Category Archives: House Public Education Committee

House Public Education Committee hears 21 bills, approves school finance plan in HB 3

House Committee on Public Education, March 19, 2019

On Tuesday, March 19, 2019, the House Committee on Public Education heard 21 bills on a variety of topics, including compensatory and accelerated education services, elections, and the state’s share of public education funding. Additionally, the committee voted out several bills, including Chairman Dan Huberty (R-Humble) and the Texas House’s plan for school finance, HB 3. Read our blog post on HB 3 here for more information on what’s in the bill.

The following bills were considered by the committee during yesterday’s hearing:

  • HB 462 (Geren et al., R-Fort Worth): This bill enables House Joint Resolution (HJR) 24, which was also on the agenda for Tuesday, and states that the legislature must set base funding and guaranteed funding for each fiscal year at an amount necessary to comply with a minimum state share of education funding at 50% or a greater amount. This bill would cost $10 billion over the next two years. The minimum state share of 50% would be set by HJR 24 (see below).
  • HJR 24 (Geren, R-Fort Worth): Proposes a constitutional amendment requiring the state to pay at least 50% of the cost of maintaining and operating the public school system and prohibits the comptroller from certifying legislation containing an appropriation for public education unless the requirement is met. Constitutional amendments, if passed, are voted on by Texans and require a two-thirds majority for final passage.
  • HB 548 (Canales, D-Edinburg): Would require that districts and charter schools use Texas’s Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) to report truancy information on the number of: children who fail to enroll, children who fail to attend without excuse for 10+ days within a six-month period in same school year, students for whom a district initiates a truancy prevention measure, and parents of students that schools have filed a truancy complaint.
  • HB 735 (VanDeaver et al., R-New Boston): Rep. VanDeaver explained that HB 735 allows districts to lower and raise their tax rate to a maximum that was previously approved by voters in the past 10 years without a tax ratification election (TRE). He stated that this helps districts provide tax relief without worrying about the cost of an election in the future should the district need to raise its tax rate. HB 735 also requires a Comptroller study of the bill.
  • HB 1160 (Johnson, J., D-Houston): Would allow the compensatory education allotment to be used for guidance, counseling, and/or social work services provided by a licensed social worker or licensed professional counselor.
  • HB 1182 (Goodwin et al., D-Austin): Would change personal financial literacy from an elective to a required course. The committee substitute changes the bill so that the number of credits required for graduation would remain the same.
  • HB 1199 (Miller, R-Sugarland): Would change the way the Texas Education Agency (TEA) monitors school district compliance with dyslexia screening and testing to be more stringent. TEA would develop rules to audit, monitor, conduct site visits of all school districts, identify compliance problems, and develop remedial strategies to address noncompliance.
  • HB 1388 (VanDeaver, R-New Boston): Would require, in the student achievement domain of the accountability system for high school campuses and their districts, a measure of students (rather than a percentage of students) who successfully complete a practicum or internship approved by the State Board of Education (SBOE) and students who successfully complete a coherent Career and Technical Education (CTE) sequence.
  • HB 1453 (Bernal, D-San Antonio): Would require that one of the four teachers on the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) has to be a teacher certified in special education with classroom experience. Requires SBEC to propose rules to establish a minimum requirement of field-based experience in which an educator certification candidate actively implements an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Updates staff development requirements to include training on IDEA and proactive and evidence-based inclusive instructional practices. Also allows for remote coaching for teachers in rural areas.
  • HB 1556 (VanDeaver, R-New Boston): Would make changes to law regarding the purchasing of goods and services to increase clarity for districts. Eliminates the phrase “in the aggregate” so that districts are not met with challenges in purchasing smaller chunks of goods.
  • HB 1597 (Lambert, R-Abilene): Would apply to a person whose parent or guardian is active-duty, allowing them to establish residency by providing a military order to the school district. Then, the family must provide proof of residency within ten days after their arrival date. The bill would also make charter schools subject to the same law.
  • HB 1632 (Bell, K. et al., R-Forney): For purposes of a school district’s provision of compensatory education, intensive, or accelerated services, the bill would add the following to the definition of “student at risk of dropping out of school:” student with dyslexia, educationally disadvantaged, has enrolled in 2+ public schools in the same school year for either the current or preceding school year, or has 10+ absences in a school year in the current or preceding school year.
  • HB 1639 (Martinez, D-Weslaco): States that, before December 21, 2024, boards of trustees can change the length of the terms of their trustees to either three- or four-year staggered terms.
  • HB 1664 (King, Ken, R-Canadian): Rep. King said that this bill cleans up some of the implementation issues with last session’s educator misconduct bill, SB 7. The bill states that a superintendent or director is not required to notify SBEC or file a report if they complete an investigation into educator misconduct before the educator’s termination and determine that the educator did not engage in the misconduct.
  • HB 1773 (Middleton, R-Wallisville): States that for districts that have their administration in a permanent building and students in a portable, the district has to put the administration in the portable and make classrooms in the former administration building.
  • HB 1823 (Cortez, D-San Antonio): Would change a the heading in law relating to the payment of school facilities allotments to more accurately reflect current practice.
  • HB 2116 (White et al., R-Hillister): For purposes of a district’s provision of compensatory education, intensive, or accelerated services, adds to the definition of “student at risk of dropping out of school:” student who has been incarcerated or has a parent who has been incarcerated.
  • HB 2210 (Bell, K. et al., R-Forney): Under this bill, students who receive residential services in a state hospital would not be considered in the accountability of the district or campus that the hospital is located in if their parent does not reside in the district.
  • HB 2424 (Ashby, R-Lufkin): Would require SBEC to propose rules to establish and issue micro-credentials for educators, which would be placed on their certificates. The agency would approve Continuing Professional Education (CPE) providers to offer micro-credential courses (which could include school districts).
  • HB 2778 (King, T., D-Uvalde): Would change the joint election agreement regarding election expenses so that it applies to a school district that has territory in at least four counties, each with a population of less than 55,000 (rather than 46,100).
  • HB 3134 (Middleton, R-Wallisville): Would allow a board of trustees to establish and operate a transportation system outside the county or district if students served by the county system or enrolled in the district reside outside the county or district.

The following bill was on the agenda but was not heard:

HB 1679 (Price, R-Amarillo): Would require the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) to provide limited student loan repayment assistance for eligible school counselors who apply and qualify.

The following bills were voted out favorably by the committee, which means they will now move on to the House Calendars Committee and face judgement on whether and when they may come before the entire House of Representatives for a vote: HB 3, HB 55, HB 391, HB 613, HB 663, HB 692, HB 808, HB 811, HB 960, HB 961, HB 1133, HB 1480, and HB 2074. Rep. VanDeaver’s HB 1051, which was heard last week and relates to the Goodwill Excel Center, was also voted out after VanDeaver and Rep. Alma Allen (D-Houston) came to an agreement that there would be a floor amendment to address her concerns about the bill.

House committee advances major school finance reform bill

Today the House Committee on Public Education voted to move forward a comprehensive school finance reform bill. Chairman Dan Huberty (R-Kingwood) offered a new committee substitute version of his House Bill (HB) 3 today, which the committee approved by a vote of 13 to zero.

The committee substitute for HB 3 reflects changes that were made in response to testimony on the original bill as filed. As we reported here on our blog, ATPE testified neutrally on HB 3 at last week’s committee hearing. We supported the bill’s provision of additional funding for public schools, tax relief, and other positive measures, but ATPE opposed language in the original bill that would have allowed school districts to exempt themselves from complying with the state’s minimum salary schedule and a controversial merit pay proposal. The substitute version of the bill approved today removes those portions of HB 3, which all four of the state’s major teacher groups and several individual educators opposed in testimony last week. ATPE greatly appreciates the willingness of Chairman Huberty and the House leadership to hear our concerns, and we are happy to support the new and improved version of this important bill as it moves forward.

HB 3 does not include an across-the-board educator pay raise in the same manner as the Senate’s well-publicized Senate Bill 3, but the House bill advanced today would raise the state’s minimum salary schedule by increasing the basic allotment from $5,140 up to $6,030. Additionally, with Chairman Huberty’s striking from HB 3 a controversial merit pay plan that was tied to a $140 million educator effectiveness allotment, school districts will be able instead to use those funds for incentives and pay raises to help staff quality teachers at high needs campuses, in rural schools, and in areas experience a critical teacher shortage. Other bills proposing an across-the-board pay raise for certain educators continue to be debated this session.

View the newest version of HB 3 here, along with the author’s summary of changes made to the bill. View ATPE’s press release on today’s committee vote approving HB 3 here. Stay tuned to Teach the Vote for updates on the progress of HB 3, which is expected to be sent to the House floor for its consideration within the next couple of weeks.

House Public Education Committee holds its fourth hearing on bills

On Wednesday, March 13, 2019, the House Public Education Committee held its fourth hearing on bills. With 15 bills on the agenda, the topics covered included school start and end dates in Districts of Innovation (DOI), seizure training requirements, the assignment of students to uncertified teachers, concussion oversight teams, special education due process, suspension of students who are homeless, and adult education programs.

ATPE Senior Lobbyist Monty Exter testifies before the House Public Education Committee on March 13, 2019

ATPE Senior Lobbyist Monty Exter testified in support of House Bill (HB) 1051 by Representative Gary VanDeaver (R-New Boston), which would improve and make permanent the Goodwill Excel Center, a public charter school that is currently a pilot program. Exter testified that while no program is perfect, this one is “as close as you can get” and has married Goodwill’s 501(c)(3) dollars with state dollars to do more for students. Exter stated that the program gives more money back to its students than the system takes in state funding. Goodwill covers about 41 percent of the cost of operating the school. Furthermore, the leaders of the program have taken the time to create exceedingly high standards. Under HB 1051, these standards would be locked into law should the program be expanded. In closing, Exter testified that this program serves a unique set a students who are current not served by the public education system, adult dropouts, many of whom are over the maximum age which an ISD can enroll students. The Goodwill program found a gap that sorely needed to be filled.

ATPE also supported, but did not testify on, the following bills heard on Wednesday:

  • HB 340 (Cortez, D-San Antonio): Would require students in full-day preK and K-3 to have at least 30 minutes of recess. Many registered in support of this bill, testifying on the importance of recess and play in child development.
  • HB 1276 (Rosenthal, D-Houston): Would prohibit a teacher who has less than one year of teaching experience and does not hold the appropriate certificate from being assigned to teach students in grades 1-6 for two consecutive years. This provision would exempt small districts by applying the restriction to districts with 5,000 or more students.

ATPE registered against HB 1133 by Rep. Jonathan Stickland (R-Bedford), which would change the calculation of K-4 class size limits to use a campus-wide average for each grade level rather than a hard cap applied to individual class rooms. ATPE supports state mandated class size and caseload limitations for all grade levels and instructional settings. This allows for optimal learning environments. ATPE also recommends that the state limit class size waivers and require full public disclosure of requests for class size waivers. Using the average calculation proposed by HB 1133 would mask the size of individual classes and allow for increases in some classes while maintaining a limited average. This opens the door to compromised educational quality and less individual attention for students in classes above the average. Rep. Stickland expressed that the bill was for Arlington ISD and said that he would be willing to bracket the bill to Arlington ISD. However, ATPE recommends maintaining current law on class size limits.

The committee also considered the following bills, on which ATPE took no position:

  • HB 233 (Krause, R-Fort Worth): Would prohibit DOIs from exempting themselves from school year start and end date requirements. Tourism and recreation industry representatives supported the bill, and expressed that the ability of districts to change their start and end dates negatively impacts their business, as well as the physical health of students. Those against the bill, mainly school districts, expressed that it is important for districts to retain local control over their calendar and that a shorter summer helps lessen the “summer slide” in student learning retention.
  • HB 684 (Clardy et al., R-Nacogdoches): Would require seizure recognition and related first aid online training for nurses and school district employees who have regular contact with students. Rep. Clardy calls this bill “Sam’s Law,” and said that nearly 50,000 public students have epilepsy.
  • HB 692 (White, D-Hillister): Would prohibit students who are homeless from being placed in out-of-school suspension (OSS). Rep. White suggested that the campus behavior coordinator, if available, may work with district’s homeless liaison to find an alternative. All testimony was in support of the bill and spoke to the importance of the school for students who are homeless in providing stability and quality of life.
  • HB 808 (Dutton, D-Houston): Would require that, in districts with 1,000 or more African American males, only the performance of African American male students may be considered for purposes of accountability ratings. The purpose is to track the educational progress of this specific demographic group. Chairman Dutton made changes to the bill and stated that the bill would now just require disaggregation of accountability measures by race/ethnicity and gender, to unmask certain sub-populations such as African American males.
  • HB 811 (White, D-Hillister): Would require that, in making disciplinary decisions (suspension, expulsion, Discipline Alternative Education Programs (DEAP), and Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Programs (JJAEP)), the school district board of trustees must also include in the student code of conduct that consideration will be given regarding a student’s status in the conservatorship of DFPS or as a student who is homeless. The testimony on HB 811 mirrored that of HB 692.
  • HB 880 (Calanni et al., D-Katy): This bill states that the board of trustees of a school district may not make a severance payment to a superintendent that is greater than one year’s salary under their terminated contract and eliminates text requiring that the commissioner of education reduce a district’s Foundation School Program (FSP) funding by the amount of the severance payment. This bill led to discussion about how some superintendent’s receive “big payouts” to leave districts, and that this takes away funds from students.
  • HB 960 (Howard, D-Austin): Would allow a school nurse to remove a student from certain activities if they suspect the student had a concussion. Rep. Howard and testifiers expressed that a nurse is highly qualified to make these determinations and that the bill does not change who can make the ultimate decision for a student to return to play.
  • HB 961 (Howard, D-Austin): Would require that school districts and charters that employ a school nurse include the nurse on the concussion oversight team, if requested by the nurse. Would also require that nurses on these teams take a concussion training course every two years to remain on the team. The testimony on this bill mirrored that for HB 960.
  • HB 1093 (Moody, D-El Paso): Would prohibit the Commissioner or TEA from adopting or enforcing a rule that establishes a shorter period than the maximum federal timeline for filing a due process complaint regarding special education and requesting an impartial due process hearing. Testimony was mixed on this bill, with parents and advocates supporting testifying that HB 1093 aligns state law with federal law and creates equity. Those against the bill felt that the current legal system works well enough.
  • HB 1132 (Ortega, D-El Paso): Would allow a school district that currently holds its trustee election on a date other than the November uniform date to change the date to the November date before December 31, 2024. Rep. Ortega specifically expressed that El Paso ISD faced this issue.
  • HB 2074 (Wu, D-Houston): Would prohibit districts from requiring a school counselor to assume a disciplinary role or have duties relating to student discipline that are inconsistent with their primary responsibilities. Testimony on this bill was positive, focusing on the idea that the counselor’s role is not to discipline students but rather to advocate for students.

At the end of the hearing, Chairman Huberty stated that the committee would meet again at 8:00 a.m. next Tuesday. The next hearing will likely begin with the committee substitute to House Bill 3, the school finance bill.

House Public Education Committee hears hours of testimony on school finance plan, HB 3

On Tuesday, March 12, 2019, the House Public Education Committee heard over 12 hours of testimony from 116 individuals on the House school finance plan, House Bill (HB) 3. Testifiers ranged from elementary school students to superintendents and teacher associations. There were 187 individuals registered, with 131 for the bill, 46 neutral (including ATPE), and 10 against. Public comment was largely positive, with concerns bubbling to the surface on the teacher merit-based-pay portion of the bill, increased inequity between property wealthy and property poor districts, and the integration of the current gifted and talented allotment into base funding.

Every testimonial began with gratitude for the many aspects of the bill that improve school funding. These include reimbursements for real costs associated with administration of SAT/ACT and certifications for career and technical education (CTE) students, a substantial increase to the basic allotment from $5,140/student to $6,030/student, new dual language and dyslexia weights, the extension of CTE funding to middle school students, increases to early childhood through the early reading allotment, and efforts to target funds to schools serving students in concentrated poverty.

The majority of testimony, including that from parents and children, focused on the bill’s proposal to roll the gifted and talented (G/T) allotment into the basic allotment instead. Currently, G/T students are funded at a 0.12 weight, but district enrollment is capped at 5%. Most, if not all, districts enroll the maximum of 5% of students. Therefore, districts receive the maximum funding for G/T students. By rolling G/T funding into the basic allotment, the base level of funding is raised and all districts still get the money and are still statutorily required to provide the G/T program. Testifiers advocating for G/T expressed concern that districts would no longer implement G/T programs to fidelity without the allotment, even with the ability under HB 3 for G/T funding to be 100% stripped should a district opt not to certify that it is providing a G/T program.

The concern with the merit-based teacher pay portion of the bill was mainly voiced by teacher groups such as ATPE, the Texas- American Federation of Teachers, the Texas State Teachers Association, and the Texas Classroom Teachers Association, along with a number of teachers who took time to come to Austin to personally express similar disapproval of the inclusion of merit pay in the bill. Testifiers stated that the bill gives the Commissioner of Education (who is un-elected) too much power, assumes that data exists to evaluate all teachers in every subject area, allows for very subjective and potentially biased student surveys to be used for evaluating and ranking teachers, and does not include factors for teachers’ years of experience. Several witnesses told the committee that teachers deserve an across-the-board pay raise before legislators discuss a state framework for differentiated pay, which is similar to but far more acceptable than traditional notions of merit pay. Another area of concern in HB 3, which ATPE noted in our testimony yesterday, is that the bill complicates state laws regarding the minimum salary schedule – creating a new, separate salary schedule for most teachers while keeping counselors, nurses, and librarians on the minimum salary schedule currently found in law – and would allow any school district to simply opt out of using the state’s minimum salary schedule.

The concern over linking teacher pay to student performance metrics, which most see as little more than paying for STAAR scores, is especially concerning amidst ongoing reporting that STAAR has been shown to be unreliable. This spurred discussion from Rep. Ken King (R-Canadian), who repeatedly argued that the bill does not mandate the use of the STAAR test for the teacher designations and merit-pay outlined in the bill. However, a reading of the bill clearly outlines the criteria for the tests that can be used, as well as the requirement for the commissioner to use comparative state data to create forced rankings of teachers.

ATPE Senior Lobbyist Monty Exter testifying before the House Public Education Committee on March 12, 2019

ATPE Senior Lobbyist Monty Exter testified neutrally on HB 3, echoing many of the same concerns and was able to tease out many of the push-backs from committee members. Exter expressed that although the bill has some very positive qualities in that it manages to provide at least some level of funding increase for almost all districts while also increasing funding for special populations, a nearly herculean task, aspects of HB 3 that promote merit pay tied to testing are not appropriate for stimulating educational improvement. Exter noted for the committee that ATPE members through the member written and adopted legislative program, “oppose the use of student performance, including test scores as the primary measure of a teacher’s effectiveness, as the determining factor for a teacher’s compensation or as the primary rationale for an adverse employment action.” As with other witnesses testifying on behalf of teachers yesterday, ATPE’s testimony included the fact that we are aware of no other common metric shared by districts across the state that the commissioner could use to rank teachers for purposes of the proposed merit pay program other than STAAR test results.

In the end, Exter implored the committee not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, noting that the few parts of the bill educators oppose, including merit pay, are not integral to the functioning of the larger bill; if those parts of the bill were removed, Exter tstified, Texas educators could very likely enthusiastically support HB 3. Watch Exter’s full exchange with the committee here beginning at the 5 hour and 24 minute mark. Exter’s testimony was preceded by ATPE member and former Texas Secondary Teacher of the Year Stephanie Stoebe. ATPE State Vice president Tonja Gray also testified later in the hearing. View ATPE’s written testimony on HB 3 here.

Other education stakeholders focused their testimony in yesterday’s hearing more on concerns surrounding financial equity. While we won’t get into the weeds about tax effort and the guaranteed yield of different tax rates (and thus, golden and copper pennies), the general sentiment expressed was that HB 3 would increase inequity between property wealthy and property poor districts over time. For much more detailed information on this issue, please see testimony provided by the Equity Center and the Center for Public Policy Priorities on HB 3.

In addition to the tax inequity aspect, small and midsize districts and their representatives argued against moving the small and midsize adjustment, which adjusts the basic allotment to a higher amount to account for diseconomies of scale, to an allotment under HB 3. In current law, the adjustment is applied to the basic allotment before additional  funding weights (compensatory education, bilingual education, special education) are applied for various types of students, adding more money. Under HB 3, the adjustment would be applied to the basic allotment just like any other student weight, which advocates argue would reduce overall funding for specific student populations.

Yesterday’s hearing was likely to be the only opportunity for public comment on this version of HB 3 in the House. Once HB 3 is brought up in the House Public Education Committee again, which we expect to happen next week, it will likely be in the form of a committee substitute (a changed version) and the committee is not required to take additional testimony before voting on the bill. Follow ATPE Lobbyists on Twitter @ATPE_AndreaC, @ATPE_MontyE, @ATPE_JenniferM, and @MarkWigginsTX to get up-to-date news on HB 3 as it moves through the legislative process.

House Public Education Committee hears bills and testimony on assessment

On Tuesday, March 6, 2019, the House Public Education Committee heard six bills related to testing and the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR).

The committee began by hearing seven panels of invited testimony from superintendents and other district leaders, teachers, Texas Education Agency (TEA) staff, and parents. Their comments generally centered around the reliability of STAAR testing in light of recent articles reporting that reading tests are written at a grade level above that of the students being tested (Texas Monthly, The New York Times, Washington Post, Houston Chronicle). Many issues arose during the rich discussion, including the misalignment between the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) curriculum standards and how the TEKS are tested; the misalignment of expectations between TEA and school districts; the negative impact of testing on students; and the flawed public narrative that inaccurate tests create.

The first panel was composed of superintendents from Alief ISD, Northside ISD, San Marcos ISD, and Granger ISD. The general sentiment among the panelists was that the state should have assessments with appropriately rigorous standards, but make sure they are valid, fair, meaningful, and timely. Additionally, witnesses testified that the tests should undergo rigorous review and field-testing. The danger lies in misalignment between the expectations of test and the expectations of standards, as well as misalignment with other assessments and what teachers know about tests. This results in the STAAR tests creating an inaccurate narrative and in students giving up on their passions.

The second panel included Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath, who stated that the STAAR tests were meant to predict post-secondary outcomes. Morath emphasized that National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) outcomes have remained flat or declined over the past decade, and he defended the reliability of the STAAR tests. He did admit that the Texas student population has increased significantly over time and grown progressively poorer. Appearing with Morath were three reading experts, one of whom was from the organization that developed lexile scores, Meta-Metrics. Dr. Sanford-Moore of Meta-Metrics explained that lexiles are based on a computer algorithm and measure language structure based on the number of ideas in a sentence and the vocabulary used.

Reps. Gary VanDeaver (R-New Boston), Morgan Meyer (R-Highland Park), and Mary Gonzalez (D- Clint) all made compelling points about the tests. VanDeaver stated, “These are children and not machines. What happens when we reach that level that goes beyond challenging and becomes frustrating and the child shuts down?” Similarly, Meyer shared a story of his fourth-grade daughter, who cried on the way to school the day of the STAAR test and came home defeated. Meyer said, “You call it challenge, I call it frustration.” Gonzalez reiterated her previous comment that it is imperative for the public purpose of the tests to be clear.

This led to a flurry of discussion, bouncing from issue to issue within the educational system, including the A-F accountability grading system; expectations for teachers and district leadership to understand the STAAR test; the use of tests for grade promotion and teacher evaluations; teacher and student stress; curriculum; professional development; and educator preparation. Overall, the range of topics that arose seemed to point to a disconnect between the agency’s expectation of teachers, districts, and students, and the practices and understandings of school districts.

At the four-hour mark of the hearing, the testimony of the third through seventh panels proceeded much more quickly. Another panel of superintendents from Comal ISD, Wylie ISD, and Frisco ISD testified that they used multiple interim assessments and instructional quality improvements to perform well on the STAAR. Additionally, Dr. Mike Waldrip of Frisco ISD said that the timing of the STAAR test at the end of the year wasn’t particularly useful for making preparations for the next year. A fourth panel composed of district leaders in literacy and learning expressed a key takeaway: that there is a disconnect between the reading level of instruction using the TEKS versus the reading level of assessment. The fifth panel, composed of teachers and an interventionist, was deemed the best panel of the day by Rep. Dr. Alma Allen (D-Houston), a long-time member of the committee who is also an educator. Notably affecting the committee members, one of the panelists announced that the time elapsed in the hearing was about the same amount of time students sit for a STAAR test. This panel also spoke to the needs of students and teachers in having the appropriate tools to provide relevant and effective instruction so that students can succeed on state tests. The sixth and seventh panels, which included other district leaders, parents, and stakeholders echoed much of the sentiments in of the previous panels, such as the negative impact of testing on students.

After nearly six hours of testimony from the invited panelists, who provided invaluable insights on the reliability, validity, and usefulness of testing to the state’s educational system, the committee turned its attention to hearing the bills posted on the agenda.

ATPE Lobbyist Andrea Chevalier testifies in the House Public Education Committee, March 5, 2019.

ATPE Lobbyist Andrea Chevalier testified neutrally on House Bill (HB) 671 by Rep. Ken King (R-Canadian). HB 671 would eliminate end-of-course (EOC) examinations and replace them with a school district’s choice of  either the TSI or a nationally recognized, norm-referenced assessment such as ACT or SAT, to be administered in grade 11. Under the bill, the commissioner would contract with a vendor to administer the assessment. HB 671 also mandates that each district require students to attend a preparation course to succeed on the test and defines college readiness. Chevalier expressed that while ATPE supports the reduction in mandated state tests, we want to ensure that any test used to replace the STAAR is both appropriate as an input into the state accountability system and provides the appropriate accommodations for students receiving special education services, students under a 504 plan, and English language learners.

ATPE registered positions in support of the following bills:

  • HB 525 (Tinderholt, R-Arlington): Would limit the required assessments to just mathematics, reading, and science (eliminating writing, social studies, English II, and US History tests)
  • HB 851 (Huberty, R- Kingwood): Would eliminate the September 1, 2019 expiration date of the law authorizing Individual Graduation Committees (IGCs)
  • HB 1480 (VanDeaver, R- New Boston): Would create an accelerated learning committee (ALC) for students who do not perform satisfactorily on third, fifth, or eighth grade reading or math assessments. Also would allow accelerated instruction to be provided to the student in the following year. The ALC would develop an educational plan for the student, provide assistance to student, and perform additional duties if the student doesn’t meet the standard for a second time after accelerated instruction. HB 1480 would also eliminate the requirement that assessments are used for promotion. The bill would eliminate social studies and US History assessments and require the commissioner to gather input from districts on an assessment schedule that minimizes disruption and maximizes instruction time.

Other bills heard in committee were:

  • HB 843 (Springer, R-Gainesville): Would allow for the inclusion of optional post-secondary readiness assessments in Algebra II and English III in the accountability system under the student achievement domain
  • HB 1244  (Ashby, R- Lufkin): Would eliminate the US History EOC and create an electronic civics test as a requirement for graduation, which would contain all questions on the U.S. Citizenship test in a multiple-choice format.

The House Public Education Committee plans to meet again next week. On Tuesday, March 12, the committee will to hear Chairman Huberty’s comprehensive school finance reform bill, HB 3, filed earlier this week. Chairman Huberty also said he expects HB 3 to reach the House floor by the first week of April. Over half the members of the Texas House have already signed on as co-authors for HB 3. The committee also expects to meet next Wednesday to hear other bills. Stay tuned to Teach the Vote and follow us on Twitter for updates.

House Public Education Committee hears 21 bills

Yesterday was round two of bills up for public hearing in the House Public Education Committee. Twenty-one bills were discussed, covering topics including the instructional materials allotment, social work and mental health services in schools, posthumous diplomas, community schools, and cardiac assessments.

ATPE Senior Lobbyist Monty Exter testifying in the House Public Education Committee on February 26, 2019

ATPE Senior Lobbyist Monty Exter testified in support of House Bill (HB) 199 by Vice Chairman Bernal, D-San Antonio. HB 199 would allow the instructional materials and technology allotment (TIMA) to be used for the salary and other expenses of an employee who is directly involved in student learning or in addressing the social and emotional health of students. Exter testified that there is already a prioritization of the TIMA in statute requiring it to be used for materials first and that it is important to allow districts to use any leftover funds for those who deliver the instruction associated with the materials: educators. Exter further explained that the bill allows for the most efficient use of dollars and the least waste.

ATPE registered positions in support for the following bills:

  • HB 92 (Rodriguez, D-Austin): Would allow a campus turnaround plan to permit a campus to operate as a community school and would require that no campus can be closed without being given the opportunity to operate as a community school for at least two years.
  • HB 129 (Bernal, D-San Antonio): Would require a school counselor or other non-faculty health professionals at campuses with 90% or more students who are educationally disadvantaged, homeless, and/or in foster care. These individuals may not administer state assessments and are to be funded by the state.
  • HB 198 (Thierry et al., D-Houston): Would allow school districts to provide mental health services as a part of their cooperative health care programs for students and families. Would also require school district health care advisory councils to include a licensed mental health service provider and allow for school-based health centers to provide mental health services and mental health education. Additionally, the statistics obtained from school-based health centers must include mental health through this bill.
  • HB 204 (Thierry et al., D-Houston): Would include instruction on mental health within the enrichment curriculum that districts must offer. Other enrichment curricula include physical education, career and technical education, and fine arts, among others.
  • HB 239 (Farrar et al., D-Houston): Would create a new section of law to clarify and define the role of social workers in school settings.
  • HB 314 (Howard et al., D-Austin): Would allow funds allocated under the compensatory education allotment to be used for child-care services, assistance with child-care expenses, or services provided through a life skills program for student parents and students who are pregnant.
  • HB 330 (VanDeaver et al., R-New Boston): Would allow districts to exclude from dropout and completion rates students who have suffered a condition, injury, or illness that requires substantial medical care and leaves the student unable to attend school.
  • HB 422 (Allen, D-Houston): Would require that school boards annually certify to TEA that they have established district- and campus-level decision-making committees.
  • HB 455 (Allen et al., D-Houston): Would require TEA to develop a model policy on recess that encourages age-appropriate outdoor physical activities.

The following bills were also heard in committee:

  • HB 76 (Huberty, R-Humble): The Chairman laid out a substitute for this bill, which gives parents the option to participate in the screening program, rather than requiring an echocardiogram (ECG) or electrocardiogram (EKG) for any student participating in a University Interscholastic League (UIL) activity that currently requires a physical examination. The bill offers that school districts could partner with a nonprofit to provide the service or could pay for the service themselves. Lengthy testimony was heard on this bill from private citizens and representatives from school sports departments and associations, who supported the bill with stories of students who had suffered heart conditions while playing sports. On the other hand, the American College of Cardiology said that ECG/EKGs are not scientifically proven in detecting every potential cardiac defect.
  • HB 391 (Blanco, D-El Paso): Would require a school district or charter school to provide instructional materials in printed book format if the student does not have reliable access to technology at home, at parental request. Parent requests must be documented and included in an annual TEA report to the legislature.
  • HB 396 (VanDeaver, R-New Boston): Would allow the TIMA to be used for inventory software or systems for storing and accessing instructional materials and also allow the TIMA to be used for freight, shipping, and insurance, regardless of whether it is intrastate.
  • HB 397 (VanDeaver, R-New Boston): Would allow the TIMA to be used for inventory software or systems for storing and accessing instructional materials. This bill does not include the intrastate freight change. Rep. VanDeaver said that this bill is a back-up to HB 396.
  • HB 403 (Thompson, S., D-Houston): Would require each school board trustee and superintendent to biennially complete a one-hour training on identifying and reporting potential victims of sexual abuse, human trafficking, and other maltreatment of children. Additionally, the bill requires at least 2.5 hours of continuing education requirements for a superintendent every five years on identifying and reporting these issues.
  • HB 613 (Springer, R- Muenster): Would allow for districts to hold elections outside of the requirement that these elections be jointly conducted with other elections.
  • HB 637 (Gonzalez, D- Clint): Would update the codes dictating the salaries of the superintendents of the Texas School for the Deaf and the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired so that they may only be set through the appropriations process.
  • HB 638 (Capriglione, R- Southlake): Would allow posthumous diplomas to be awarded to students regardless of whether they were in the 12th grade and on academic track to graduate.
  • HB 663 (King, K., R- Canadian): Would limit the proclamation of the State Board of Education (SBOE) to 75% of the total amount used to fund the TIMA and require a review of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) to ensure that they could be taught and mastered by students within one year. Rep. King said that this will allow districts 25% of the TIMA to spend as they see fit.
  • HB 674 (Patterson, R- Frisco): Would require that regional education service centers gather information from districts and report on which state mandates districts report are burdensome and expensive. The committee substitute for this bill eliminated reporting on federal mandates.
  • HB 678 (Guillen, D- Rio Grande City): Would allow American Sign Language to count for the graduation requirement of a language other than English.

Chairmain Huberty said that he intends to reveal a plan for his school finance bill later this week and that next week’s hearing will cover topics related to assessment. He also added that the testing companies will be in attendance at the hearing.

House Public Education Committee hears first bills of the 86th session

Today, the House Public Education Committee heard the first education bills of the session. The bills spanned topics including prekindergarten class sizes, educator preparation and training, assessment, and special education. ATPE supported several bills on the agenda, including these:

  • House Bill (HB) 55 (Gonzalez, D-Clint) Limit prekindergarten class-size and class size ratios to align with high-quality standards.
  • HB 108 (Gonzalez, D-Clint) Create a digital portfolio assessment pilot program.
  • HB 109 (Martinez, D-Weslaco) Allow charter schools to have a holiday on Memorial Day.
  • HB 111 (Gonzalez, D-Clint) Create educator training requirements on recognizing the abuse and maltreatment of students with severe cognitive disabilities.
  • HB 116 (Gonzalez, D-Clint) Improve educator preparation and training to better prepare teachers to serve students with disabilities.
  • HB 120 (Gonzalez, D-Clint) Add an extra year of delay to testing for recent immigrants who are learning English.
  • HB 165 (Bernal, D-San Antonio) Increase equity and the ability of special education students to receive high school endorsements.

ATPE Lobbyist Andrea Chevalier testifying before the House Public Education Committee, Feb. 19, 2019

In addition to the bills above, ATPE’s newest lobbyist, Andrea Chevalier, testified in support of HB 102 by Rep. Diego Bernal (D-San Antonio). The bill would improve and fund mentoring programs for teachers. As noted in our testimony, the ability of school districts to access additional funding to pay mentor teachers is a great way of providing differentiated pay that rewards the service and expertise of experienced teachers. Additionally, mentor programs have been shown to improve the effectiveness of beginning teachers, as well as teacher retention.

Other bills on the agenda today, for which ATPE did not take a position, included the following:

  • HB 65 (Johnson, E., D-Dallas)- Would require districts to report information on out-of-school suspensions.
  • HB 128 (Hinojosa, D-Austin)- Would require that districts send the results of student physical assessment to parents.
  • HB 134 (Swanson, R-Spring)- Limits bond elections so that only one project or category of projects can be included within each proposition.
  • HB 187 (Reynolds, D-Missouri City)- Alters the composition of the Fort Bend ISD School Board so that one member is at-large and the rest of the members are elected from single-member districts.

 

ATPE and others testify on school finance commission recommendations

This week, the House Public Education Committee received feedback from various stakeholders regarding recommendations of the Texas Commission on Public School Finance. Tuesday and Wednesday, committee members heard testimony from panels including three former House Public Education Committee chairs, superintendents, trustees, teachers, and representatives of education associations. Rural, suburban, and urban districts were represented, as well as charter and traditional public schools.

The overwhelming majority of testifiers expressed support for the commission’s recommended increase in the spectrum weight and the dual language weight. These would help create equity by funding certain student populations at higher levels. Most witnesses also commended the commission’s recommendation to fund early childhood education, but were concerned with its sustainability and with tying it to third-grade reading scores.

Among the concerns commonly expressed by stakeholders was outcomes-based funding. District leaders said they would like  local flexibility in implementing merit-based, outcomes-based, or performance-based funding mechanisms for their teachers. Apprehension with outcomes-based funding derived from mistrust or lack of confidence in the current assessment system’s ability to accurately capture student learning. In fact, an equal proportion of Tuesday’s discussions seemed to focus on assessment as on school finance. Some leaders expressed that tying funding to tests would reinforce teaching-to-the-test, and some stakeholders suggested that base teacher pay be addressed before additional incentive mechanisms.

Stakeholders representing small and midsize districts (up to 5,000 students) also expressed concern with the commission’s recommendation to move the small and midsize funding adjustment out of formula, which could alter funding to these special student populations, affecting the districts’ ability to meet federal obligations for financial maintenance of effort under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Overall, stakeholders also expressed concerns with any funding changes that were not part of the base formula, given that similar funding approaches in the past have been less reliable. An example cited was Pre-Kindergarten (Pre-K) funding under House Bill (HB) 4 of 2015, which created an optional grant program should districts decide to offer high-quality Pre-K. Another potential funding change discussed this week was the Cost of Education Index (CEI). While some testified that they were uncomfortable with the idea of the CEI being eliminated, Chairman Dan Huberty (R-Kingwood) reiterated his intent for definite removal of the CEI in any school finance overhaul this session.

While this week’s testimony nearly always touched on teacher compensation, an important aspect of teaching beyond pay arose in the conversations: mentoring. A few witnesses expressed that the best first-year investment is a mentor teacher and that having mentor teachers is another way to provide extra compensation. Special education is another topic that came up during the hours of testimony, even though it was not widely broached by the commission last year other than through a discussion of funding for dyslexia. In testimony, several special education advocates suggested revamping the way special education is funded, which is currently done by placement rather than services. Chairman Huberty was favorable to the ideas presented.

Monty Exter

ATPE Senior Lobbyist Monty Exter, was last to testify Wednesday evening. He shared that ATPE supports the commission’s recommended changes to the weights, local flexibility in spending weighted dollars, and increases to the basic allotment. He expressed concerns with outcomes-based funding and suggested an adequate base increase for teachers and others on the education team first. Exter also offered that inputs should be incentivized as well, in a similar way to how high-quality Pre-K was incentivized through the HB 4 grant program. Lastly, Exter testified that teacher quality is related to educator preparation, another topic that cannot be forgotten when discussing increasing teacher effectiveness.

House Public Education Committee dives in on school finance

The House Public Education Committee held its second and third meetings of the session this week, Feb. 5 and 6, both designed to get committee members up to speed on the school finance system ahead of beginning their work attempting to improve the system.

During the first of this week’s two meetings, the committee heard invited testimony from the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and the Legislative Budget Board (LBB). The topics covered included implementation reports on previous education bills, a school finance and legal overview, and an education budget overview.

Texas Commissioner of Education Mike Morath reported on a range of topics including the status of two bills that were passed in the 84th session back in 2015. House Bill (HB) 1842, in addition to creating districts of Innovation (DOIs), altered the school turnaround process and created the A-F accountability rating system. Senate Bill (SB) 313 was a bill that ended up being vetoed, but the State Board of Education (SBOE) still implemented its requirements of reviewing and narrowing the content and scope of each foundation curriculum subject.

Commissioner Morath testifying before the House Public Education Committee

The Commissioner also touched on the Dallas Independent School District’s “ACE” program and Achievement School District models as potential alternative options for school districts before they reach their fifth (and final) year of “improvement required” status under the accountability system.

Finally, Commissioner Morath addressed the school accountability system for the second time in as many hearings. This time, the discussion included the interplay between state and federal law and where it would be possible to trim our accountability and assessment system without running afoul of the feds.

TEA General Counsel Von Byer presented on Texas’s school finance court cases that have shaped our current system, most notably Edgewood and West-Orange Cove. The system of Recapture was created through these court cases. TEA Chief School Finance Officer Leo Lopez gave a high-level overview of the school finance system, including how some of the elements are outdated. For instance, the bilingual education funding weight hasn’t changed in 35 years, the special education weights haven’t changed since 1993, and the weight for low-income children hasn’t changed since 1989.

Yesterday, the House Public Education Committee met for the second of its two hearings this week to hear invited testimony from three members of the Texas Commission on Public School Finance.

Todd Williams, CEO of the Commit Partnership in Dallas, presented on the changing demographics in Texas and how the investment of public education funding will help to reach our education goals. Some of Williams’s suggestions are broadly supported, such as utilizing a more nuanced approach to differentiating degrees of poverty and focusing resources on campuses with high concentrations of harder to educate students. Other suggestions, like teacher evaluation and pay systems based heavily on student performance and outcomes-based funding, are significantly more controversial.

Dr. Keven Ellis, who is also an elected member of the SBOE, testified on the commission’s findings about expenditures. He shared that the commission was recommending a $100 million appropriation for dyslexia identification and support, $50 million for dual language, transportation funding based on mileage, and reallocating the cost of education index funding, among others.

Nicole Conley Johnson, Chief Finance Officer for the Austin Independent School District, presented the commission’s findings regarding revenue. She shared that the commission had several suggestions, including using the state’s Economic Stability (or “rainy day”) Fund, allowing districts to tap into sales tax revenue, and providing more flexibility on spending rules (e.g. allowing the bilingual allotment to be used for teacher salaries).

Next week, on Feb. 12 and 13, the House Public Education Committee will hold two additional meetings to hear invited testimony from stakeholders such as ATPE, school district leaders, and teachers. We look forward to contributing to the conversation.

House Public Education Committee kicks off its session work

House Committee on Public Education, 86th Texas Legislature

This week, the Texas House Public Education Committee met for the first time this session. State representatives serving on the committee this session are as follows:

Chairman Huberty, who is returning for his third session as chair of the committee, opened the first hearing by welcoming new and returning members and emphasizing the non-/bi-partisan nature of the committee’s work. He shared a story about the glass apple he keeps in front of him on the dais during each hearing. The apple was given to him by a supporter, friend, recently retired teacher, and long-time ATPE member, Gayle Sampley.

After the chairman’s opening remarks, the committee heard a series of presentations from various high-level staff at the Texas Education Agency (TEA) meant to update the committee on a range of education issues. Links to the individual presentations can be found below:

It is worth noting that during Franklin’s presentation on educator certification, the chair questioned whether the State Board of Education (SBOE) should continue to have oversight and veto authority over rulemaking by the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC). Under state law, the elected SBOE has the ability to review and reject rules that have been adopted by SBEC board, whose members are appointed by the governor. The SBOE cannot change SBEC rules, however, and any veto of an SBEC rule, which is extremely rare, essentially requires the certification board to start its rulemaking process over to correct perceived flaws in the rule. ATPE has supported and often relied on SBOE’s oversight of SBEC rules to help prevent the enactment of policies that would be detrimental to teachers or overall teacher quality,.

During the hearing, Chairman Huberty also laid out the committee’s schedule for the next two weeks. First, the committee will meet twice next week on Feb. 5 and 6 to hear from selected members of the Texas Commission on Public School Finance regarding the current condition of Texas’s school finance system and the commission’s recommendations for changes to tit. During the following week, on Feb. 11 and 12, the committee plans to hear invited testimony from a broad range of experts and stakeholders who have comments and concerns with the commission’s plan, or who may want to offer solutions of their own for the committee to consider as it begins its work moving forward a bill to overhaul the state’s school finance system.