Tag Archives: legislature

Senate school safety committee looks at mental health

The Select Committee on Violence in Schools and School Security met yesterday at the Capitol. The committee has previously discussed resources and programs to help schools prevent school violence and school infrastructure and design to address school security. This time, the committee turned its attention to mental health, and expert after expert shared that more resources are needed. The complete committee charge:

Examine the root cause of mass murder in schools including, but not limited to, risk factors such as mental health, substance use disorders, anger management, social isolation, the impact of high intensity media coverage — the so-called “glorification” of school shooters — to determine the effect on copy cat shootings, and the desensitization to violence resulting from video games, music, film, and social media. Recommend strategies to early identify and intercept high-risk students, as well as strategies to promote healthy school culture, including character education and community support initiatives.

It is no surprise that the need for resources was a regular theme in yesterday’s hearing. A 2013 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that up to 1 in 5 children in the United States experience a mental disorder in a given year. That means up to 20% of the children in our Texas classroom and schools are faced with a mental issue of some kind. Those can interfere with a students ability to learn, result in classroom disruptions, or even become a threat to school security. Testifiers relayed resources in various forms to address these issues.

Suggested resources included more counselors, psychologists, programs, and training, all of which cost money – money that many on the committee didn’t sound keen on spending. In a previous hearing, a retired principal spoke about the effect large class sizes have on a teachers ability to know her students individually. Addressing this challenge is another issue that would require funding. Read more about the hearing and the issue of funding in this piece from the Texas Tribune.

The committee has one remaining charge to study prior to issuing a report to Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick on its findings. The final charge asks the committee to consider whether Texas’s current protective order laws are sufficient or more should be done to aid the temporary removal of firearms from those posing an immediate danger. No hearing has been scheduled at this time.

ATPE state officers offer input on school safety

The ATPE state officers were in Austin yesterday to offer input on Governor Greg Abbott’s School and Firearm Safety Action Plan. ATPE State President Carl Garner, State Vice President Byron Hildebrand, State Secretary Tonja Gray, and State Treasurer Jimmy Lee were invited by the governor’s staff to participate in stakeholder meetings covering a range of topics pertaining to school safety.

ATPE state officers (from left) Tonja Gray, Jimmy Lee, Carl Garner, and Byron Hildebrand at the Texas Capitol.

The meetings consisted of stakeholders representing a number of different industries, organizations, and interests. All were asked to share their perspectives as practitioners and experts in their respective fields. The discussion covered a broad array of topics dealing with school safety, including law enforcement in schools, the school marshal program, emergency response plans, campus security programs, mental health, students who disrupt the classroom, social media tactics, and training for educators and students.

Carl Garner shares feedback on the governor’s school safety plan.

ATPE leaders shared feedback from their perspectives as educators in the classroom. For example, Garner provided context with regard to students who are removed from the traditional classroom due to disciplinary reasons. When his school noticed that many of their alternative education program students became repeat offenders, they instituted support and intervention services that helped such students assimilate back into the traditional classroom. These students can be drawn to the structure of smaller classrooms and more individualized support that differs from many large, and sometimes overcrowded, classrooms. The supports on his campus are aimed at stopping the cycle and addressing the needs of these students to prevent ongoing behavioral issues or threats.

ATPE will continue to follow school safety developments and report on relevant information. At the 2018 ATPE Summit last week, the importance of this issue was solidified. The ATPE House of Delegates passed a main motion that reiterated ATPE members’ desire to remain advocates for their students and informed voices on the important and timely topic of school safety. We are committed to supporting those efforts.

The Governor’s Office will hold one additional school safety meeting on Wednesday. This meeting will focus on aspects of the governor’s plan that pertain to gun safety, background checks, and gun ownership.

Guest Post: New youth suicide data should spur ISD and state action

Josette Saxton

By Josette Saxton, Director of Mental Health Policy, Texans Care for Children

Both before and after the horrific school shooting in Santa Fe, we’ve been glad to see state leaders and school district officials recognize that student mental health efforts must be included in their work on safe and supportive schools.

New CDC data on suicide attempts among Texas high school students underscore how urgent these efforts are, how widespread mental health challenges are in Texas schools, and that mental health strategies must reach all students on campus.

Nearly one of every eight Texas high school students attempted suicide last year.

Twelve percent of Texas high school students attempted suicide in 2017 according to disturbing new data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The 2017 Texas youth suicide rate was substantially higher than the national average of seven percent and higher than the previously reported Texas rate of 10 percent in 2013.

While kids from all backgrounds are at risk, the data show that certain youth have a particularly high risk. Among Texas high school students, 19 percent of black kids and a shocking 44 percent of gay or lesbian kids attempted suicide in 2017.

The report includes a number of other data points on teen health and behavior. It shows an increase in the already-high number of Texas high schoolers who reported feeling sad or hopeless: 34 percent in 2017 compared to 28 percent in 2013. It also shows that many Texas high school students — around 19 percent — reported that they were bullied on campus, similar to the number reported in 2013.

Schools are key to supporting kids’ mental health.

The pain and despair behind these numbers is heartbreaking, but it should also be a call to action. We all need to work harder to understand and address the causes of this crisis. We also need our policymakers to strength our children’s mental health policies, including policies to support students through our schools.

Schools play a critical role in addressing children’s mental health because they are so central to our kids’ lives. A growing number of Texas school districts have recognized the importance of addressing student mental health in order to prevent suicide, boost academic performance, improve behavior, and support children’s healthy development. State leaders also increasingly recognized the importance of addressing student mental health. Governor Abbott emphasized the importance of student mental health in the plan he recently released for safe and supportive schools, for example.

The new data is further evidence that significant mental health challenges are very common among Texas kids. Providing more students with access to mental health professionals is critical, but because these challenges are so common it is also important to go beyond only serving those students with the most visible and acute needs.

Schools – with state support – should offer mental health professionals and implement campus-wide strategies for all students.

We encourage more Texas school districts to implement school-wide practices that support all students’ mental well-being and help them develop skills for managing feelings of sadness, stress, anger, and conflict. If students are struggling with depression or anxiety, schools can provide or help connect students and their families to mental health services they need to be safe, healthy, and engaged in school. We are pleased to see that a number of school districts are already implementing these strategies.

The Legislature should help more school districts take action. Just as the Legislature established a Texas School Safety Center to help districts handle security issues, it should establish a center that focuses on positive school climates and school-based prevention and intervention strategies to reduce the likelihood that students will face barriers to their learning and health, like mental health concerns, substance use, challenging behavior, and violence. The Center would give districts and the state a trusted place to turn for training and technical assistance on practices shown to create safe and supportive school climates. The Legislature should also provide funding for mental health professionals, such as counselors and social workers, as Governor Abbott suggested.

We look forward to working with educators, district officials, legislators, parents, and other Texans on this critical issue.


Texans Care for Children is a statewide, non-profit, non-partisan, multi-issue children’s policy organization that seeks to drive policy change to improve the lives of Texas children today for a stronger Texas tomorrow.

To learn more, visit txchildren.org or follow @putkids1st on Twitter.

Senate committee talks school security programs

The Senate Select Committee on Violence in Schools and School Security met for the second day in a row Tuesday. While Monday’s hearing was dedicated to discussing school infrastructure and design that can help address school safety, Tuesday’s hearing centered around school security programs and resources. Invited testimony was primarily represented by law enforcement officers who discussed the following charge:

“Study school security options and resources, including, but not limited to, the school marshal program, school police officers, armed school personnel, the Texas School Safety Center, and other training programs to determine what improvements can be made to provide school districts and charter schools with more robust security options.”

In addition to representatives from various levels of law enforcement, invited testifiers included the director of the Texas School Safety Center, a superintendent, and a principal. All were there to highlight existing programs in Texas and offer other options. A considerable amount of time was spent on the School Marshal Program, which allows Texas school districts to appoint School Marshals on campuses who are authorized to carry firearms. On the School Marshal Program and other programs discussed, panelists emphasized strong training for participants.

One of the invited panelists, a retired principal from Friendswood ISD, also made a strong case for reducing class sizes in schools to address school safety. She highlighted what she has heard from educators in schools and what she knows from her own experience in the field: relationships are a key element of school safety and teachers cannot have meaningful one-on-one relationships with their students when there are 35 or more students in a classroom. She argued that reducing class sizes could improve the opportunity for teachers to really know and understand their students.

ATPE provided written testimony to the committee that highlighted relevant positions in our member-written-and-approved ATPE Legislative Program and pressed committee members to keep several things in mind as they continue these important discussions: (1) respect that the wishes of local school districts and their communities differ broadly based on local needs, (2) understand that adequate funding must accompany any proposals to address school safety, and (3) engage educators in the discussions as they continue.

Public testifiers included a number of Texas students and a big contingent of activists from the group Moms Demand Action, who were largely there to oppose the discussion around arming educators. The committee is not scheduled to meet again at this time, but future hearings are expected. Chairman Larry Taylor (R-Friendswood) said that the committee will host a meeting dedicated to mental health in July.

SBEC gives initial approval to weakened abbreviated educator preparation program

The State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) is meeting today in Austin. The board spent significant time this morning on a proposal to create an abbreviated path to the Trade and Industrial Workforce Training certificate. As the board received word of the heartbreaking news regarding a school shooting developing in Santa Fe ISD, members held a moment of silence and broke for a fifteen minute recess.

The abbreviated educator preparation and training program for candidates seeking the Trade and Industrial Workforce Training certificate was codified into law by HB 3349, a bill by Representative Gervin-Hawkins, during the 85th Legislature last year. The law requires SBEC to implement the new abbreviated pathway. The board has seen and discussed the proposal for its past two meetings, but the proposal the board saw today was a vastly different version based on input from the bill’s author and others out of the San Antonio area. ATPE and other educator groups were not a part of that stakeholder group that singularly drove the changes. Today, ATPE joined a chorus of stakeholders from the education community in opposing the changes.

Stressing the board’s recent focus on raising standards for teacher training in Texas, ATPE highlighted three major changes under the new proposal that are of concern:

  1. It expands the abbreviated program path to the Marketing and Health Science certificates. These are not included in the bill and were not discussed by legislators as desired abbreviated pathways.
  2. It reduces the number of training hours required before the candidate enters the classroom as the teacher-or-record from 180 to 110. While trade and industrial workforce career individuals bring valuable subject matter expertise to the classroom, they lack the training required to ensure they understand the science behind teaching that subject matter to a child. ATPE sees no reason these candidates should receive less pre-service training than other teacher candidates.
  3. It allows entities other than approved EPPs to provide the remaining 90 hours of training, which is again outside the bounds of the bill and, further, calls into question who is responsible for, approved for, and accountable to training educators.

Rep. Gervin-Hawkins was the only attendee present at the board meeting expressing support for the new trade and industrial workforce training proposal. All four teacher organizations and testimony from a classroom teacher shared the concerns expressed above by ATPE. Teacher board member Suzanne McCall was the only board member to oppose the new proposal. She highlighted testimony from the fourth grade Texas teacher who sees too many of her fellow teachers enter the classroom ill-prepared and watches them struggle. McCall stressed the importance of the foundational knowledge teachers receive before entering the classroom, and reminded the board that teacher pre-service training entails important exposure to things like how to teacher students with special needs. Her attempts to improve the proposal through amendments failed to receive any support from her fellow board members.

Many of the remaining board members seemed poised from the beginning to support the new proposal. Several members seemed unconcerned that these teacher candidates would receive less training than other teachers prior to entering the classroom as the sole teacher responsible for the students of a classroom. Superintendent member Dr. Susan Hull said these candidates don’t need more than 110 hours of training, which equates to roughly 3 weeks. Citizen member Leon Leal said we are disrespecting the career knowledge these candidates bring by expecting them to have the same amount of pre-service training as other teachers. There was interest from superintendent member Dr. Cavazos in removing the addition of the Marketing and Health Science certificates, but he ultimately only expressed concern and chose not to offer an amendment to remove them. Other members of the board advocated for the added certificates. The board’s action today granted only initial approval to the proposal.

The board also gave initial approval to proposals pertaining to the Educators’ Code of Ethics and educator discipline. At the board’s previous meeting in March, ATPE engaged with the board over a proposal to amend the Educators’ Code of Ethics. Texas Education Agency (TEA) staff at that time was looking to add several items that ATPE, other stakeholders, and board members felt didn’t belong because they weaken the Educators’ Code of Ethics and the high regard to which it should be held. Board members asked TEA to come back to them with more appropriate revisions. ATPE and other stakeholders worked with the staff to revise the text and was ultimately successful at moving a key piece of concern to the disciplinary chapter, where it is more appropriately housed.

The board will be back to consider the above items for final adoption at the August 3 meeting.

Runoff Spotlight – Get to know the candidates in House District 54

ATPE has been taking a closer look at some of the Texas primary election runoffs that will be decided on May 22, 2018. If you’ve been following this series of posts on our blog, you know that the outcome of the primary runoffs will have a major impact on the direction our Texas Legislature will take in the 2019 legislative session. Issues at stake will include such matters as how we fund our schools, what type of healthcare benefits we’ll provide teachers, how much our educators will be paid, what we should teach our students, and how we will measure the progress of students and schools. Today’s spotlight post is about the Republican primary runoff for House District (HD) 54. If you or your friends and family are eligible to vote in this runoff election, learn more about the candidates and their stances on public education issues. Click on a candidate’s name below to view his full profile on Teach the Vote.

The Candidates: Rep. Scott Cosper (R) vs. Brad Buckley (R)

Texas House District (HD) 54 spans a small section of central Texas that includes Harker Heights, Lampasas, Lometa, Salado, Kempner, and parts of Killeen. The district is currently represented by Rep. Scott Cosper (R-Killeen) who has held the seat since 2017.

Prior to representing the district, Cosper served as the Mayor of Killeen, and before that he served on the Killeen City Council. In his response to the 2018 ATPE Candidate Survey, Cosper stated that his top priorities for public education are to ensure the adequate and efficient funding of public schools and to address the funding challenges facing TRS-Care and TRS Active-Care so that those healthcare plans are affordable for current and retired educators. Rep. Cosper has been endorsed in the 2018 primary and runoff elections by the pro-public education group Texas Parent PAC.

Candidate Brad Buckley is a veterinarian who resides in Killeen. He declined to respond to the 2018 ATPE Candidate Survey.

For additional information on this race or the primary runoff elections in general, contact ATPE Government Relations at government@atpe.org.

From the Texas Tribune: Are charter schools private? In Texas courts, it depends why you’re asking.

Texas charter schools are sometimes private and sometimes governmental — a legal framework that has helped them avoid costly lawsuits.

by Emma Platoff, The Texas Tribune

May 7, 2018

istock.com

In 2006, in Dallas, a construction company sued a charter school, alleging that the school stiffed workers on a building contract to the tune of a couple hundred thousand dollars.

Eight years later, in Houston, a third grade teacher sued the charter school where she worked, alleging that it had falsified test scores, that it failed to properly provide for students with disabilities and that mold in her classroom had made her sick.

Their claims did not make it very far.

The teacher couldn’t sue the charter because, the Texas Supreme Court said, it’s not a government entity. The construction company couldn’t sue, the same court said years earlier, because it was.

Questions about the legal status of charter schools — which receive taxpayer money but are privately run, usually by nonprofit corporations — are broad, existential ones in Texas, where disputes over school funding are among the Legislature’s most contentious. But those categories take on intense practical significance in the courtroom, where the rules that govern private- and public-sector employers vary widely. In two significant Texas Supreme Court cases over the last decade, charter schools and their lawyers have sidestepped lawsuits over employment and contract issues by playing both sides of that fence. In some cases, charter schools can’t be sued because they’re government entities; in others, they’re immune because they’re private.

That difference is intentional. Charter schools were designed, as former Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett wrote in the construction company opinion, to “operate with greater flexibility than traditional public schools, in hopes of spurring innovation and improving student achievement.”

Because of that aim, charter schools are not subject to all the same laws as their traditional counterparts. That legal structure helps charter schools retain their “freedom and flexibility,” said Joseph Hoffer, who argued successfully for the charter school in the Houston case.

But some advocates point out that the rules for charter schools seem to target the wrong things.

The Whistleblower Act — which did not allow the teacher to sue — is perhaps the best example.

“How is it innovative to ensure that your employees are silenced if you are doing something inappropriate?” questioned Monty Exter, a lobbyist for the Association of Texas Professional Educators. “I would think that you would want to have those internal watchdogs looking out for kids.”

“When do the rules apply to you?”

There are a lot of unresolved legal issues surrounding charter schools, which are still relatively young educational institutions. Most of them center, as former State Board of Education Vice Chair Thomas Ratliff puts it, on the question, “Is a charter school a public school or a private entity?”

“It’s not that easy,” Ratliff said. “The answer, in a lot of cases, is both.”

In 2015, lawmakers said that for the purposes of the law, charter schools should be considered government entities when the lawmakers say so — and only then.

Some of those “when”s are common sense. Charter schools are subject to the Texas Public Information Act and the Open Meetings Act. Their teachers can be covered by the Teacher Retirement System of Texas. And they enjoy, for the most part, the same protections and immunities from lawsuits that traditional public school districts have, said David Anderson, who worked as the Texas Education Agency’s general counsel for two decades.

In other instances, charter schools are considered private; in many cases, they’re protected from suit. That’s a good thing, Hoffer said.

“Remember,” he said, “since they’re publicly funded, we want to protect the public funds from being attacked.”

But traditional public schools subject to whistleblower claims are also publicly funded. Employees who claim retaliation under the law can win monetary damages or even get their jobs back. That’s not the case with charter schools, and advocates say it’s unfair that those schools are given essentially all the protections of a school district while also enjoying some benefits of private employers.

“You have a charter school that can, in one breath, say, ‘Hey, we’re a public school, don’t sue us,’ and in the next say, ‘Hey, we’re not a public school, don’t sue us,’” said Lorna McMillion, who defended the would-be whistleblower in Houston. “If you’re a charter school who wants to get funding like a public school and wants to be treated like a public school, when do the rules apply to you and when do they not?”

The public-private dance has saved charter schools, in several cases, from lawsuits — like those filed by the third-grade teacher (the charter school’s lawyer dismissed her as a “serial litigator” — the TEA looked into a “testing security” complaint but determined it did not merit a full investigation) and by the construction company (the charter school’s lawyer in that case said the school followed its written contract). In the case of the few charter schools not run by nonprofit corporations, the legal waters are even murkier.

Lindsey Gordon, general counsel for the Texas Charter Schools Association, said the organization supports the Legislature’s current framework and protested that charter schools are not harder to sue than school districts. Every lawsuit, she argued, succeeds on its individual merits.

But would-be litigators have at least some options for suing a traditional public school that they can’t use to sue charter schools. McMillion said the Texas Supreme Court has made it impossible to sue charter schools using the most common legal avenues.

Meanwhile, charter schools have to follow some of the laws that many educators argue most directly impede schools’ ability to innovate. Charter schools are subject to the same test-based accountability system as school districts.

The legal exemptions, advocates said, seem not to foster creativity but rather to help the non-traditional schools avoid costly litigation.

“Charter schools are straddling the fence, on both sides, to make sure they have an advantageous legal position where it is harder to get them,” sad Evan Lange, a Dallas workers’ rights attorney who recently lost a case to an area charter school. “They take the benefits of being private and the benefits of being government. They’re choosing both.”

The Legislature has, in the past, added legal restrictions to charter schools when the need presented itself. In 2013, the Legislature brought nepotism laws for charter schools in line with those for other public schools. The change came after the Texas Education Agency investigated several potential abuses where charter school board members hired family members and paid them generous salaries.

The Whistleblower Act might very well go that way, said Thomas Fuller, a North Texas lawyer who works mostly with charter schools. While the law continues to develop on the relatively new species of school, there may be some “curious outcomes,” he said.

“It left a lot of us scratching our heads, too,” Fuller said. “I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see a number of those [bills] filed in the next session making charter schools subject to the Whistleblower’s Act.”

But in the meantime, advocates warn, the ruling could deter other charter school teachers from reporting abuse they see at work. Just this year, Michael Feinberg, the founder of one of the country’s most successful networks of charter schools, was dismissed following claims that he sexually abused a student in Houston in the 1990s. Cases like Feinberg’s make clear why it’s important for school personnel to feel safe bringing forward such allegations, advocates said.

And while the Legislature can go back and correct oversights that arise, it will be difficult for lawmakers to predict every possible legal fight that could ensnare a charter school — meaning more oversights are near-unavoidable.

“Not a good place to be an employee”

The peculiar legal status of charter schools has a particular impact on employees.

Teachers in traditional public schools enjoy a suite of protections that is not mandated for charter school teachers — including, for the most part, year-long contracts that grant teachers due process rights, Exter said. Texas charter school teachers don’t all have to be certified teachers, meaning they’re more easily replaced. They’re easier to fire in the middle of the year. And if they’re fired, they have even less recourse for challenging the decision.

And unlike teachers at private schools, charter school teachers don’t get the shield of the National Labor Relations Act, which contains some of the nation’s strongest protections against unfair labor practices. Texas charter schools — unlike other states’ equivalents — are not included in that protection because they are considered arms of the government. Texas is, so far, the only state whose charter school teachers are not protected by that act.

That’s thanks to a ruling that came down in March. The case made a difficult scenario worse for teachers in a state that’s already “not a good place to be an employee,” said Lange, the Dallas workers’ attorney.

Charter school supporters might argue that more freedom for the schools allows them to get rid of bad teachers and bring in better ones.

But in a sector of public education with far less oversight than traditional school districts, it’s easy to see how a teacher could find herself fired and out of options. A public school teacher who speaks out against a school practice she disagrees with — STAAR testing, say — is protected from government retaliation by the First Amendment.

But, Lange said, a charter school employee, who enjoys no such protection, could be fired more easily. Their schools, meanwhile, can in one breath claim the privileges of being public and in the next enjoy the freedom of the private sector.

“They literally want to have their cake and eat it too. That’s all charter schools do,” Lange said.

Disclosure: The Association of Texas Professional Educators has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2018/04/20/texas-teachers-employee-benefits-dead-last-retirement-funding/.

 

Texas Tribune mission statement

The Texas Tribune is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Runoff Spotlight – Get to know the candidates in House District 8

ATPE has been taking a closer look at some of the Texas primary election runoffs that will be decided on May 22, 2018. Many of these races will play an important role in determining how the 86th Legislature responds to challenges such as fixing our broken school finance system and determining teacher pay and benefits when it convenes for the 2019 legislative session. To help educators and other voters make informed decisions in these critical runoffs, we’re showcasing some of the candidates’ stances on public education issues. Today, we’re focusing on the Republican primary runoff for House District (HD) 8. Click on each candidate’s name below to view a full profile on Teach the Vote with even more information.

The Candidates: Cody Harris (R) vs. Thomas McNutt (R)

Texas House District (HD) 8 covers a swath of Northeast Texas spanning east to west from Palestine to Corsicana to Hillsboro. The district is currently being represented by Rep. Byron Cook (R-Corsicana) who announced late last year that he would not seek re-election.

Candidate Cody Harris resides in Palestine and owns a real estate business that specializes in ranch management and development. According to his response on the 2018 ATPE Candidate Survey, his top priorities for public education are reducing unfunded mandates on local ISDs, reforming education so that less standardized testing is required, and providing districts with more local control. Harris has been endorsed by the pro-public education group Texas Parent PAC.

Candidate Thomas McNutt lives in Corsicana and is the Vice President of the Collin Street Bakery. He also ran unsuccessfully for the same seat in 2016. McNutt declined to respond to both the 2018 and 2016 ATPE Candidate Surveys. McNutt was endorsed by the Texas Home School Coalition, which supports using public funds for private and home-schools, and by Texans for Fiscal Responsibility (Empower Texans), a group that supports budget cuts and limiting state spending on public education.

For additional information on this race or the primary runoff elections in general, contact ATPE Government Relations at government@atpe.org.

Runoff Spotlight – Get to know the candidates in House District 4

When it comes to public education, the Texas Legislature has incredible power to decide how our students are educated, how our schools are funded, and how our educators are treated. From per-pupil funding to student testing to teacher pay and benefits, these issues and more will be at the forefront of the 2019 legislative session, making the 2018 election cycle extremely critical. Most of the legislators who will make up the ranks of the 86th legislature next January were decided on March 6 when Texas held its primary elections, and the bulk of the rest are looking toward competitive races in November. For the residents of a few key districts, however, the decision on who will represent them next session will be made on May 22, 2018, which is the date of the primary runoff election.

ATPE is taking a closer look at some of the runoffs that will be decided in May, where the candidates squaring off against each other have identified public education as a key campaign issue. Today, we’re analyzing the Republican primary runoff for House District (HD) 4. To learn more about the candidates vying for this seat, click on the candidate’s name and you will be taken to that candidate’s full profile on Teach the Vote.

The Candidates: Keith Bell (R) vs Stuart Spitzer (R)

HD 4 covers all of Kaufman and most of Henderson counties. The incumbent Rep. Lance Gooden (R) is running for a U.S. congressional seat, creating an open seat.

Candidate Keith Bell is a business owner and rancher who has served on the Forney ISD school board for 20 years. Responding to the ATPE Candidate Survey, Bell has said enhancing school funding is his biggest priority, should he get elected. He has been endorsed by the pro-public education groups Texas Parent PAC and Texans for Public Education.

Candidate Stuart Spitzer represented HD 4 during the 84th legislative session before losing his seat to Gooden. While he did not respond to this year’s ATPE Candidate Survey, Dr. Spitzer stated in response to the 2014 ATPE candidate survey that he believes TRS is a part of the “nanny” state and called 401(k) style investment of teacher retirement dollars a “liberty issue,” adopting language  commonly used by  those who support dismantling the TRS defined benefit pension system. Spitzer has been endorsed by the Texas Home School Coalition, a pro-voucher organization, and by Empower Texans/Texans For Fiscal Responsibility, which supports limiting state spending on public education; eliminating educators’ right to use dues deduction; private school vouchers; and privatizing the management of existing public schools.

For additional information on this race or the primary runoff elections in general, contact ATPE Government Relations at government@atpe.org.

Teach the Vote’s Week in Review: April 27, 2018

Here’s your weekly wrap-up of education news from ATPE Governmental Relations:


This May, many Texans will be making not one, but two trips to the ballot box. ATPE wants to ensure that all educators are aware of the two important elections taking place next month.

Saturday, May 5th is the uniform election date when municipal propositions, elections, and issues will be decided. Meanwhile, Tuesday, May 22nd is when state level primary runoff elections will be held. While any registered voter can participate in the May 5th municipal election, participation in the primary runoffs depends on whether you previously voted in the March primaries and in which primary election you voted.

For more information about the candidates and your eligibility to vote in the upcoming primary runoffs, check out this new blog post by ATPE Lobbyist Monty Exter.

 


Texas has a new “Grow Your Own” grant program designed by the Texas Rural Schools Taskforce to address  challenges faced by rural school districts and foster a more robust and diverse teaching force. This week, TEA released the names of the 25 school districts that received the 2018-19 “Grow Your Own” grant. Read more about them in this blog post from ATPE Governmental Relations Specialist Bria Moore.

 


The Texas Education Agency has finalized its plan to address special education. Professional development for special education teachers; resources and outreach for parents of special needs children; funding at the district level for students previously denied access to special education services; and additional staffing and resources were the four final measures proposed by TEA in its efforts to redress issues plaguing special education in the state. While the proposed measures would cost the state $212 million over the next five years, TEA is unable to commit additional funds to support the plan leaving the burden to fund these measures on the shoulders of the 86th Legislature which is set to reconvene in 2019. ATPE Lobbyist Kate Kuhlmann explains more about the plan in this blog post.

 


Houston ISD has notified district teachers of its plan to begin staff layoffs. As reported by the Houston Chronicle this afternoon, district employees received correspondence informing then that an unspecified number of layoffs would begin shortly due to budget constraints in the district. The financial strain of Hurricane Harvey coupled with new recapture woes have resulted in a projected deficit of $115 million for the district. The HISD administration has said that the number of layoffs will depend on how many teachers leave the district through attrition at the end of this school year.

Today’s announcement comes on the heels of a highly contentious HISD board meeting earlier this week that was shut down when protests broke out over a planned vote to turn over management of some of the district’s struggling campuses to a charter school operator. That move is part of a plan authorized by new legislation that ATPE opposed in 2017. Schools otherwise facing closure have an option to partner with charter holders for a temporary pause in their progressive sanctions, and HISD has proposed this course of action for 10 of its campuses despite heavy opposition from the community. Waco ISD also took similar action this week, opting to partner with a charter operator to avoid the closure of five struggling campuses in that district.

Stay tuned to Teach the Vote for updates on this developing story.