Tag Archives: charter schools

Teach the Vote’s Week in Review: Nov. 17, 2017

For many of you it’s the start of a holiday vacation. Take a look at this week’s education news highlights as you plan your Thanksgiving week festivities:


ATPE member Paula Franklin testifies before House Public Education Committee, Nov. 14, 2017.

Earlier this week, the House Public Education Committee heard from educators working in school districts burdened by Hurricane Harvey. ATPE member Paula Franklin, who lives in Pearland and teaches in Galveston ISD, was one of the invited witnesses who shared concerns about testing and accountability requirements for schools and students affected by the history-making storm.

Read more about Paula’s compelling testimony in this blog post from ATPE Lobbyist Mark Wiggins. Watch Paula’s testimony beginning at the 23:22 mark on the archived video file from the hearing available here.

 


The Texas Education Agency released final accountability ratings this week for Texas public school districts, campuses, and charter schools. As ATPE Lobbyist Mark Wiggins writes in this blog post from Wednesday, these are the last “met standard/improvement required” ratings that school districts will receive before the state’s new “A-through-F” rating system is implemented, as mandated by the Texas legislature.

Did you know that members of the public can share input with TEA about the new A-through-F rating system? In a recent legislative update for members of the Texas Association of Community Schools, our friend Laura Yeager wrote about her experience serving on a parents’ stakeholder committee to advise TEA on the development of the new accountability system. She expressed concern that the agency hasn’t conducted open meetings or adequately solicited feedback from the public about how the adoption of an A-through-F rating system will affect schools, students, educators, and communities. We encourage anyone who would like to share their thoughts on A-through-F to send an email to TEA at feedbackAF@tea.texas.gov.


This week a number of key gubernatorial appointments were announced for education-related boards and committees.

First, Gov. Greg Abbott announced his picks to serve on the new Texas Commission on Public School Finance. The commission was created as a result of legislation passed during this summer’s special legislative session, after the House and Senate were unable to agree on a comprehensive fix to overhaul the state’s troubled school finance system. Abbott’s appointments to the high-profile commission include ATPE member Melissa Martin. Martin is a career and technology teacher in Galena Park ISD. She joins Abbott’s other appointees, attorney Scott Brister; former state representative Elvira Reyna; and Todd Williams, an education adviser to Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings. Gov. Abbott has tapped Brister to chair the new commission. Other members of the commission include those selected by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick: Doug Killian, who serves as superintendent of Pflugerville ISD, and Senators Paul Bettencourt, Larry Taylor, and Royce West.

Also this week, Gov. Abbott revealed his appointments to fill three vacancies on the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) Board of Trustees. The new board members are Missouri City attorney Jarvis Hollingsworth; James “Dick” Nance, a retired coach who worked in Pasadena ISD; and Nanette Sissney, a school counselor in Whitesboro ISD. Hollingsworth will also chair the TRS board.

 


Have you noticed some updates to our Teach the Vote website this week? We are officially in candidate mode now, ready to highlight profiles not only for current officeholders, but also candidates running for office in 2018. In the next few days, we’ll be uploading 2017 voting records for current legislators, and we are also inviting candidates to participate in our online candidate survey. These resources are designed to help you learn where candidates stand on public education issues. We’re also excited to announce the addition of candidate profiles for the statewide offices of Texas Governor and Lieutenant Governor. Find candidates on our search page here, and check back frequently as we continue to add more information as we receive it. The candidate filing period for the 2018 elections is now open and will continue through Dec. 11, so you can expect to see some additional names added to our site and survey responses published as we receive them.

Learn more about how you can help shape the future of Texas in the pivotal 2018 elections by visiting our coalition partner website at TexasEducatorsVote.com.

 


 

TEA releases final accountability ratings before A-F

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) released the final 2017 academic accountability ratings this week for school districts and campuses. This represents the last time in which districts and campuses will be graded under the “met standard/improvement required” system, which is scheduled to be replaced by the new “A through F” accountability system.

More than 1,200 districts and charters and more than 8,600 campuses were graded. In total, 95.4 percent met standard or met alternative standard, and just 3.5 percent were labeled “improvement required” and subject to potential interventions. A final 1.1 percent of districts and charters were listed as “not rated.”

Just 26 of 1,023 school districts, or 2.5 percent, were labeled “improvement required.” A total of 16 out of 180 charters, or 8.9 percent, were labeled “improvement required.” According to the 2017 numbers, charters were more than three times as likely as districts to fail to meet academic standards.

The new “A through F” accountability rating system is scheduled to go into effect in 2018. Under House Bill (HB) 22, schools will receive grades of A, B, C, D, or F in each of three academic domains, as well as an overall letter grade. Districts and charters will receive their first “A through F” grades beginning with the 2017-18 school year, while campuses will still be graded on the “met standard/improvement required” scale. Individual campuses will begin receiving “A through F” letter grades in the 2018-19 school year.

The agency is still in the process of making rules for the “A through F” system, and ATPE continues to represent educators’ perspectives in discussions with rulemakers regarding the system’s implementation. The full 2017 accountability report for districts, charters and campuses can be found on the TEA website.

Teach the Vote’s Week in Review: Oct. 27, 2017

Here’s this week’s round-up of education news from the ATPE lobby team:


ATPE state officers met with Speaker Joe Straus in March 2017.

ATPE state officers with Speaker Joe Straus in March 2017

Texas political circles were shaken up this week by a pair of election announcements from top leaders in the Texas House of Representatives.

First came a surprise announcement on Wednesday that House Speaker Joe Straus (R-San Antonio) will not seek reelection in 2018. The news of the departure of the popular house speaker was a disappointment to many in the public education community who appreciated his rational approach to leading the Texas House and willingness to prioritize school needs over divisive ideological battles.

ATPE state officers met with Rep. Byron Cook in Feb. 2017.

ATPE state officers with Rep. Byron Cook in Feb. 2017

Straus’s announcement was followed by a similar one from Rep. Byron Cook (R-Corsicana) on the same day. Cook, who has chaired the powerful House State Affairs Committee and the newly created House Select Committee on Economic Competitiveness, similarly announced that he will step down at the end of his current term.

For more on Wednesday’s big announcements, check out this blog post from ATPE Lobbyist Mark Wiggins.

 


ATPE Lobbyist Kate Kuhlmann was in Dallas yesterday for a stakeholder meeting regarding data collection for educator preparation in Texas. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) partnered with Educate Texas and other entities to solicit input and recommendations on data the agency collects to assess and improve educator preparation programs (EPPS) across Texas. A bill passed earlier this year during the 85th regular legislative session, Senate Bill (SB) 1839, added new requirements to data collection for EPPs. The work to solicit input will help guide the agency and the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) as they work to implement the new law.

As Kuhlmann reports, teachers, school districts, EPP representatives, and other engaged stakeholders convened in Dallas this week to consider and identify data that would would offer transparency for candidates considering future programs, provide diagnostic value to programs, and improve upon current data used to hold programs accountable. All agreed that a focus should be placed on presenting the data in a more easily accessible manner, such as a user-friendly online dashboard. Participants also agreed that the presentation of such data should include differentiated interfacing specific to consumers (future EPP candidates and the general public), school districts, and EPPs.

Yesterday’s meeting was the second of four scheduled stakeholder meetings. Two more will be held next week in Lubbock and Austin. The TEA, under the direction of the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC), will also convene a formal stakeholder committee to make recommendations on the matter and is reaching out to various standing committees for input. The agency expects to begin discussion on next steps for implementing recommendations at SBEC’s March 2018 meeting, once the initial stakeholder input has been collected. Stay tuned to Teach the Vote for updates.

 


TRS logoToday, the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) Board of Trustees is meeting in Austin, where ATPE Lobbyist Monty Exter is attending and has contributed the following report on the meeting:

The TRS Board of Directors convened today for a short meeting. After taking brief public testimony, they received an update from TRS Executive Director Brian Guthrie, which focused primarily on administrative housekeeping with regard to the agendas of future meetings. Guthrie did drop one bomb during his update, informing the board that there has been some discussion in Washington of reclassifying the contributions to retirement systems like TRS such that they would no longer be tax-deferred. Such a move would be a monumental policy shift dramatically impacting both educators and the pension fund itself.

After Guthrie’s comments, the board received its first update on the TRS Enterprise Application Modernization or (TEAM) program since the go live date on which we’ve previously reported. The transition has not been without the “hiccups” that accompany any such major technology transition, but the new system is stable and operational and the transition has been mostly smooth.

Next, the board worked its way through a series of administrative items before taking up proposed rules on 403(b) vendor rates. There has been significant back and forth between the board and a large segment of the 403(b) vendor community with regard to these rule changes. Many vendors acknowledge that the rules have been significantly improved, from their perspective, throughout the process. That said, most vendors still do not favor the new rules. Despite the board’s adoption of the rules, many expect this issue to remain a topic of discussion for the 86th legislature in 2019.

Finally, the board received its first overview presentation on the TRS experience study the board will undertake early next year. The experience study will help the board set many of the assumptions that are used to determine the actuarial health of the pension fund. The actuarial picture of a fund can help lawmakers makers determine contribution rates and is often used by anti-pension advocates to push for abandonment of defined-benefit pension plans based on their unfunded liabilities. Additionally, in the case of TRS, the actuarial soundness as defined by a funding horizon of less than 31 years is what allows TRS to give a COLA to retirees.

The last TRS board meeting of 2017 will be in December, and the first board meeting of 2018 will be a board retreat scheduled to commence on Valentine’s Day, February 14th.

 


Interim charges have now been released for both House and Senate committees to study in preparation for the 2019 legislative session. The charges issued by House Speaker Joe Straus and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick direct standing committees in the House and Senate, respectively, to convene hearings and gather feedback from stakeholders on hot topics expected to be debated by the 86th legislature.

Rebuilding efforts following Hurricane Harvey are among the numerous charges for multiple committees, but there are also several directives that focus specifically on public education. The Senate Education Committee, for instance, will study such issues as teacher compensation, virtual learning, student discipline, dual credit, and school choice. The House Public Education  Committee is tasked with studying teacher retention, educating students with disabilities, charter school laws, and ways to assess student performance other than using standardized test scores. Other committees will examine public pension systems and the TRS healthcare programs for educators.

Read more about the House interim charges here and Senate interim charges here. ATPE’s lobbyists will be covering all of the education-related interim hearings and providing updates here on our Teach the Vote blog and on Twitter.

 


DNA_4w2U8AARK-pOne week of early voting remains for the Nov. 7 constitutional amendment election. As part of our work with the Texas Educators Vote coalition to create a culture of voting in the education community, ATPE urges our members and all other registered voters to participate in this and all elections. Early voting runs through Friday, Nov. 3. The Texas Secretary of State also declared today, Oct. 27, as #StudentVotingDay, encouraging eligible high school students who registered to vote to get out and cast their ballots today. Learn more about what’s on the Nov. 7 ballot and how to be an engaged voter in this ATPE Blog post.

 


 

Teach the Vote’s Week in Review: Sept. 8, 2017

Here’s this week’s education news wrap-up from ATPE:

 


Drugs and MoneySignificant changes are coming soon for participants in the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) healthcare program. In case you missed our coverage during Hurricane Harvey, the TRS Board of Trustees met last week to adopt changes to the TRS-Care health insurance plan for retirees. Read more about the changes here. Video of the Sept. 1 TRS board meeting is also available for viewing here. TRS staff have also announced a schedule of workshops to help retirees understand the changes coming in January to TRS-Care. Learn more in today’s blog post from ATPE Lobbyist Monty Exter.

 


ATPE members and other educators affected by Hurricane Harvey are encouraged to check out our Hurricane Harvey resources page for answers to questions and links to additional information. This week, Commissioner of Education Mike Morath announced that certain schools and districts within the disaster areas would be granted an extension of time to file appeals to 2017 academic and financial accountability ratings. Find additional information on the TEA website here.

 


SBOE logoThe State Board of Education (SBOE) is scheduled to meet next week in Austin. Click here for the agenda for Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday meetings of the board and its committees. Ahead of that meeting, Tuesday, Sept. 12, will be the first meeting for the newly announced SBOE Long-Range Plan Steering Committee. The committee will discuss the purpose and scope of the long-range plan and look at sample plans during the initial meeting. Learn more about the steering committee here. The ATPE lobby team will have coverage of all these meetings here on Teach the Vote and on Twitter next week.

 


 

Teach the Vote’s Week in Review: Aug. 18, 2017

Here’s your post-special session edition of ATPE’s Teach the Vote weekly wrap-up:

 


ThinkstockPhotos-455285291_gavelTuesday night marked the end of the 85th Legislature’s special session, and ATPE is pleased that a number of anti-public education proposals were defeated. The legislature declined to grant Gov. Greg Abbott’s request for a private school voucher program for students with special needs, opting instead to fund state grant programs that will aid public school students with autism, dyslexia, and other challenges. Also blocked were discriminatory bills to take away educators’ access to payroll deduction for their association dues. ATPE is thankful for the educators who called and wrote to their lawmakers or visited the capitol to take a stand for educators having the same rights as other public employees and being able to continue to manage their own money as they choose.

The special session also resulted in some gains for public education through the passage of House Bill (HB) 21 by Rep. Dan Huberty (R-Kingwood). Although the Senate would not agree to the $1.8 billion in additional public school funding that the House approved or to tapping into the state’s rainy day fund, the final bill does add $563 million over and above the budget passed by lawmakers during the regular session. That extra money will help some districts facing the loss of Additional State Aid for Tax Reduction (ASATR) funds this year, provide assistance for charter school facilities, and significantly, inject $212 million into the TRS-Care health insurance program for retired educators. The Senate rejected any long-term structural changes to our school finance system, which were favored by the House, but they included language in HB 21 to create a school finance commission that will study the issue over the next two years.

The Senate approved its version of HB 21 by a vote of 25 to 6 late Monday night. The House voted 94 to 46 to accept the Senate’s version of HB 21 Tuesday evening, with a number of representatives expressing disappointment that the bill did not do more, and many who stated they were reluctantly voting for it in the interest of preserving some modest gains for the schools in their districts. Shortly thereafter, the House surprised many by adjourning sine die upon a motion by Chairman Huberty, one day before the expiration of the 30-day special session. The Senate similarly adjourned sine die a few hours later after declining to accept a House version of a property tax bill. In a press conference late that night, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick was quick to blame the House and its leadership, including Speaker Joe Straus, for preventing more of the governor’s special session agenda from being passed. For his part, Gov. Abbott similarly complained that the House had obstructed bills, despite the fact that legislators gave final approval to bills covering half the items on the governor’s special session call.

With the governor’s signature on the bill, the next step for HB 21 will be for the Commissioner of Education and TRS board to propose and adopt rules implementing various aspects of the law. (Read more about the TRS-Care changes being considered next week in the next section of today’s wrap-up.) We’ll keep you posted on all the rulemaking developments and let you know how you can provide input to state policymakers during that process here on Teach the Vote.

ATPE Executive Director Gary Godsey said in a press statement, “We appreciate those in the legislature who fought for additional funding and structural improvements to our school finance system. ATPE looks forward to working with lawmakers during the interim to recommend longer-term solutions that will help all Texas students excel and enable us to recruit, reward, and retain the best educators in our public schools.”

 


Drugs and MoneyThe Teacher Retirement System (TRS) Board of Trustees will be meeting next Friday, Aug. 25, to consider changes to the TRS-Care healthcare program for retired educators. As noted above, the passage of HB 21 during the special session means that TRS will have an extra $212 million this biennium to offset rising costs of TRS-Care. ATPE Lobbyist Monty Exter has been attending meetings with TRS staff to learn how the additional money will be used to help retired teachers. Check out his blog post for more on the specific changes the TRS board is expected to adopt next week.

 


tea-logo-header-2On Tuesday, the Texas Education Agency announced the 2017 accountability ratings for school districts and campuses. The overwhelming majority of schools (95 percent) earned a “Met Standard” rating this year, and there were fewer campuses receiving an “Improvement Required” rating in 2017. Final 2017 ratings will be shared in December following an appeal period for schools seeking to change their ratings.

View the complete accountability ratings on the TEA website here. ATPE congratulates the students and staff of all our high-achieving public schools!

 


During the special session, ATPE's Governmental Relations staff presented House Speaker Joe Straus with an honorary resolution passed by the ATPE House of Delegates in July.

During the special session, ATPE’s Governmental Relations staff presented Texas House Speaker Joe Straus with an honorary resolution passed by the ATPE House of Delegates in July.

 

TEA releases draft Texas plan to satisfy ESSA

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) released its draft plan Monday to satisfy requirements under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the federal education law that replaced No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Texas’s draft plan offers an initial look into how TEA intends to implement the federal policy and funding parameters involving accountability, educator effectiveness, struggling schools, and more. The public has through August 29 to submit feedback on the draft plan.

Since President Obama signed ESSA into law in December 2015, the U.S. Department of Education (ED), under the direction of both the Obama and Trump administrations, has spent time developing, altering, and in some cases even omitting the rules that govern the law. Now that they’ve been finalized, it is on states to submit a plan telling ED how they intend to implement the law at the state and local level. Like other states, Texas has until September 18 to finalize and submit its ESSA state plan, which will then go through a peer review process for approval.

Texas’s draft ESSA plan can be read in its entirety here; below are some initial takeaways:

Long-term goals

ESSA removed adequate yearly progress (AYP) from federal law, instead giving states the task of establishing their own long-term, ambitious goals for academic achievement. Texas’s draft ESSA plan establishes an academic achievement (as measured by annual STAAR results in reading/language arts and mathematics) goal intended to align with the state’s 60X30 goal, which seeks to have 60% of Texans aged 25-34 possessing some form of post-secondary credential by 2030. To assist in accomplishing that, TEA sets a goal under ESSA of having 90% of all students and subgroups at the “approaches grade level” performance level by 2032.

Other long term goals include a four-year graduation rate of 96% and a 46% threshold for students making progress toward English language proficiency, all by 2032. The plan includes interim targets in five-year intervals. These are laid out in the chart in Appendix A, with some targets not yet identified.

Accountability indicators

Indicators defined under federal accountability requirements include an academic indicator, an indicator of achievement specific to schools other than high schools, a graduation rate indicator, an English language proficiency indicator, and a school quality or success indicator. Texas’s accountability system, which was altered as recently as this year during the 85th Texas Legislature under HB 22, now consists of three domains and indicators within indicators that can be used to satisfy federal indicator requirements.

Texas’s plan intends to utilize STAAR test results (both proficiency and growth), Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) results, graduation rates, and post-secondary readiness rates to satisfy the first four federal indicator requirements. To weigh the school quality and success indicator, which is new under federal law, the draft plan suggests using STAAR results in elementary and middle schools and post-secondary readiness rates in high schools. More on these indicators are found in the table starting on page 17 of the draft ESSA plan.

The state draft plan highlights the state’s A-F system as a way of satisfying differentiation requirements under federal law, which says that states’ accountability systems must be able to “meaningfully differentiate” among all schools in the state.

Identifying and supporting struggling schools

TEA offers four options for identifying the 5% of Title I schools considered to be the most struggling and in need of comprehensive support and improvement: (1) all F rated schools, (2) all F rated schools and all schools rated D for multiple years, (3) all F and D schools, or (4) all schools existing in the bottom 5% when ranked chronologically. The options work so that if the first option does not constitute 5% of all schools, then the second option is triggered, and so on. Any campus that does meet a 67% 4-year graduation rate would also automatically be identified for comprehensive support and improvement.

For schools that remain in need of comprehensive support for five years, interventions including the following could be implemented: school closure, partnership with a charter school, charter school conversion to include independent governing board and leadership change, or oversight by a Conservator or state-appointed Board of Managers.

The Texas draft plan proposes reserving 7% of the state’s Title I funding for struggling schools, an unidentified portion to be delivered via formula funding and an unidentified portion for competitive grant funding. More on identifying and supporting struggling schools can be accessed beginning on page 21 of the draft plan.

Educator effectiveness

The Texas plan highlights two ongoing strategies for spending educator effectiveness funding under Title II of ESSA: continued investment in the Texas Equity Toolkit and implementation of an instruction leadership initiative, which is “designed to provide to LEAs and schools that did not earn satisfactory ratings on the state accountability system with comprehensive instructional leadership training for principal supervisors, principals, assistant principals, and teacher leaders in an effort to build skills in coaching, growing, and developing educators.” TEA also intends to reserve 3% of the funding for district grants focused on improving principal practice, potentially through “principal residency programs.” The plan also highlights recent changes made to the certification structure for educators in Texas and ongoing efforts to change Texas’s principal preparation as improvements to educator effectiveness. The draft plan’s portion covering Tittle II of federal law begins on page 37.

Equitable access to educators

TEA identifies in its draft plan three “priority contributing factors” why schools with high concentrations of low-income and minority children have inequitable access to experienced and effective educators teaching within field. They center on insufficient training, support, and alignment between and within districts. For teacher training, the draft plan proposes addressing this through continued support and implementation of T-TESS, the Educator Excellence Innovation Program (a grant program supporting innovative retention, training and support within districts), the recent changes to teacher preparation rules, and Lesson Study (a professional development program). More beginning on on page 27 of the draft plan.

Assessments

The state, at least currently, is poised to continue federal testing requirements that, in Texas, amount to annual STAAR assessments in reading and math in grades 3-8 plus three science assessments (in grades 5 and 8 plus once in high school). The new federal law does offer states some minimal flexibility to assess students and provides for a pilot program where states and districts can more meaningfully address alternate approaches to assessing students.

 

The public comment period is open now and runs through Tuesday, August 29. Comments on the draft plan can be submitted via email to essa@tea.texas.gov.

Dan Patrick’s Texas Senate plows ahead

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick outlines special session proposals.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick outlines special session proposals.

In a matter of days, the Texas Senate, under the direction of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, plowed through Governor Greg Abbott’s special session priorities on education. The blitz began late last week and continued through the wee hours of this morning, when several more contentious education items were granted final approval. The pieces of legislation now head to the Texas House, where the lower chamber began work with a significantly different focus: on a meaningful approach to fixing the state’s broken school finance system and state-funded, sustainable options for increasing teacher pay and the state’s contributions to retirees.

The Senate worked until 2am this morning, passing a voucher proposal that was paired with needed funding for certain school districts and facilities funding for charter schools; a prohibition on educators’ ability to utilize payroll deduction to pay professional association dues; a teacher pay bonus bill that includes one-time supplemental funding for TRS-Care; a “bathroom bill” that would dictate related local school policies; and not a fix, but another commission to study school finance. Here’s more:

SB 19: teacher bonus & TRS-Care

After spending a significant amount of time yesterday debating Lt. Gov. Patrick’s priority legislation regarding the use of bathrooms in public schools, among other public spaces, the chamber moved on to several other pieces of legislation affecting public schools, students and educators. It started with its teacher pay bill, SB 19, authored by Senator Jane Nelson (R-Flower Mound). The bill was originally marketed by its author and the Lt. Gov. as a teacher pay raise, but ATPE, among others, pushed back against that notion when it was heard in committee over the weekend.

ATPE Lobbyist Monty Exter testifies in Senate Education Committee on July 21, 2017

ATPE Lobbyist Monty Exter testifies in the Texas Senate.

ATPE Lobbyist Monty Exter told members of the committee that educators appreciated two portions of the bill, the state-funded bonus for teachers and the needed one-time supplemental funding for TRS-Care, but he expressed opposition to the piece termed a “teacher pay raise,” which wasn’t state-funded and required school districts to “re-prioritize” funding. ATPE State Secretary and Abilene educator Tonja Gray also testified on the bill in committee, telling members: “I don’t want a pay raise on the backs of my students.” She explained that in an environment where Texas schools are already underfunded, an unfunded mandate to provide teacher pay raises would result in cuts to valuable programs or educators.

When the bill hit the full Senate floor for debate, the empty pay raise portion was removed and the bill was passed out of the chamber with overwhelming support. Senator Nelson, as the chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Finance who writes and passes the state’s biennial budget, assured educators that she will prioritize a pay raise next session. ATPE looks forward to working with her to deliver on that promise to educators in 2019 as the 86th Texas Legislature convenes, and we will continue to fight on behalf of educators for a state-funded, sustainable, and meaningful pay raise. The House has its own versions of bills to address teacher pay and retiree benefits that are already on the move.

Related, the Senate also hosted a hearing over the weekend to consider proposals to fund a teacher pay raise in the next legislative session. ATPE submitted written testimony in opposition to the proposals, saying that “ATPE believes the legislature should pivot its focus on teacher pay to developing plans for long-term investments that do not come out of existing money already dedicated to public schools.” Both proposals received initial skepticism and one was in the process of being written as it was heard in committee. Both were left pending in committee and may stay there since the Senate removed the unfunded pay raise from its teacher pay bill.

SB 7: prohibition on payroll deduction for educators

A mere hour after praising educators endlessly as senators worked to approve the teacher pay bill on the floor of the Senate, Lt. Gov. Patrick turned the chamber’s attention to SB7, the bill by Senator Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) that selectively targets educators in an attempt to silence their collective voice. Unlike the teacher pay bill, which received no attention during the regular session, the bill to eliminate educators’ right to utilize payroll deduction to pay voluntary professional association dues has been a priority of the Lt. Gov. and Texas Senate for years now.

G3 testimony B&CDuring both the committee hearing and as the bill was debated on the floor of the full Senate, the discriminatory, purely political, and completely unnecessary nature of the bill was highlighted once again. ATPE Executive Director Gary Godsey testified to the Senate Committee on Business and Commerce that educators feel “besieged, besmirched and really like they’re second class citizens.” Testifier after testifier pushed back against the proponents’  rhetoric about busting unions and glass claims about eliminating associated costs to government. Educators, police officers, fire fighters, and many other public servant employees showed up to prove that this bill isn’t wanted by anyone, aside from a couple of heavily funded special interest groups that have made it their top priority to silence educators, which they see as too effective at fighting harmful policies like vouchers.

During floor debate, more truths emerged. Senator Hughes shared Governor Abbott’s promise to veto any bill that includes first responders, a status of employment he and others deem superior to educators and other public servants like CPS workers and correctional officers. Amidst questioning on why the bill picks winners and losers, Senator Hughes finally admitted that some people “don’t like the advocacy of labor unions,” acknowledging that the bill is about silencing the advocacy efforts of the public employees targeted under the bill, which amounts primarily to educators. And as all involved continued to push back against the lie that payroll deduction for association dues costs the state, the bill author could only say that he wants to get the government out of the process for the targeted professions only.

Democratic members of the Senate offered amendments to exempt educators under the bill, broaden the definition of first responder to include educators, null the targeted prohibition until associated costs can be identified, delay the legislation’s enacting date to give the targeted labor organizations more time to adjust, and more, but Senator Hughes rejected them all and the bill remained unchanged. The bill passed the Senate with support from all Republicans, except for one, Senator Robert Nichols (R-Jacksonville). He joined the Democratic members of the Senate to stand with educators in opposition. During the regular session, a nearly identical bill was sent to the House where it received no attention during the regular session. The House version of that bill died in committee and the Senate bill never received a hearing once it made it over. Stay tuned to Teach the Vote for updates on the special session version of this legislatio.

SB 2: special education voucher & certain school funding

NO VOUCHERSFirst up in the Senate was SB 2, the voucher bill authored by Senator Larry Taylor (R-Friendswood). Paired with the $10,000 voucher for special education students was continued ASATR funding for certain schools that stress the funding is necessary. The bill also contains $60 million in facilities funding for fast growth school districts, $60 million for facilities funding for charter schools, and a grant program termed the “educational expense assistance program” for public school special education students to access up to $500.

The voucher portion of the bill is, this time, in the form of a “tax credit scholarship.” Certain entities could receive tax credits in return for contributions made to the voucher program. Students with special needs could then access vouchers to pay for private school tuition. ATPE Lobbyist Monty Exter expressed ATPE’s concerns with the voucher portion of the proposal, saying that we should be focused on fixing things for special education students within public schools, rather than offering them money to go elsewhere. Tax credit scholarships, like all vouchers, are guilty of funneling public tax dollars out of the public school system. Offering tax credits to corporations will lower the general revenue Texas earns through taxes, and unless funds are raised elsewhere, cuts will have to be made in order to cover the deficit.

ATPE also encouraged legislators to take up the issues of ASATR and facilities funding independent of the politically charged voucher proposal. The Senate pressed ahead with the combined voucher and funding proposal, instead, and SB 2 passed the chamber 19-12. Two Republicans voted against the proposal, Senator Robert Nichols (R-Jacksonville) and Senator Charles Perry (R-Lubbock), and one Democrat supported the bill, Senator Eddie Lucio, Jr. (R-Brownsville). The bill heads to the House where the chamber took several overwhelming votes to reject vouchers during the regular session.

SB 16: commission to study school finance

The Senate also began with work on school finance, but unlike the House that is working on a bill to fix the system, the Senate bill would create a commission to further study school finance in Texas. SB16 is authored by Senator Larry Taylor, who filed a permanent fix supported by ATPE during the regular session. However, he chose not to advance that bill during the regular session, instead altering the House’s school finance bill by adding his voucher proposal. In the special session, he maintains that more studying of school finance should be done prior to passing a fix to the system. ATPE submitted written testimony that said it is time for legislators to act on school finance. We also encouraged the legislature to include educators on any commission that passes.

When SB 16 was debated on the Senate floor Monday, legislators agreed with our request to add an educator and amended the bill to include an active or retired educator to the commission. The chamber passed the legislation unanimously and sent it to the House where more extensive work to fix school finance is underway.

SB 3: bathrooms

The Senate chamber spent the better part of yesterday debating SB 3 by Senator Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham). After hours of testimony in committee and hours of debate on the Senate floor only days later, the Senate advanced the proposal, 21-10, with all Republicans and one Democrat, Senator Eddie Lucio, Jr. (R-Brownsville), voting to advance the legislation. Speaker of the House Joe Straus has sided with business and school districts and made his feelings on the legislation fairly clear, saying he just doesn’t think it is needed legislation. The House offered a bathroom proposal limited to public schools that it was willing to advance during the regular session, but it did not receive the seal of approval from the Senate.

 

17_web_Spotlight_AdvocacyCentral_1It is important that members of the legislature hear from you on these issues deemed priorities by Governor Abbott. ATPE is encouraging all members to visit Advocacy Central to send a message to state legislators about these proposals as they continue to make their way through the process during the special session. Tell them to focus on meaningful pay and benefits for your profession and adequate school funding for your local schools. Let them know that vouchers and targeted prohibitions on payroll deductions for educators are distractions from the real issues faced by Texas public school children. You can also utilize the resource to thank your individual senators who voted with public education and educators!

Highlights of today’s SBEC meeting

SBECThe State Board for Education Certification (SBEC) is meeting today in Austin to take up an agenda involving a few actions items and several discussions. The topic of Districts of Innovation (DOIs) has also made several appearances at today’s meeting.

 

Action Items

The action items for today’s meeting included preliminary action on new passing standards for out-of-country certification candidates required to show evidence of English language proficiency via the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). A committee of stakeholders proposed minimum cut scores of 24 for the speaking portion of the exam, 25 on the reading, 25 on the listening, and 21 on the writing. The board also took a preliminary step to disallow out-of-country candidates to show English language proficiency solely based on the fact that they earned a degree from an institution of higher education that delivers instruction in English. The board also took final action on revisions to late renewal requirements for certificate holders. The new language clarifies processes for certification renewals that are submitted not more than six months after the renewal deadline and those submitted more than six months after the deadline.

 

Discussion Items

The discussion items before the board today included an update on work to redesign the principal and teacher surveys for the Accountability System for Educator Preparation Programs (ASEP); a presentation on the plan to implement the recent changes to rule chapters involving educator preparation programs and their candidates; and an initial discussion regarding future extensive changes to the Standard School Counselor Certificate requirements and standards, as well as additional changes to the Standard Educational Diagnostician Certificate.

The board also received an update on the SBEC directive to explore best pathways for training early childhood through grade 3 teachers. Texas Education Agency (TEA) staff updated the board on the decision by the 85th Texas Legislature to pass legislation mandating the creation of an Early Childhood through Grade 3 Certificate. Staff expanded the discussion to include an educator certification structure redesign to best accommodate new certificate and district needs. The board approved a Classroom Teacher Standards Advisory Committee, which includes ATPE members, to immediately begin work on addressing this charge.

 

Districts of Innovation

The topic of Districts of Innovation (DOI) also came up several times at today’s meeting. First, in relation to approving the rule review process for the SBEC chapter involving school personnel assignments, TEA staff presented data on district’s certification exemptions under DOI. To date, 416 Texas districts across the state have exempted themselves from certification requirements. Examples of district reasons for certification exemptions shared by TEA included the desire to hire trade professionals to teach CTE courses (an area where state law already grants considerable flexibility to districts); the flexibility to allow teachers to teach outside their field of certification; the intent to hire community college instructors and university professors; and the need to fill science, math and foreign language classrooms in rural areas of the state. The data presented also showed that 127 districts have exempted themselves from the requirement to notify parents of a student who is taught by an uncertified teacher, and 12 DOIs will not follow state law requiring districts to void the contract of a probationary educator who fails to complete all certification requirements in the three years the candidate is given to do so.

Later, TEA attorneys also explained to members of the board how it is possible for DOIs to hire educators who previously had their SBEC certificates revoked  – even permanently – because state law fails to prevent such conduct, despite specific provisions in place for charter schools given similar flexibility.

Did lawmakers make the grade on updating the accountability system?

skd282694sdcDid lawmakers make the grade on updating the accountability system? You be the judge.

House Bill (HB) 22 by Representative Dan Huberty (R-Kingwood) is likely the most broadly impactful piece of education legislation passed this session. It represents a compromise that was crafted by a conference committee of 10 legislators after the House and Senate passed differing versions of the accountability bill. Over the next two years, HB 22 will affect every district, campus, and charter school. Below are questions and answers about how ATPE perceives this latest iteration of the accountability system will work.

Does HB 22 maintain an A-F accountability system?

Yes, despite parents, educators, administrators, board members, students, and a host of other advocacy groups expressing their concerns about moving forward with an A-F accountability system, the Senate, largely at the direction of the Lt Governor, made it clear that no bill eliminating A-F would be allowed to pass.

When does the new bill go into effect?

Having been passed by more than two thirds of each chamber, HB 22 will go into effect as soon as the governor signs it. However, not all portions of the bill are immediately applicable. Most of HB 22’s provisions will first begin to be implemented during the 2017-18 school year, including assignment of district-level A-F ratings.  Campus-level A-F ratings will not be assigned until the 2018-19 school year. However, the commissioner of education will produce a report that will include non-official campus level ratings using 2017-18 data to be turned into the legislature by Jan. 1, 2019.

Is the HB 22 accountability system based on STAAR test scores?

At least in part, yes. To what degree depends largely on how the commissioner writes the administrative rules to implement the new law. HB 22 certainly allows the commissioner to develop a system that is highly dependent on STAAR test data, particularly at the elementary and middle school levels.

What will the new domains be under the state accountability system?

HB 22 calls for a system with three state-level domains, down from five.  The domains include the following:

Student Achievement This domain includes students’ absolute performance on the STAAR test. For high schools, it also includes the following other factors: TSI, AP, and IB tests; completion of dual credit courses; military enlistment; earning an industry certification; being accepted into certain post-secondary industry certification programs; successful completion of a college prep course under TEC 28.014; “successfully [meeting] standards on a composite of indicators that through research indicates the student ’s preparation to enroll and succeed, without remediation, in an entry-level general education course for a baccalaureate degree or associate degree;” graduation rates; successful completion of an OnRamps™ dual enrollment course; and award of an associate’s degree.
School Progress This domain includes student growth as measured by the percentage of students who met the standard for improvement on the STAAR test and an evaluation of performance as compared to similar districts or campuses. It is unclear whether the “performance” being compared is exclusively STAAR performance or if it will be broader.
Closing the Gaps This domain measures the differences for various categories of sub-populations such as racial, socioeconomic, special education, low mobility, and high mobility students. The bill does not specify which differentiated data is too be used for this purpose. Will it be only STAAR data, or will other data be used as well? The statute is also silent on how the sub-populations will be compared. For example, will gaps be compared to similar districts, or will they be compared within individual districts over time to determine if the gaps are closing, widening, or staying about the same?

Note: there is nothing in the statute as changed by HB 22 that would preclude the commissioner from creating a state-level accountability system that evaluates elementary and middle school campuses entirely on different manipulations of STAAR data.

What is a local accountability system?

Under HB 22, a district may create locally developed accountability domains and may use those domains in addition to the domains required by TEA to award district and campus accountability ratings, including overall ratings. Local domains must be assigned an A-F rating, must be valid and reliable, and must be capable of being audited by a third party. The commissioner of education will write administrative rules on the use of local accountability plans, and TEA will have authority to review and approve those plans.

Districts choosing to use a local accountability system are responsible for producing district and campus report cards locally.

How will the summative or overall grade be calculated under the new accountability system?

Each of the three state-level domains will receive a letter grade. At least 30 percent of the summative grade must be based on domain three (Closing the Gaps). The better of the two grades for domain one (Student Achievement) and domain two (School Performance, a/k/a student growth) will make up the remaining calculation for the summative grade, up to 70%. There is an exception, however, if a district or campus receives an F grade on either domain one or domain two; in that case, the highest grade it can receive for that part of the calculation is a B.

In case it’s not immediately clear, much will depend on the commissioner’s rules to implement HB 22. If the commissioner goes with a breakdown of 30% and 70% as contemplated above, the effect will be that a higher grade in domain three can never bring a district’s or campus’ summative grade up a letter; by contrast, a lower grade in domain three would always bring a district’s or campus’ summative grade down a letter. #AintMathFun

If that’s not already complex enough, here is where it gets really tricky. If one or more districts choose to develop one or more local domains to add to their accountability system, the commissioner can, but does not have to, write rules that would allow for up to half of the overall performance rating for that district or campus to be based on the ratings of the local domain(s). That is unless the campus or district would receive a D or an F on the overall performance rating using only the state level domains. The statute is not really clear what overall performance rating the district or campus would receive under that scenario.

How do A-F ratings relate to acceptable and unacceptable performance?

There are several laws in the Texas Education Code that continue to reference either “acceptable” or “unacceptable” performance as triggers for various actions to occur. As opposed to changing all of those references throughout state law, legislators simply benchmarked the new A-F labels to the existing terms.

When A-F was first rolled out, the cut point between acceptable and unacceptable was between grades C and D. In the current accountability system as it exists prior to HB 22, improvement required (IR) constitutes unacceptable performance. IR correlates to an F, not a D, under the A-F system. Because of this, setting unacceptable performance at a D under the new system would represent an expansion of what the state considers unacceptable performance. This would result in spreading state resources for turning around struggling schools among a larger group of campuses and districts, which would take the focus off those with the greatest need for intervention. HB 22 has resolved this issue by resetting the unacceptable cut point at the F rating.

The new A-F labels will coordinate with previous labels as follows:

Acceptable level of performance

A

Exemplary Met Standard
Acceptable level of performance

B

Recognized Met Standard
Acceptable level of performance

C

Acceptable Met Standard
Acceptable level of performance

D

Needs Improvement* Met Standard
Unacceptable level of performance

F

Unacceptable Improvement Required

* This is a new label created by HB 22 that does not correspond to an older system.

What is the difference between a D and F grade under HB 22?

Before HB 22, there was little to no differentiation between getting a D or an F in terms of consequences. Under HB 22, getting a D will no longer trigger the immediate accountability sanctions associated with an unacceptable level of performance. However, there are some requirements attached to this next to lowest ranking.

Year 1 of a D rating in either a single domain or overall The Commissioner shall instruct the district’s board of trustees to develop a local district or campus improvement plan.
Years 2 and beyond with a D rating overall The Commissioner shall implement interventions and sanctions that apply to an unacceptable campus until the district or campus is ranked C or higher on the overall rating.
Years 2 and beyond with better than a D rating overall but a D rating in a single domain The Commissioner shall instruct the district’s board of trustees to develop a local district or campus improvement plan.


How will stakeholders be involved under the new law?

Through multiple, sometimes broad grants of rulemaking authority, the Commissioner has been given a massive amount of latitude in structuring how the new accountability system under HB 22 will actually work. Thanks to amendment language requested by ATPE, this authority will be balanced at least to some degree by a statutory requirement to involve a stakeholder group in those decisions. HB 22 requires that the group must include  school board members, administrators and teachers employed by school districts, parents of students enrolled in school districts, and other interested stakeholders.

 

Additional changes made by HB 22:

Public education grants and mandatory access to transfers

A student at a campus that receives an unacceptable rating in both the student achievement and school progress domains must be allowed to transfer to another campus in the district and will be eligible for public education grant (PEG) funding.

Extra- and co-curricular indicator study

The commissioner shall study the feasibility of including an indicator that accounts for extracurricular and co-curricular student activity. By the year 2022, the commissioner shall either incorporate the indicator into the accountability system or present a feasibility report to the legislature.

Adopting indicators and setting cut scores

The commissioner may adopt indicators for the accountability system or standards (cut scores) at any point during the school year prior to evaluation of the district or campus. In setting the cut score for all indicators yearly, the commissioner shall consult with educators, parents, and business and industry representatives. The standards are to be modified in a way that promotes continuous improvement in student achievement and closing education gaps.

Reporting

Each school year, the commissioner shall provide each school district a document in a simple, accessible format that explains the accountability performance measures, methods, and procedures.

Thanks to language requested by ATPE, the commissioner, in consultation with stakeholders, must also develop language for each domain that clearly describes the district and campus performance on the indicators used to determine those assigned performance ratings.

Graduation committees advance in House hearing

The House Public Education Committee met Tuesday morning to consider a large agenda of Senate bills as the session winds down. The committee also approved the following bills Tuesday evening:

  • CSSB 463, which was heard earlier in the day. The bill would extend individual graduation committees (IGCs) through 2019.
  • SB 436, the Senate companion to HB 4226, which would require meetings of the Special Education Continuing Advisory Committee to be conducted in compliance with open meetings laws.
  • CSSB 529, the Senate companion to HB 2209, which would incorporate “universal design for learning” into the required training for all classroom teachers.
  • SB 585, the Senate companion to HB 545, which would require principals to allow “patriotic societies” such as Boy Scouts to speak to students about membership at the beginning of the school year.
  • SB 748, the Senate companion to HB 4027, which would add additional guidelines to the transition plan for special education students preparing to leave the public school system.
  • CSSB 1481, the Senate companion to HB 4140, which would rename the instructional materials allotment (IMA) the “instructional materials and technology allotment” and require districts to consider “open education resources” before purchasing instructional materials.
  • SB 1942, the Senate companion to HB 1692, which would allow a licensed handgun owner to store a firearm in a vehicle parked in the parking lot of a public school, open-enrollment charter school or private school. State Reps. Alma Allen (D-Houston) and Joe Deshotel (D-Beaumont) voted against the bill.
  • SB 2080, the Senate companion to HB 69, which would require each school district and open-enrollment charter school to include in the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) report the number of children with disabilities residing in a residential facility who are required to be tracked by the Residential Facility Monitoring (RFM) System and are receiving educational services from the district or school.

The meeting began with SB 1566 by state Sen. Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham), which would hand broad powers to local school boards to compel the testimony of district officials and obtain district documents. It would also require the Texas Education Agency (TEA) develop a website for boards to review campus and district academic achievement data.

House Public Education Committee meeting May 16, 2017.

House Public Education Committee meeting May 16, 2017.

SB 2131 by state Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas) would add requirements to counseling regarding postsecondary education, encouraging a focus on dual credit programs. ATPE supports this bill.

SB 1294 by state Sen. Dawn Buckingham (R-Lakeway) would prohibit “exclusive consultation,” ensuring that educators on campus-level advisory committees do not all belong to a single professional association. ATPE supports this bill.

SB 1660 by Sen. Taylor would allow districts to choose between using either minutes or days to calculate operation. According to the fiscal note, SB 1660 could cost the state $1.7 million through the biennium ending August 31, 2019.

SB 195 by state Sen. Sylvia Garcia (D-Houston) would allow additional transportation allotment funding to districts with children living within the two mile zone who are at a high risk of violence if they walk to school. In the fiscal note, the Legislative Budget Board indicated that there is insufficient data regarding the number of students who are at risk of violence to be able to calculate a fiscal impact. ATPE supports this bill.

SB 1854 by state Sen. Carlos Uresti (D-San Antonio) would require district-level committees to review paperwork requirements annually and recommend to the board of trustees instructional tasks that can be transferred to non-instructional staff. ATPE supports this bill.

SB 384 by state Sen. Konni Burton (R-Colleyville) would give the State Board of Education (SBOE) flexibility in scheduling end-of-course exams to avoid conflicts with AP/IB national tests.

SB 1883 by Sen. Campbell would modify the approval process for charter applicants and the review of charter operators. ATPE opposes the bill because the removal of elected officials from the charter school process is irresponsible. Adding unnecessary new appeal and review opportunities for charters only creates administrative bloat.

SB 1005 by state Sen. Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels) would allow the use of the SAT or the ACT as a secondary exit-level assessment instrument to allow certain public school students to receive a high school diploma. The fiscal note estimates an annual cost of $2 million per year.

SB 1839 by state Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) would create a certification for early childhood through grade three, and would grant the commissioner authority to set reciprocity rules regarding the ability of teachers from outside the state to obtain a certificate in Texas. ATPE believes that the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC), as the official state body charged with the oversight of educator standards, is the more appropriate authority to set these rules.

SB 2270 by Sen. Lucio would create a pilot program in ESC Region 1 to provide additional pre-K funding for low-income students.

SB 1784 by Sen. Taylor would encourage the use of “open-source instructional materials.”

SB 2188 by Sen. Taylor would specify that a student who is 18 or older in an off home campus instructional arrangement is a full-time student if they receive 20 hours of contact a week. Part-time would be defined as between 10 and 20 contact hours per week. According to the fiscal note, SB 2188 would cost roughly $7 million through the next biennium. ATPE supports this bill.

SB 463 by state Sen. Kel Seliger (R-Amarillo) would extend individual graduation committees (IGCs) to 2019 and order the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to compile a report tracking the progress of IGC graduates. ATPE supports this bill.

SB 2039 by state Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D-Laredo) would develop instructional modules and training for public schools on the prevention of sexual abuse and sex trafficking. ATPE supports this bill.

SB 1483 by Sen. Taylor would establish a grant program to implement a technology lending program to provide students with electronic instructional materials. The program would be funded through instructional materials fund. The fiscal note anticipates no additional cost, but indicated the commissioner could use up to $25 million of existing funds from the instructional materials fund each biennium.

SB 1398 by Sen. Lucio makes lots of clarifying and limiting changes to the classroom video camera law. Among them, the bill would require requests in writing and only require equipment in classrooms or settings in which the child is in regular attendance or to which the staff member is assigned.

SB 1122 by state Sen. Donald Huffines (R-Dallas) would create a mechanism to abolish Dallas County Schools, one of two remaining county school districts in the state, which primarily provides transportation services to multiple independent school districts in the Dallas area.

SB 1886 by state Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston) would create an office of the inspector general at TEA appointed by the commissioner to prevent and detect criminal activity in districts, charter schools, and education service centers (ESCs). The bill would allow the new TEA inspector general to issue subpoenas in order to secure evidence.

SB 490 by state Sen. Eddie Lucio, Jr. (D-Brownsville) would require a report on the number of school counselors at each campus. ATPE supports this bill.

SB 1484 by Sen. Taylor would create a web portal and instructional materials repository to assist schools in selecting open education resources. The bill provides for a third party to provide independent analysis regarding TEKS alignment. According to the fiscal note, SB 1484 would not require additional state funding, but would result in an additional cost of $1.85 million in fiscal year 2018 and $450,000 in subsequent years that would be paid from existing instructional materials funding.

SB 1658 by Sen. Taylor would make changes to laws regarding the ownership, sale, lease, and disposition of property and management of assets of an open-enrollment charter school.

SB 2078 by Sen. Taylor would require TEA develop a model multi-hazard emergency operations plan and create a cycle of review. The fiscal note anticipates a fiscal impact of roughly $215,000 per year.

SB 2144 by Sen. Taylor would create a commission to recommend improvements to the public school finance system. ATPE supports this bill.