Author Archives: Kate Kuhlmann

Senate begins work on addressing A-F issues

ThinkstockPhotos-478554066_F gradeThe House is set to debate its bill aimed at fixing the public school accountability system next week. The bill addresses aspects of accountability that were altered last session by a law that applies a letter grade of A, B, C, D, or F to schools and districts. The new rating system is scheduled to go into effect next year, but following the release of preliminary results to districts, appetites for changes to the system have grown. Today the Senate Education Committee took up its bills to address fixes to the new system.

SB 2051 by Chairman Larry Taylor (R-Friendswood) takes a broad approach to addressing the accountability system, largely giving the commissioner authority to write the system through rulemaking. Chairman Taylor acknowledged the broad approach during his bill layout and asked stakeholders to offer their thoughts on addressing the system.

ATPE recommended a number of changes including more efforts within the bill to reduce the system’s overreliance on standardized tests, required stakeholder input as TEA writes rules developing or altering the system, and language to differentiate between a D and F rating, which are considered one in the same under current law. ATPE Lobbyist Kate Kuhlmann received agreement from committee members on ATPE’s recommendation to add a teacher quality measure to the system, a measure included under the House bill. Kate shared that inputs like average years of teaching experience, the percentage of teachers teaching within their field of certification, and teacher turnover rates can play a valuable role on ensuring qualified teachers are equitably spread across districts.

Commissioner Mike Morath shared information with committee members regarding the current A-F system and the state of public education in Texas. He emphasized TEA efforts to better inform parents and teachers on STAAR test results and other accountability outcomes. He shared that, for the first time, teachers and parents will be able to see how their students performed question by question on the STAAR exam and introduced a new accountability report card design. Senators questioned the overall value of STAAR exam results and highlighted the correlation between struggling schools and schools with high poverty rates. Senator Royce West (D-Dallas) again raised a concern shared by ATPE in opposition to the bill establishing the A-F rating system: the stigmatizing effect of labeling schools D and F is even more inappropriate when those D and F schools are full of the highest concentrations of low income and minority students.

Another issue that garnered significant discussion was the addition of a new layer to the accountability system: students considered to be continually enrolled (or in the district over a longer period of time) would be weighted heavier when calculating the campus and district accountability score than those that are considered mobile or transient. The idea behind the change is that campuses and districts should be held more heavily accountable for those students because they are a truer reflection of the success of a campus or district. Others, however, expressed concerned that weighting students differently in the accountability system could result in some students receiving less support, and, in this case, potentially those students that need the most support.

The bill would remove the inclusion of chronic absenteeism as an indicator for elementary and middle schools. ATPE agrees with many stakeholders that such an indicator is a flawed approach for a number of reasons, some of which can be read in our testimony on SB 1173, another A-F bill heard today that seeks to only address the absenteeism indicator. The bill, filed by Senator Charles Perry (R-Lubbock), would omit the indicator but redistribute all of the 35% weight currently dedicated to the measure to portions of the accountability system that all utilize STAAR data to measure success. ATPE highlights our concerns with this unintended consequence of increasing reliance on standardized tests in our testimony linked above.

The committee heard a number of additional bills, which can be found on the full agenda. Among the bills advanced to the Senate floor today was SB 1294 by Senator Dawn Buckingham. ATPE strongly supports the legislation aimed at fostering inclusive consultation through certain district decision making and planning processes.

ATPE testifies for bill promoting inclusive consultation

The Senate Education Committee met today to hear a slew of bills covering a variety of topics, but one garnered the most attention from ATPE. Senate Bill (SB) 1294 by Senator Dawn Buckingham (R-Lakeway) would prohibit districts from limiting professional staff eligibility to members of one professional organization when developing certain school district planning and decision-making committees.

ATPE served as invited testimony, testifying in strong support of the legislation. Ten official ATPE Tenets developed and adopted by ATPE members have guided the association since its inception, and they continue to drive the association’s work today. Tenet number seven speaks to ATPE’s belief in a collaborative approach. It reads:

“ATPE members believe in working with others to advocate positive solutions to education issues facing public education today.”

SB 1294 speaks directly to ATPE’s collaborative tenet. ATPE Lobbyist Kate Kuhlmann told Senators on the committee that ATPE members believe the best policies for Texas public school children result when all educators, regardless of their professional association affiliation or lack of affiliation, are at the table working together.

Two additional ATPE tenets align with SB 1294: support for right-to-work principles and an all-inclusive membership. ATPE does not believe anyone should be forced to join a professional association and appreciates that the bill would not limit eligibility to only professional association members. We also welcome all members of the public education community to join ATPE, because collaboration between types of education professionals is as important as collaboration among teachers of all organization affiliation.

The committee also heard testimony on SB 195 today, and voted the bill out of committee the same day it was heard, an expedited process afforded to few bills. The bill deals with school transportation safety for certain students, allowing districts to use transportation funding to provide transportation and protections to students residing in or forced to walk through high violence neighborhoods. The bill was offered by Senator Sylvia Garcia (D-Houston) in response to a tragedy in her district involving the murder of a student. A list of other bills voted out of committee today can be viewed here.

ATPE supported SB 195 as well as two bills involving special education, SB 436 and SB 748. The full committee agenda can be found here. The committee will be back on Thursday to hear a number of measures, which can be found here.

Charter schools, educator certification top Senate Education Committee hearing

The Senate Education Committee met yesterday, April 20, to hear a number of bills pertaining to charter schools, educator training and certification, and more. ATPE weighed in on several measures.

Review, approval, and expansion of open-enrollment charter schools

The committee heard a handful of bills pertaining to charter schools on a number of issues. First up was Sen. Donna Campbell’s (R-New Braunfels) SB 1883, pertaining to the approval process for charter applicants and the review of charter operators. ATPE testified against the bill. Our opposition was based on two primary themes: (1) removal of elected officials from the charter school process is irresponsible and (2) adding unnecessary new appeal and review opportunities for charters only creates administrative bloat.

Charter schools are not governed by an elected board of trustees, as is the case for traditional public school districts, so State Board of Education (SBOE) involvement in the charter applicant approval process is among the few opportunities for elected officials beholden to the Texas taxpayers to offer charter oversight. As was pointed out during the hearing, a recent out-of-state charter applicant that received approval three separate times from the Texas Education Agency (TEA) commissioner, was then vetoed by SBOE each time based on reasonable concerns about the charter’s inappropriate profiteering in other states. Clearly, SBOE’s involvement plays a valuable role on multiple levels.

SB 1883 also creates new appeal and review processes for charters. The current process for charter approval offers sufficient opportunity for charter applicants to showcase the worth of their application. Further, charter schools and school districts have sufficient time to correct or address data or calculation errors prior to it affecting the entities’ academic or financial accountability ratings. ATPE believes that the additional appeal and review processes provided under Sen. Campbell’s bill are unnecessary and would only result in government waste at TEA, an agency that is already taxed for resources.

ATPE supported a charter bill by Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas), SB 2130, which would establish a process for first determining regional need before approving a new charter applicant or charter expansion effort. The bill would require the TEA commissioner to first consider a number of factors aimed at determining whether a current traditional school is sufficiently serving the educational needs of students who live in the district. If it is determined that the existing schools are sufficient to meet those needs, a charter applicant would not be granted approval to establish or expand in the area, a measure that is intended to address over-saturation of charter schools in specific geographic areas.

Early childhood certification, reciprocity for out-of-state certificate holders

SB 1839 by Sen. Brian Hughes (R-Mineola) was originally filed as a measure aimed at improving educator preparation program practices in Texas. It also addressed reciprocity for educators trained and certified in other states or countries seeking to teach upon moving to Texas. Current law requires those our-of-state teachers to pass the relevant Texas certification exam(s) before teaching, unless their out-of-state certification is deemed “at least as rigorous” as a comparable Texas certification. Sen. Hughes’s bill, under the committee substitute presented yesterday, would omit the “at least as rigorous” exception, allowing any teacher certified in another state or country to teach in a Texas classroom upon arrival. ATPE expressed concerns, saying that some standard, be it passing the Texas certification exam or another form of showcasing qualifications, must be in place to ensure teachers entering Texas classrooms meet our state’s standards.

The committee substitute language also adds the creation of an Early Childhood through Grade 3 Certificate, which is among one of several avenues the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) is currently reviewing in order to ensure early childhood teachers receive the specific instruction needed to best teach early childhood students. ATPE told the committee the thorough review process by SBEC is the best route to address this issue, because many factors play into this certification and SBEC is considering them all, including potential impacts on the supply of certified teachers at other grade levels.

Assessment flexibility, sex trafficking instruction

ATPE offered its support to two additional bills heard during yesterday’s hearing. Sen. Campbell’s SB 1005 would give certain students, those who must still pass the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) to graduate, the opportunity to meet graduation requirements by instead passing the SAT or ACT. ATPE also supported Sen. Judith Zaffirini’s (D-Laredo) SB 2039, which would create a sexual abuse and sex trafficking prevention program that districts could add to their curriculum if they choose.

The full Senate Education Committee agenda from yesterday can be found here. A list of the bills voted out of the committee during the hearing can be found here. Among the bills advanced by the committee was Sen. Van Taylor’s (R-Plano) SB 653, which he changed to only address pension revocation for certain individuals formerly employed as educators. Some of his original bill was rolled into the Senate’s priority bill pertaining to educator misconduct, SB 7, which is already moving through the process. ATPE supported both bills when they were previously heard in the Senate Education Committee.

Recapping school finance day in the Senate Education Committee

Piggy bank with glasses and blackboardThe Senate Education Committee met yesterday to hear a number of bills dealing with funding for public schools. Top of the agenda was Chairman Larry Taylor’s (R-Friendswood) version of a bill to fix school finance, a bill that differs in approach from the House’s school finance measure, which has already made it out of committee and is scheduled to be debated on the House floor this afternoon.

Considerable attention has been paid to what the 85th Texas Legislature will do to fix the Texas school finance system since last year when the Texas Supreme Court determined that the system meets minimal constitutional standards but “is undeniably imperfect.” The court called on the legislature to fix the “byzantine” school finance system for Texas students; SB 2145 is Chairman Taylor’s attempt to do just that.

The bill is one developed and promoted by the Equity Center, a research and advocacy organization that exclusively focuses on school finance issues. It would take a more simplistic approach to funding Texas public schools by eliminating the current layers of hold harmless provisions and funding mechanisms not based on educational costs, instead rolling funding through the basic allotment that is based on educational cost drivers. The Equity Center offers a more in depth explanation of the plan here. ATPE supported SB 2145, as well as SB 2144, which creates a commission to study school finance in depth over the interim.

Another bill that garnered a lot of attention in yesterday’s committee hearing was a bill by Sen. Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham), SB 419, which would extend ASATR funding for an additional six years. ASATR is targeted state school funding set to expire this year. At the same time the legislature required school districts to compress their tax rate in 2006, the state added targeted funding, known as ASATR, as a hold harmless provision to ensure districts and students weren’t hurt by the tax cut. Fewer districts now rely on ASATR funding, but many still depend on it heavily.

The testimony on SB 419 was mixed. Several districts explained why they need ASATR funding to continue operating, often referring to lost resources for hiring teachers. Others argued that the targeted funding reduces overall funding issued through the state funding formulas and that the continued need for ASATR by some districts is a reflection of issues with the overall funding system. ATPE understands both angles, and ATPE Lobbyist Monty Exter testified that while we may need a short term fix to continue ASATR for those who depend upon it, lawmakers also need to focus on an overall fix that reduces the need of ASATR funded districts.

View the full agenda to see the list of bills heard in yesterday’s Senate Education Committee hearing.

Education Committees discuss educator preparation bills and more

The House Public Education Subcommittee on Educator Quality and the Senate Education Committee met yesterday and today, respectively, to take up a variety of issues. A bill opposed by ATPE pertaining to educator preparation was up in both committees. A handful of other educator training and certification bills, legislation aimed at teacher quality, and the bill to extend individual graduation committees were also heard in committee.

Lowered educator preparation standards hurt teachers, students

House Bill (HB) 2924 and Senate Bill (SB) 1278 are companion bills pertaining to educator preparation program and candidate requirements in Texas. A bill passed by the legislature last session raised standards for educator preparation in Texas. In conjunction with the standard rule review process at the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC), that bill resulted, after almost 2 years of thoughtful deliberations, in rules that raised standards for educator preparation programs (EPP), EPP candidates, EPP entrance requirements, and certification. ATPE was supportive of the rule review process, a process driven by a board of educators working in the field. We are opposed to initiatives that aim to roll back some of those rule provisions, and, unfortunately, SB 1278 and HB 2924 would do just that. ATPE opposed the bills based on the strong and evidence-backed belief that all educator candidates deserve strong training and support prior to full certification.

ATPE expressed concerns shared by those in the education committee, including administrators, teachers, University Deans, districts, educator quality groups, and more. In the Senate Education Committee, discussion included the fact that the only groups testifying in support of the legislation were for-profit educator preparation providers. These groups, in many cases, have a profit incentive to keep standards low, and under this bill, would seek to roll back the raised standards accomplished over the past two years through SBEC. Senators also heard from teachers in the field who testified that rolling back the standards would only result in educators being set up for failure once in the classroom. The bill was ultimately left pending.

House Public Education Subcommittee on Educator Quality

The Educator Quality Subcommittee heard a number of other measures pertaining to educator preparation that ATPE opposed based on the same principle and understanding that we do a disservice to teachers and students if we put ill-prepared educators in the high-stakes classroom and expect them to achieve excellence. The committee also heard two certification focused bills that ATPE supported; both HB 3563 and HB 1867 focus on well certified and well trained educators in classrooms. Another bill ATPE supported, HB 3692, would prohibit the use of student standardized test scores as a measure of teacher performance in an appraisal system.

ATPE also testified neutrally on two bills that dealt with separate topics but both entail work currently being done at the Texas Education Agency (TEA). HB 2941 would change appraisal rules currently in law at a time when TEA is still in the process of implementing its new commissioner recommended appraisal system, the Texas Teacher Evaluation and Support System (T-TESS). Similarly, HB 2039 would create a new Early Childhood through Grade 3 Certificate, which the SBEC is currently in the process of thoroughly reviewing as one of several avenues to help early childhood teachers get the specific instruction needed to best teach early childhood students.

Senate Education Committee

In the Senate Education Committee, ATPE supported SB 196, requiring parental notification when a campus lacks a nurse, school counselor, or librarian; SB 1854, aimed at reducing required paperwork for classroom teachers; and SB 1353, putting in place a process for dealing with the facilities of certain annexed districts.

We also supported SB 463, a bill to permanently extend the individual graduation committees (IGCs) passed into law last session on a trial basis. (More on the bill here.) ATPE joined the education committee in strongly embracing the bill to make IGCs a permanent option for otherwise successful students who struggle to pass state standardized tests. TEA recently released the 2015-2016 IGC data, which can be found here. ATPE thanks Senator Seliger (R-Amarillo) for championing this common sense, meaningful legislation, because many students shouldn’t be defined by their ability to pass “the” test and testing struggles shouldn’t inhibit their future success!

The Texas Legislature looks to renew graduation committees

ThinkstockPhotos-111939554The Senate Education Committee is meeting today to discuss an issue that received a lot of attention and support during the last legislative session. The bill, filed and passed by Senator Kel Seliger (R-Amarillo), created individual graduation committees, an option by which otherwise qualified students can be considered for graduation despite failure to pass up to two required state standardized tests. Senator Seliger and Representative Dan Huberty (R-Humble), who carried the companion bill and ushered the bill through the Texas House, passed their individual graduation committee bill as a two-year trial run; Sen. Seliger is back this session with a bill to extend the law.

Senate Bill (SB) 463 would provide an alternative path to graduation for future students who struggle to pass up to two required standardized tests but who otherwise prove themselves as having mastered the subject(s). The bill would allow a committee of educators and the student’s parent(s) to create a graduation committee to weigh all of the factors that otherwise showcase the student’s success. Students qualify for the committee review route based on a variety of factors beyond the test that showcase mastery of the subject(s). ATPE supports the bill extending the use of such committees, because we recognize that many students cannot be defined by their ability to pass “the” test and that testing struggles should not inhibit a student’s future success.

The Senate Education Committee will also take up a bill pertaining to educator preparation, a topic heavily discussed yesterday in the House Public Education Subcommittee on Educator Quality. Look for more from both committees!

Senate Education Committee ramps up work

ThinkstockPhotos-144283240The Texas Senate Education Committee met twice this week for the first time this session, signaling things are picking up in the Texas Legislature. ATPE weighed in on two measures the committee took up this week: a measure termed the “Tim Tebow bill” and a bill pertaining to district partnerships with charters.

Senate Bill (SB) 1882 by Sen. Jose Menendez relates to a school district partnering with a public charter school to operate a district campus and share teachers, facilities, and other educational resources. ATPE shared several concerns with the bill, which included lack of clarity on which entity would serve as the educators’ employer and the fact that a law is not needed to enable districts to form this type of partnership. Another concern was addressed by Senator Menendez in a newer version of the original bill; under the proposed committee substitute, neighborhood schools would still have first access to their neighborhood school regardless of the fact that a charter operator took it over.

Senator Menendez’s comments included his intent to continue working to address the issues expressed by stakeholders, calling for “a community solution.” That includes ATPE’s concern regarding the ambiguity with regard to who would employ educators. ATPE shared that if a district teacher becomes an employee of the charter, it would affect their rights and benefits, as charter employees don’t have the same rights and benefits as traditional public school employees.

The broader issue ATPE has with this bill does not have to do with opposition to locally developed partnerships between high-quality charters and districts, but with the fact that the bill only serves to incentivize this means of focusing attention on a school while not doing the same with others. Many innovative approaches or effective turnaround models, including this one, can be adopted by a board currently and has been done in various districts. This bill, however, would offer an accountability pause when this is used as a turnaround model in unacceptably rated schools and financial incentives when this sort of partnership is developed on any campus. Ultimately, this could serve to lessen the value and utilization of other models or innovative options that might be very well-suited for a particular school or community.

ATPE-Input-on-SB-640-imageThe committee also heard testimony on SB 640 by Sen. Van Taylor, a bill that would allow home-school students to participate in UIL activities, a bill termed the “Tim Tebow bill.” ATPE opposed the legislation, pointing to a number of positions in the ATPE Legislative Program that contrast with the idea of home school students selectively choosing aspects of the public school system in which they want to participate. Home-school parents and students were present to testify in both support and opposition. ATPE’s full testimony can be read here.

The Texas Legislature is picking up speed rapidly. Stay tuned for more from the Senate Education Committee next week!

Senate Education Committee discusses virtual education, teacher work days

On the same day the full Senate was debating and ultimately passing its voucher bill, Senate Bill 3, the Senate Education Committee met to hear a handful of bills. Bills pertaining to expansion of the Texas Virtual School Network and the days teachers are required to report to school topped the agenda.

Sen Ed Teacher MisconductTwo positive bills for teachers got the seal of approval from ATPE. Senate Bill (SB) 1317 by Sen. Carlos Uresti and SB 1634 by Chairman Larry Taylor would add clarity to the days teachers are required to work in specific situations. Sen. Uresti’s bill would prevent a district from requiring a teacher to report to work more than seven days before the first day of school, with an exemption for new teachers who couldn’t be called in more than ten days prior. Districts are inconsistent with regard to the number of days teachers are required to prepare for the school year, often exceeding the number of days a teacher is paid to work.

Chairman Taylor’s bill, SB 1634, would also address work days, this time with regard to aligning them with school calendars. When the legislature moved the amount of required instruction from a specified number of days to a specified number of minutes last legislative session, they failed to align educators contracts. In some cases, school calendars were amounting to less than the number of days the law requires educators to work. Chairman Taylor’s bill would address this by giving districts the ability to align their calendars with the educator contracts.

SB 610 by Sen. Donald Huffines seeks to expand eligibility for students participating in full-time virtual school in Texas. Currently, students in Texas can utilize the Texas Virtual School Network beginning in 3rd grade and continuing through high school; Sen. Huffine’s bill would expand that eligibility to students in kindergarten through 2nd grade. ATPE opposed the bill based on several concerns addressed in our written testimony to the committee. Those concerns include the pedagogical inappropriateness of full-time virtual education for our state’s youngest students, the research calling into question the success of full-time virtual education for a student of any age, and the fact that our accountability system would not be set up to determine the success of the experimental system on our youngest students until the 3rd grade.

ATPE also supported a bill that aims to address the arbitrary 8.5% cap on the percentage of students in a district that can receive special education services. This issue first grabbed the attention of Texans and their policy makers last year when it was reported by the Houston Chronicle’s Brian Rosenthal. The Texas Education Agency held a hearing with the U.S. Department of Education late last year on the issue. Several bills this session seek to address the problem.

Senate Education Committee hears voucher bill

The Senate Education Committee met Tuesday, March 21, to take up Senate Bill (SB) 3, the priority voucher bill of Lt. Gov. Patrick authored by the committee’s chairman, Sen. Larry Taylor (R-Friendswood). As expected, and as has become customary in the committee on voucher legislation, the meeting kicked off with invited testimony from voucher proponents flown in from across the country. The hearing continued for roughly ten hours as witnesses testified and senators asked questions related to the bill and testimony.

ATPE Lobbyist Monty Exter testified against SB 3 on behalf of ATPE, beginning his testimony by pointing to a long standing anti-voucher position in the ATPE Legislative Program that member educators amend and vote on annually. Exter told senators that there is plenty legislators could do to help Texas education, particularly the disadvantaged and minority students that proponents hail as winners under a voucher program, but that establishing a voucher program is not one of them. Rather, the vast majority of disadvantaged students would suffer the most under a voucher program.

ATPE Lobbyist Monty Exter testifies before the Senate Education Committee

ATPE Lobbyist Monty Exter testifies before the Senate Education Committee

In highlighting only a few options senators could focus on instead of vouchers in order to help poor and minority students, Exter pointed to updating formulas that currently fail to adequately direct money to the kids who need it most and cost the most to educate (such as English language learners and students with special needs), fully funding a bilingual education program, and reinstating support for the math and reading academies that resulted in big educational impacts on students at the bottom of the education gap.

Exter also highlighted the costs associated with vouchers that senators are failing to consider. He told the committee that in addition to the money that will be taken out of the public school system due to student movement to other education options provided to them through vouchers, the much greater cost would come in subsequent years, when children not currently of school age become eligible without having ever stepped foot in the public school system.

Under SB 3l, any child currently of school age must first spend a year in the public school system; if their parents determine the public school doesn’t meet their needs, those students can opt for a voucher. However, children who reach school age in the coming years wouldn’t be required to ever try a public school. Some 600,000 parents currently educate their children in a home or private school setting in Texas, which means many parents would have access to public funds they could use to supplement their child’s non-public education in the future.

The fiscal note, which estimates the impact a bill would have on the state budget, for SB 3 was released yesterday in connection with the hearing. Surprisingly, the number used to calculate the impact was based on merely 25,000 Texas schoolchildren choosing vouchers, resulting in a negative impact to the state of more than $300 million. That is a usage rate of less than one percent, a percentage lower than the usage rates in states that already have vouchers. For instance, it was mentioned during the hearing that Indiana has a usage rate of closer to 3%; at that rate we would be talking about a hit to Texas education funding in the billions, not millions. Using the rate of 5%, the Center for Public Policy Priorities estimates a negative impact of $2 billion to the state coffers.

Yesterday’s voucher hearing took place on the heels of stunning news reports about legislators receiving fake letters in support of SB 3. As reported by our friends at The Texas Tribune, a few rural lawmakers called their constituents who were identified as purported senders of the letters and learned that some of them had no knowledge of the letters being sent in their names and were, in fact, opposed to the voucher legislation.

17_web_Spotlight_AdvocacyCentral_1The Senate Education committee met until 10 p.m. last night hearing testimony and ultimately left SB 3 pending. The committee meets again Thursday, March 23, to consider pending business. ATPE members are encouraged to visit Advocacy Central to send messages to senators about SB 3.

Federal Update: Trump budget proposal, new ESSA guidelines for state plans

President Donald Trump released his 2018 federal budget proposal today, which would cut funding for the U.S. Department of Education (ED) by $9 billion and invest significant dollars into vouchers, charter school expansion, and portability funding. The budget proposal comes a week after Congress voted to scrap Obama-era Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) accountability rules and days after ED released its new guidance for states to use while designing their ESSA plans.

President Trump’s 2018 budget proposal

The President’s budget blueprint proposes to cut funding for ED by 13%, reducing its budget from the current level of $68 billion to $59 billion. Cuts to those programs come in various areas affecting both K-12 and higher education funding. Congress will consider the proposal as they negotiate the budget they are tasked with writing.

Dollar banknotes heapThe budget proposal entirely cuts a program aimed at recruiting, supporting, and training educators. That program, which primarily focuses on educators in high-needs schools, totals $2.4 billion. The 1st Century Community Learning Centers program that totals $1.2 billion and provides funding for before-school, after-school, and summer enrichment programs would also be gutted. Other programs seeing significant cuts would include Federal Work-Study, TRIO, and GEAR UP (the latter two both support disadvantaged students in becoming college ready).

“The 2018 Budget places power in the hands of parents and families to choose schools that are best for their children by investing an additional $1.4 billion in school choice programs,” opening lines of the ED section of the blueprint read.

In the case of President Trump’s budget, school choice means charter school expansion, portability funding, and vouchers, and, although no specifics are offered, the $1.4 billion dedicated in 2018 would ramp up to an annual total of $20 billion (a number then candidate Trump touted on the campaign trail) over the course of an unspecified time. The budget also estimates that funding for these projects will hit $100 billion when state and local matching funds are included. Trump campaigned on a plan that would “favor” states with private school choice and charter laws.

Specifically, President Trump’s proposal provides a $168 million increase in funding for charter schools, $250 million that would go toward a new (but undefined) private school choice program, and a $1 billion increase to Title I funding that would all be dedicated to portability within public schools, a term commonly used to refer to the idea of Title I money following the child to the school of their choice (rather than focusing the money on schools with the most need). ATPE wrote a letter to members of Congress in 2015 that touched on portability funding. Title I portability was being considered at the time but didn’t pass.

One thing the budget outlined by the White House doesn’t touch is funding for educating students with disabilities. While the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) remains vastly underfunded, President Trump’s budget maintains its funding level at around $13 billion. IDEA was passed by Congress with the promise to give states 40 percent of the cost required to educate children with disabilities. However, the federal share has fallen significantly short for decades; it now sits around 16 percent.

(I have a little more here on the federal budget process as a whole. The post is from 2015 and also offers a look back at how a budget proposal under President Obama and the Congressional budgeting process compared.)

New ESSA guidance on state plans

A few days before President Trump released his budget proposal, ED released a new guideline document for states to use as they develop their state plans required under ESSA. The guidelines replace a similar document issued by the Obama administration late last year, which was aligned to the accountability rule Congress scrapped last week. The new guidelines align only with what is written in ESSA, since the now obsolete rule has no teeth and ED cannot replace it unless Congress writes a new law that gives the department the new authority.

ThinkstockPhotos-478554066_F gradeUltimately, states have more flexibility with regard to designing their plans. That includes offering summative accountability scores for districts, which ATPE argued against in comments to the Obama administration. Texas enacted an “A through F” grading system for schools last legislative session and there are bills in the current legislature that aim to tweak the system prior to its going into effect next school year. Despite the lack of requirement from the federal government and the fact that several states have abandoned their own versions of the letter grading system, Texas does not seem poised to scrap the “A through F” grading aspect of the law.

States must still submit their ESSA state plans by April 3 for review and by September 18 for approval. The Texas Education Agency has yet to share its ESSA plan.