pre-award cannot be altered; they exist as part of a grant formula.
Comment: Texas Association of School Administrators commented that the fencing options listed in the rule are wholly inappropriate and may cause substantial issues for student learning and safety. The commenter stated that research demonstrates that the institutionalization of schools has a negative impact on learning.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. Fencing is not a requirement in the proposed rule; it is listed as an option for creating an exterior secured area in subsection (a)(2).
Comment: TCASE recommended adding definitions in subsection (a) for non-district employees and district employees.
Response: The agency disagrees. Within the proposed rule, the term employee is referenced once, thereby not requiring a differentiation in definitions.
Comment: Frisco ISD recommended that the rule be amended to include more details regarding requirements for glass and to ensure that wherever the rule is intended to set a specific standard, that standard is clearly defined.
Response: The agency disagrees. Mandated glass standards would be too specific to allow for flexibility at the local level, and the rule requirements as adopted are clear and enforceable.
Comment: Alief ISD commented that fencing and window film on potentially fire-egress windows cannot ensure protection from intruders and simultaneously allow for egress without regard to fire safety plans.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. Fencing is not a requirement in the proposed rule; it is listed as an option for creating an exterior secured area in subsection (a)(2). Additionally, it is not standard for windows to be designed for fire egress.
Comment: Fayetteville ISD commented that International Fire Code (IFC), §505, is intended for address identification and that placing large 4-inch-tall alpha-numerical characters will create an eye sore across campuses. The commenter stated that a minimum standard of 2 inches is more appropriate as it can be maintained across the campus both on interior and exterior doors.
Response: The agency disagrees. According to IFC, §505, all exterior identification labels, numbers, and letters must be Arabic numbers and/or alphabetical letters, visible from the closest road / driveway, contrasting in color to its background, reflective material that is visible in dark or smoky conditions, larger than 4 inches and 1/2 inch wide, and regularly maintained. These IFC guidelines apply to exterior door labeling and for building address identification. Labeling that is IFC compliant improves emergency response and can expedite an evacuation process.
Comment: Eastman recommended revising subsection (a)(2)(A) to read, "if enclosed by a fence or wall, utilizes a fence or wall at least 6 feet high with design features that prevent it from being easily scalable, such as stone, glass, wrought iron, chain link with slats or wind screen, or chain link topped with an anti-scaling device, or utilizes a fence or wall at least 8 feet high."
Response: The agency disagrees. The words "such as" are not all inclusive and would indicate that examples provided are not essential to the related subsection.
Comment: State Representative Shawn Thierry commented that, as related to silent panic alert technology, not all schools are the same and we need to make sure we are funding them appropriately for implementation.
Response: This comment is outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking.
Comment: Garretts recommended additional language be added to the proposed rule that would provide standards for reducing the number of entry points or better securing primary entrances while simultaneously mandating the use of metal detection equipment.
Response: The agency disagrees. The suggested change is too specific to provide needed flexibility at the district level.
Comment: Texas Star Alliance recommended clarifying what qualifies as a "panic alert button, duress, or equivalent alarm system" in subsection (c)(10)(B) by adding the agency's definition under subsection (a) of the proposed rule.
Response: The agency disagrees. Requirements that would trigger an alert are outlined in a multiphase, multi-hazard emergency operations plan as required by TEC, §37.108. The language of the rule includes the commenter's suggested components.
Comment: Texas American Federation of Teachers (AFT) stated that it does not support defining "school system" in subsection (a)(6) and recommended referring to "the independent school district or open-enrollment charter school" as applicable throughout the proposed rule.
Response: The agency disagrees and considers the use of the term appropriate in the context of this rule.
Comment: Texas AFT stated the rule creates what may be unreachable facilities standards with no assurance of funds to support compliance. The commenter stated that the rule should allow flexibility to address facilities safety locally based on individual campus needs and that there should be some transparency measures added.
Response: The agency disagrees regarding the need for additional local flexibility. The remainder of this comment is outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking.
Comment: Harlingen Consolidated ISD recommended updating subsection (c)(3)(C)-(D) and (c)(4) to read, "(i) a mechanism that fully closes and engages locking hardware automatically or electronically after entry or egress without manual intervention, regardless of air pressure within or outside of the facility; and (ii) a mechanism that allows the door to be opened electronically or from the inside when locked to allow for emergency egress while remaining locked; and (D) if keyed for re-entry, be capable of being unlocked with a single (or a small set of) master key(s), whether physical key, punch code, or key-fob or similar electronic key device operated by an online application. (4) Except when inside an exterior secured area, classrooms with exterior entry doors shall include a means to allow an individual located in the classroom to visually identify an individual seeking to enter the classroom when the door is closed and locked, including, but not limited to, windows, camera systems, public address systems and/or intercoms."
Response: The agency disagrees that the suggested language is necessary. However, language in subsection (c)(3)(D) was changed at adoption to read, "if keyed for re-entry, be capable of being unlocked with a single (or a small set of) master key(s), whether physical key, punch code, or key-fob or similar electronic device."
Comment: WRA Architects recommended that language require some sort of a minimum standard that defines when glass is past the threshold of being easily broken.
Response: The agency disagrees. Mandates at this level would be too specific to allow for flexibility at the local level.
Comment: Yellowstone College Prep commented that the proposed safety and security measures that require all first-floor windows be "covered" would eliminate all of the funding the school is expected to receive as part of the security grant. The commenter stated that the money could be spent on other vital components such as a security guard, firming up gates and entries, etc. The commenter stated that the first-floor window requirement should be a suggested use of funds, not a requirement.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. In accordance with subsection (c)(4) and (5), all first-floor windows are not required to be covered. As related to funding, the comment is beyond the scope of this proposed rulemaking.
Comment: Rave Mobile Safety stated that the collaboration between 9-1-1 and schools is essential for ensuring the safety of students and staff and that by working together, schools and 9-1-1 can respond quickly and effectively to any emergency from everyday medical emergencies to mass casualty incidents. The commenter encouraged TEA to continue working closely with the Commission on State Emergency Communication, the Department of Public Safety, and the Department of Emergency Management to develop rules and policies to uniformly enhance the health and safety of students across Texas.
Response: The agency agrees that collaboration between state agencies is important for the safety and security of students across Texas.
Comment: Texas Society of Architects stated that the proposed rule could pose implementation challenges and that a link is needed between current and existing standards. The commenter stated that funding should be a consideration with flexibility based on individual district needs.
Response: This comment is outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking.
Comment: Texas Public Charter Schools Association (TPCSA) recommended that the agency allow for appropriate and comparable adjustments in some requirements if a public charter school is leasing a building, has a safety vestibule, or has another unique circumstance. TPCSA also stated that TEA should ensure "communication infrastructure" and other rule requirements are clearly defined, technologically available, and within the control of public schools. TPCSA asked for clarity regarding individuals considered to be law enforcement or emergency personnel. Finally, TPCSA stated that the agency should immediately and fully fund the rule's safety requirements.
Response: The agency provides the following clarification. A communication infrastructure is outlined in subsection (c)(10)(A) and (B) and (11). Law enforcement personnel are referenced throughout existing statute, including Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, §2.13, and TEC, §37.081. As related to funding, this comment is outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY. The new section is adopted under Texas Education Code (TEC), §7.061, which requires the commissioner of education to adopt and amend rules to ensure a safe and secure environment for public schools, which includes best practices for design and construction of new facilities and improving, renovating, and retrofitting existing facilities. The section requires the commissioner to review all rules by September 1st of each even-numbered year and take action as necessary to ensure school facilities for school districts and open-enrollment charter schools continue to provide a safe and secure environment; and TEC, §37.115(b), which allows the agency, in coordination with the Texas School Safety Center, to adopt rules to establish a safe and supportive school program, including providing for physical and psychological safety.
CROSS REFERENCE TO STATUTE. The new section implements Texas Education Code, §7.061 and §37.115(b).
§61.1031.School Safety Requirements.
(a) Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this section, shall have the following meanings.
(1) Actively monitored--supervised by an adult who can visibly review visitors prior to entrance, who can take immediate action to close and/or lock the door, and whose duties allow for sufficient attention to monitoring.
(2) Exterior secured area--an area fully enclosed by a fence and/or wall that:
(A) if enclosed by a fence or wall, utilizes a fence or wall at least 6 feet high with design features that prevent it from being easily scalable, such as stone, wrought iron, chain link with slats or wind screen, or chain link topped with an anti-scaling device, or utilizes a fence or wall at least 8 feet high;
(B) is well maintained; and
(C) if gated, features locked gates with emergency egress hardware and has features to prevent opening from the exterior without a key or combination mechanism.
(3) Instructional facility--this term has the meaning assigned in Texas Education Code (TEC), §46.001, and includes any real property, an improvement to real property, or a necessary fixture of an improvement to real property that is used predominantly for teaching curriculum under TEC, §28.002. For purposes of this section, an instructional facility does not include real property, improvements to real property, or necessary fixtures of an improvement to real property that are part of a federal, state, or private correctional facility or facility of an institution of higher education, medical provider, or other provider of professional or social services over which a school system has no control.
(4) Modular, portable building--
(A) an industrialized building as defined by Texas Occupations Code (TOC), §1202.002 and §1202.003;
(B) any relocatable educational facility as defined by TOC, §1202.004, regardless of the location of construction of the facility; or
(C) any other manufactured or site-built building that is capable of being relocated and is used as a school facility.
(5) Primary entrance--
(A) the main entrance to an instructional facility that is closest to or directly connected to the reception area; or
(B) any exterior door the school system intends to allow visitors to use to enter the facility during school hours either through policy or practice.
(6) School system--a public independent school district or public open-enrollment charter school.
(7) Secure vestibule--a secured space with two or more sets of doors and an office sign-in area where all but the exterior doors shall:
(A) remain closed, latched, and locked;
(B) comply with subsection (c)(3)(B) of this section; and
(C) only open once the visitor has been visually verified.
(b) The provisions of this section apply to all school instructional facilities owned, operated, or leased by a school system, regardless of the date of construction or date of lease. The provisions of this section ensure that all school system instructional facilities have access points that are:
(1) secured by design;
(2) maintained to operate as intended; and
(3) appropriately monitored.
(c) A school system shall implement the following safety and security standards compliance requirements to all school instructional facilities owned, operated, or leased by the school system.
(1) All instructional facilities campus-wide, including modular, portable buildings, must include the addition of graphically represented alpha-numerical characters on both the interior and exterior of each exterior door location. The characters may be installed on the door, or on at least one door at locations where more than one door leads from the exterior to the same room inside the facility, or on the wall immediately adjacent to or above the door location. Characters shall comply with the International Fire Code, §505. The primary entrance of an instructional facility shall always be the first in the entire sequence and is the only door location that does not require numbering. The numbering sequence shall be clockwise and may be sequenced for the entire campus or for each facility individually. The door-numbering process must comply with any and all accessibility requirements related to signage.
(2) Unless a secure vestibule is present, a primary entrance shall:
(A) meet all standards for exterior doors;
(B) include a means to allow an individual located within the building to visually identify an individual seeking to enter the primary entrance when the entrance is closed and locked, including, but not limited to, windows, camera systems, and/or intercoms;
(C) feature a physical barrier that prevents unassisted access to the facility by a visitor; and
(D) feature a location for a visitor check-in and check-out process.
(3) All exterior doors shall:
(A) be, by default, set to a closed, latched, and locked status, except that:
(i) a door may be unlocked if it is actively monitored or within an exterior secured area; and
(ii) for the purposes of ventilation, a school system may designate in writing as part of its multi-hazard emergency operations plan under TEC, §37.108, specific exterior doors that are allowed to remain open for specified periods of time if explicitly authorized by the school safety and security committee established by TEC, §37.109, when a quorum of members are present, and only if it is actively monitored or within an exterior secured area;
(B) be constructed, both for the door and door frame and their components, of materials and in a manner that make them resistant to entry by intruders. Unless inside an exterior secured area, doors constructed of glass or containing glass shall be constructed or modified such that the glass cannot be easily broken and allow an intruder to open or otherwise enter through the door (for example, using forced entry-resistant film);
(C) include:
(i) a mechanism that fully closes and engages locking hardware automatically after entry or egress without manual intervention, regardless of air pressure within or outside of the facility; and
(ii) a mechanism that allows the door to be opened from the inside when locked to allow for emergency egress while remaining locked; and
(D) if keyed for re-entry, be capable of being unlocked with a single (or a small set of) master key(s), whether physical key, punch code, or key-fob or similar electronic device.
(4) Except when inside an exterior secured area, classrooms with exterior entry doors shall include a means to allow an individual located in the classroom to visually identify an individual seeking to enter the classroom when the door is closed and locked, including, but not limited to, windows, camera systems, and/or intercoms.
(5) Except when inside an exterior secured area, all windows that are adjacent to an exterior door and that are of a size and position that, if broken, would easily permit an individual to reach in and open the door from the inside shall be constructed or modified such that the glass cannot be easily broken.
(6) Except when inside an exterior secured area, all ground-level windows near exterior doors that are of a size and position that permits entry from the exterior if broken shall be constructed or modified such that the glass cannot be easily broken and allow an intruder to enter through the window frame (for example, using forced entry-resistant film).
(7) If designed to be opened, all ground-level windows shall have functional locking mechanisms that allow for the windows to be locked from the inside and, if large enough for an individual to enter when opened or if adjacent to a door, be closed and locked when staff are not present.
(8) Roof access doors should default to a locked, latched, and closed position when not actively in use and be lockable from the interior.
(9) All facilities must:
(A) include one or more distinctive, exterior secure master key box(es) designed to permit emergency access to both law enforcement agencies and emergency responder agencies from the exterior (for example, a Knox box) at a location designated by the local authorities with applicable jurisdiction; or
(B) provide all local law enforcement electronic or physical master key access to the building(s).
(10) A communications infrastructure shall be implemented that must:
(A) ensure equipment is in place such that law enforcement and emergency responder two-way radios can function within most portions of the building(s); and
(B) include a panic alert button, duress, or equivalent alarm system, via standalone hardware, software, or integrated into other telecommunications devices or online applications, that includes the following functionality.
(i) An alert must be capable of being triggered by campus staff, including temporary or substitute staff, from an integrated or enabled device.
(ii) An alert must be triggered automatically in the event a district employee makes a 9-1-1 call using the hardware or integrated telecommunications devices described in this subparagraph from any location within the school system.
(iii) With any alert generated, the location of where the alert originated shall be included.
(iv) The alert must notify a set of designated school administrators as needed to provide confirmation of response, and, if confirmed, notice must be issued to the 9-1-1 center of an emergency situation requiring a law enforcement and/or emergency response and must include the location of where the alert originated. A notice can simultaneously be issued to all school staff of the need to follow appropriate emergency procedures.
(v) For any exterior doors that feature electronic locking mechanisms that allow for remote locking, the alert system will trigger those doors to automatically lock.
(11) In implementing the requirements of this section, school systems shall comply with state and federal Kari's Laws and federal RAY BAUM's Act and corresponding rules and regulations pertaining to 9-1-1 service for school telephone systems, including a multi-line telephone system.
(d) Certain operating requirements. A school system shall implement the following.
(1) Access control. The board of trustees or the governing board shall adopt a policy requiring the following continued auditing of building access:
(A) conduct at least weekly inspections during school hours of all exterior doors of all instructional facilities to certify that all doors are, by default, set to a closed, latched, and locked status and cannot be opened from the outside without a key as required in subsection (c)(3)(A) of this section;
(B) report the findings of weekly inspections required by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph to the school system's safety and security committee as required by TEC, §37.109, and ensure the results are kept for review as part of the safety and security audit as required by TEC, §37.108;
(C) report the findings of weekly inspections required by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph to the principal or leader of the instructional facility to ensure awareness of any deficiencies identified and who must take action to reduce the likelihood of similar deficiencies in the future; and
(D) include a provision in the school system's applicable policy stating that nothing in a school system's access control procedures will be interpreted as discouraging parents, once properly verified as authorized campus visitors, from visiting campuses they are authorized to visit.
(2) Exterior and interior door numbering site plan.
(A) A school system must develop and maintain an accurate site layout and exterior and interior door designation document for each instructional facility school system-wide that identifies all exterior and interior doors in the instructional facility and depicts all exterior doors on a floor plan with an alpha-numeric designation, in accordance with the door numbering specifications established in subsection (c)(1) of this section.
(B) Copies of exterior and interior door numbering site plans shall be readily available in each campus main office.
(C) Electronic copies of exterior and interior door numbering site plans shall be supplied to the local 9-1-1 administrative entity so that the site plans can be made available to emergency responders by 9-1-1 dispatchers.
(D) The site layout and exterior and interior door designation document should be oriented in a manner that depicts true north.
(3) Maintenance.
(A) A school system shall perform at least twice-yearly maintenance checks to ensure the facility components required in subsection (c) of this section function as required. At a minimum, maintenance checks shall ensure the following:
(i) instructional facility exterior doors function properly, including meeting the requirements in subsection (c)(3)(A) and (C) of this section;
(ii) the locking mechanism for any ground-level windows that can be opened function properly;
(iii) any perimeter barriers and related gates function properly;
(iv) all panic alert or similar emergency notification systems in classrooms and campus central offices function properly, which includes at least verification from multiple campus staff and classroom locations that a notification can be issued and received by the appropriately designated personnel, that the alert is successfully broadcast to all campus staff and to appropriate law enforcement and emergency responders, and that a potential threat observed on video triggers an alert from video surveillance monitoring systems;
(v) all school telephone systems and communications infrastructure provide accurate location information when a 9-1-1 call is made in accordance with state and federal laws and rules and when an alert is triggered in accordance with this section;
(vi) all exterior master key boxes function properly and the keys they contain function properly;
(vii) law enforcement and emergency responder two-way radios operate effectively within each instructional facility; and
(viii) two-way radios used by school system peace officers, school resource officers, or school marshals properly communicate with local law enforcement and emergency response services.
(B) A school system shall ensure procedures are in place to require that staff who become aware of a facility component functionality deficiency that would be identified during the twice-yearly maintenance review described by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph immediately report the deficiency to the school system's administration, regardless of the status of the twice-yearly maintenance review.
(C) A school system shall promptly remedy any deficiencies discovered as a consequence of maintenance checks required by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph or reports made under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.
(e) In implementing the requirements of this section, school systems shall comply with the provisions of §61.1040(j) of this title (relating to School Facilities Standards for Construction on or after November 1, 2021).
(f) To the extent that any provisions of this section conflict with rules adopted in Chapter 61, Subchapter CC, of this title (relating to Commissioner's Rules Concerning School Facilities), including terms defined by this section or standards established by this section, the provisions of this section prevail.
(g) In implementing the requirements of this section, school systems shall comply with the standards adopted under Texas Government Code, §469.052.
(h) In implementing the requirements of this section, school systems must adopt a 3-year records control schedule that complies with the minimum requirements established by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission schedule, record series item number 5.4.017, as referenced in Texas Government Code, §441.169, and Texas Local Government Code, §203.041.
(i) Certification.
(1) All requirements in subsections (c) and (d) of this section shall be implemented during the 2022-2023 school year and thereafter. Annually, a school system shall certify compliance with those requirements as part of ongoing security audits under TEC, §37.108(b); maintain the certification locally; and report as required by the Texas School Safety Center. Any and all non-compliance shall be reported to the school system's safety and security committee, the school system's board, and the Texas School Safety Center, as required by TEC, §37.108(c).
(2) A school system may provisionally certify compliance of a facility component described in subsection (c) of this section that is not in compliance with the requirements of paragraph (1) of this subsection if:
(A) the school system has taken the necessary steps to initiate an upgrade of the facility component to ensure compliance; and
(B) for the 2023-2024 school year, the contractor or supplier has been procured and has provided a time frame when the upgrade will be completed.
(3) TEA may modify rule requirements or grant provisional certification for individual site needs as determined by the agency.
(j) Subsection (i)(2) of this section and this subsection expire August 31, 2024.
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 May 11, 2023.
TRD-202301721
Cristina De La Fuente-Valadez
Director, Rulemaking
Texas Education Agency
Effective date: May 31, 2023
Proposal publication date: November 11, 2022
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1497