Tag Archives: 86th legislature

ATPE continues advocacy for Master Teacher fix

While it is not uncommon for Texas teaching certificates to come and go as they keep up with the needs of an evolving education system, the legislature’s abrupt decision in 2019 to eliminate prestigious Master Teacher certificates caught many by surprise. To address this issue, ATPE’s lobbyists have been working diligently with state leaders and officials to ensure that the expertise and value of Master Teacher certificate holders is upheld.

Under House Bill (HB) 3 passed by the 86th Texas legislature in 2019, Master Teacher certificates can no longer be issued or renewed, effective September 1, 2019. The bill also repealed the authorizing statutes for those Master Teacher certificates, which were offered in Reading, Mathematics, Science, and Technology, essentially wiping them from existence. Master Teacher certificate holders will now find their certificates marked with a “legacy” notation, as designated by the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC).

This change has left many of our state’s nearly 5,000 Master Teachers perplexed as to the status of their certificates and their teaching assignment prospects. Once their Master Teacher certificate expires, will they be able to continue teaching in their current position? Take the popular Master Reading Teacher certificate as an example (82% of Master Teachers hold this certificate). First issued in 2001, this certificate was designed for those who wanted to go above and beyond – only obtainable by educators who had already been teaching on a standard certificate. Because the certificate is EC-12, in some cases it allows an educator to obtain a teaching assignment for which they wouldn’t otherwise be eligible if they held only their underlying standard certificate. Teachers in this situation who want to maintain their current assignments must either pay to take a test for earning an appropriate credential, request permission to remain in their assignment on an expired certificate, or find another job.

ATPE Lobbyist Andrea Chevalier testifies before SBEC, Dec. 6, 2019

ATPE has been working with SBEC, the Texas Education Agency (TEA), members of the legislature, and state leaders to remedy this issue for several months. ATPE Lobbyist Andrea Chevalier submitted written testimony at an SBEC meeting on October 4, 2019, written and oral testimony at the December 6, 2019 SBEC meeting, and written and oral testimony at the February 21, 2020 SBEC meeting. ATPE also submitted public comments on the rule review of Chapter 239, Student Services Certificates, which is where the original Master Teacher certificates were housed in the Texas Administrative Code.

These efforts have led to important developments, including a letter of intent being shared by House Public Education Committee chairman and HB 3 author Dan Huberty (R-Kingwood) and a decision to add a discussion item to the agenda for an upcoming SBEC meeting on May 1, 2020, aimed at finding solutions to the Master Teacher issue. (The May 1 SBEC meeting starts at 8:30 a.m. and will be broadcast here. ATPE will also provide updates on the meeting here on our Teach the Vote blog.)

In unexpectedly dramatic fashion, Chairman Huberty’s letter in response to ATPE’s advocacy was delivered into SBEC members’ hands as ATPE Lobbyist Andrea Chevalier was delivering her testimony on the Master Teachers issue during the February SBEC meeting. The letter stated that the intent of the elimination of the Master Teacher certificates was to avoid naming confusion with the newly created “master teacher” designations under the state’s new Teacher Incentive Allotment, also included in HB 3.

“Our intent was never to abandon the expertise of these highly trained educators,” Huberty wrote in the letter. “Holders of legacy master teacher certificates should be entitled to maintain their existing assignments without interruption, additional cost, or the need to seek additional certifications.”

Responding to the requests from ATPE and the letter from Chairman Huberty, SBEC members voted to create a separate agenda item for the May SBEC meeting to discuss options for Master Teacher certificate holders. ATPE has also sent a letter letter to Gov. Greg Abbott expressing our appreciation for his interest in the issue.

Master Teacher certificate holders underwent time-intensive, rigorous, and often costly educator preparation programs in order to receive this extra credential. Their roles are content-specific and include teacher mentoring duties as they support the other professionals on their campus. Master Teachers are also highly educated, with 67% having either a master’s or doctorate degree. In many cases, the Master Teacher certificates (especially the Master Reading Teacher certificate) are highly prized, and at least in the early days of the certificate, were accompanied by stipends. Furthermore, Master Reading Teachers’ focus on literacy is crucial to the reading success of the state and is directly related to many of the aims of HB 3.

As this issue progresses, ATPE will continue to work carefully to preserve the hard work and expertise of Master Teacher certificate holders and share updates here on our advocacy blog.

Primary Colors: Why March 3 Matters (Part II)

In 2020, being a primary election voter is critical. ATPE explains why in Part II of our “Primary Colors” blog feature.

After what many folks have hailed as one of the most productive legislative sessions for public education in recent memory, it may be easy for educators to think, “Great! We fixed it!” After all, legislators increased state spending on public education and ordered districts to use some of that money to increase educator compensation. All good things, right?

But a new fight is imminent.

In statistics, there is a phenomenon called “reversion to the mean.” In broad terms, it states that an extreme event in a sequence will generally be followed by a less extreme event. If we look in the context of the past several legislative sessions in which legislators attacked teachers and tried to defund public schools by passing school vouchers, then the 2019 session was an an extreme outlier. Statistically, we should expect that the 2021 legislative session will revert back to the mean — which until recently has often ranged from indifference to open hostility towards public education. That’s especially relevant regarding politicians who actively fought against public schools and educators before the 2019 session.

If you’re still skeptical, just look at the last couple of weeks. In last Tuesday’s State of the Union Address, President Donald Trump renewed the push to pass private school vouchers that would defund public schools. The federal voucher legislation the president promoted was filed by U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas. Consider that and the fact that the chairman of Trump’s reelection campaign in Texas is none other than Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), who also attempted to push a voucher bill through the Texas Legislature many times, as recently as 2017. Looking ahead to the next legislative session, the prospect of a renewed fight over vouchers in 2021 appears all but certain.

There’s also new evidence that legislators fully intend next session to attack educators’ right to use payroll deduction to voluntarily support associations that advocate for public schools at the Texas Capitol. This type of legislation, such as the bills pushed by lawmakers in 2017, threatens educators’ ability to have a voice in crafting public education policy in state as large as Texas. This fight will likely be compounded by a major push to restrict the ability of local communities — through their school districts, towns, counties, and first responders — to advocate for local issues at the Texas Capitol. Many capitol watchers point to these moves as part of a plot by certain special interests to ensure their own exclusive access to lawmakers by closing the doors of state government to the viewpoints of working people and communities.

And then there’s House Bill (HB) 3. The school finance bill passed last year added just enough money to the public education system to get the overall level of state funding close to where it was back before the legislature’s drastic budget cuts of 2011. Much more is needed in order to drag Texas out of the bottom of the barrel of U.S. states in terms of per-pupil spending. But before that happens, legislators have to make sure the funding they added through HB 3 in 2019 doesn’t go away. For all its merits, the school finance bill did not include a long-term funding source to ensure that HB 3 funding would be available into the future, and legislators in 2021 will have to decide whether to find permanent funding or cut back school spending, jeopardizing any increases to educator compensation in the process.

Speaking of compensation, did you see a raise in your paycheck this year? School districts were required to pass on some of that additional HB 3 funding to certain educators in the form of increased compensation. However, the rules guiding how that additional money was to be doled out were vague enough to result in educators in different districts experiencing very different results. Cleaning up compensation questions and other unanticipated complications from HB 3 will be an important part of the next legislature’s job.

The successes of the 2019 legislative session came only as a result of the resounding message educators sent by showing up to vote in record numbers in 2018. Because of our state’s extensive political gerrymandering, the majority of the races in 2018 were decided in the March primaries. That means educators who voted in the March 2018 primaries made a pro-public education legislative session possible in 2019.

The only way we will prevent the 2021 legislative session from reverting to the mean is if educators return to the polls this year in the same massive numbers as in 2018, and that begins with making sure everyone is a 2018 primary voter. There are plenty of resources out there to find out how and where to vote, including those provided by ATPE and our other partners in the nonpartisan Texas Educators Vote coalition. You can begin by researching candidates right here at TeachtheVote.org and then sharing the information you find with your friends and family. We made history in 2018, but we will lose all the progress we made if we take our foot off the gas in 2020. This is especially true in races where a single political party dominates the district, as ATPE Governmental Relations Director Jennifer Mitchell pointed out in Part I of this blog series for Teach the Vote.

It is more important than ever to be a Texas primary voter in 2020. Texas public school students depend on it!

Educator resources for Holocaust Remembrance Week and related legislation

Hamburg classroom in 1933

First grade pupils study in a classroom in a public school in Hamburg, Germany, June 1933. Jewish pupil Eva Rosenbaum (with the white collar) is seated in the center desk on the right. On Dec. 12, 1938, Eva left for England on the second Kindertransport. —US Holocaust Memorial Museum, courtesy of Eva Rosenbaum Abraham-Podietz. Photo sourced from the USHMM Website.

For those of us who are old enough, we may have heard stories from our grandparents or parents about the unimaginable death and sadness of the Holocaust. My grandfather was a Belgian paratrooper for the Allies and told us painful, often angry accounts of his time before and during service. I visited the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. a couple of summers ago. While I traversed the permanent exhibit, I came across photos and descriptions of teachers who had lost their lives due to their profession, which had become politicized, and due to their commitment to their students, often taking great risks to hide children. As a former teacher, this hit home particularly hard. While we mourn the victims of this tragic time in our past, it is important that our students know the significance of the Holocaust as we say, “Never again.”

This week in Washington, DC, the U.S. House passed H.R. 943, referred to as the “Never Again Education Act” to provide grants and resources for Holocaust education programs. The legislation by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-New York) has numerous bipartisan co-sponsors, including the following members of the Texas Congressional delegation: Reps. Colin Allred (D), Brian Babin (R), Joaquin Castro (D), Dan Crenshaw (R), Henry Cuellar (D), Lizzie Fletcher (D), Bill Flores (R), Sylvia Garcia (D), Vicente Gonzalez (D), Lance Gooden (R), Kay Granger (R), Will Hurd (R), Sheila Jackson Lee (D), Kenny Marchant (R), Michael McCaul (R), Pete Olson (R), Van Taylor (R), Marc Veasey (D), Filemon Vela, Jr. (D), Randy Weber (R), Roger Williams (R), and Ron Wright (R). ATPE members can follow this bill’s progress on Advocacy Central.

In 2019, the 86th Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 1828 by Sen. José Menéndez (D-San Antonio), which directs the Texas Holocaust and Genocide Commission (THGC) to provide materials for a statewide Holocaust Remembrance Week, beginning with this school year (2019-2020). Governor Greg Abbott (R) chose this week of Jan. 27-31, 2020, for Texas to observe Holocaust Remembrance Week, due to January 27th’s significance as International Holocaust Remembrance Day and the day that the most infamous concentration camp, Auschwitz, was liberated by Allied troops.

As also featured on the ATPE blog, the THGC has listed Holocaust Remembrance Week resources on its web page for this week and future Holocaust Remembrance Weeks. Additionally, Texas is home to several Holocaust Museums:

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website also has several resources specifically for teachers, students, and an online exhibition.

Exploring legislators’ 2019 voting records on education: Part II

As part of our officeholder profiles featured here on TeachtheVote.org, ATPE recently published a series of record votes taken by state legislators during the 2019 legislative session. In Part I of this two-part feature on our blog, we shared information about the education-related bills on which those votes were taken, explaining their significance during a legislative session that was heavily centered around school finance and public education. In Part II, we’re offering a closer look at how the record vote information was compiled by the ATPE lobby team and what insights may be gained from viewing the voting histories. Read more about our process, and then discover how your legislators voted on public education bills this year. Use our search page on Teach the Vote to view the profile of any legislator.

How are record votes useful, and what are their limitations?

There are several organizations that track record votes during a legislative session. Some groups issue scorecards or assign grades to legislators based on how well their votes aligned with that particular organization’s legislative agenda. Some entities use those scorecards to make decisions about campaign contributions or endorsements during an election cycle that follows the legislative session. ATPE does not calculate scores or assign grades to legislators. We focus our efforts more on collecting data that we believe can be useful to constituents in analyzing their lawmakers’ actions. Just as legislators’ responses to our ATPE Candidate Survey may help explain their views on public education issues to voters, the voting records also provide insight into how a lawmaker has approached public education bills in the past or may vote on similar issues in the future. All of that information can help voters who care about public education make informed decisions at the polls, but the data may also provide a starting point for year-round conversations between educators and their lawmakers, which are key to building collaborations and working together to meet the needs of public schools, students, and educators.

Senate Legislative Process (click to open a larger version)

ATPE’s lobbyists caution that recorded votes offer only one data point among many for examination of a lawmaker’s tenure and treatment of public education. There are a number of reasons why a lawmaker’s vote on a single bill may not tell the whole story. For one thing, recorded votes are relatively few. So much negotiation on bills takes place behind the scenes, with bill authors carefully gauging support for their proposals and typically ensuring that they have enough votes to pass a bill before it ever reaches the floor of the House or Senate. In many cases, by the time a bill hits the floor there is ample agreement for the measure to pass unanimously or by a simple voice vote. We do still include some unanimous votes on our Teach the Vote legislator profiles when the bills are major ones deemed to be of great interest to our readers. With so much work being done behind the scenes, it’s good to remember that legislators have additional opportunities to support and show leadership on public education issues by shepherding those bills through the process in ways that are rarely seen by the public and not recorded in any official manner.

House Legislative Process (click to open a larger version)

Another thing to bear in mind about record votes is that there are multiple floor votes taken on each bill that ultimately makes it to the governor’s desk. The state’s legislative process calls for bills to be read three times in each chamber, with the House and Senate both voting on the measures at the second and third reading stages. When the two chambers approve competing versions of the same bill, a conference committee is appointed to work out the differences and recommend a final negotiated version, which then must be voted on again by the House and Senate. Sometimes a conference committee is authorized to “go outside the bounds” of the bills passed by each chamber and may add new language, which then makes the final vote on approving the conference committee report (the final version of the bill) more significant. More commonly, however, there is near unanimous agreement on adopting the conference committee report for a bill, since it represents a compromise worked out between the two chambers.

Not every bill ends up in a conference committee, of course. When the House and Senate both approve a bill on third reading, and when the language passed by both chambers is identical, that sends the bill to the governor. Most votes featured in the voting records that you see on Teach the Vote are pulled from second and/or third reading results. The bulk of a bill’s floor debate happens on second reading, often making that vote the most significant one. Once past the second reading stage, bills are rarely amended or even debated substantively on third reading. There is frequently little to no difference between the votes cast on second reading and the votes cast on third reading. When the second and third reading votes on a bill are virtually identical, ATPE’s lobbyists often showcase the third reading vote on the legislator’s voting record since it is a more final vote by the House or Senate and the one that either sends the bill forward to the other chamber or on to the Governor’s desk. When there are noteworthy differences between what happens on the second and third readings, for instance when a bill gets amended between the two votes, ATPE notes this in our explanations of the vote.

For all of the votes we highlight on the Teach the Vote legislator profiles, we take our data from the House and Senate journals, which are considered the official records. ATPE provides links to the specific pages in the journals where the votes are documented, enabling our readers to see the backup documentation for our material along with additional information, such as transcripts of some floor debates when requested by legislators. Using the journals as our official resource for record votes enables us to share those additional insights about legislative intent.

Also in the journal are notations requested by legislators to be added to the record after the vote. For example, it is not uncommon for a legislator to be marked as absent during any given vote. This may be an excused absence, such as when a legislator misses an entire day of legislative activity on account of an urgent need back home, or merely a temporary absence from the chamber. Anyone who has visited the Capitol during a session knows that there is always a lot of activity taking place, and there are times during a long day or night when a lawmaker needs (or chooses) to step away from their desk, possibly missing a record vote. In those instances, the legislators may request a note in the journal to indicate how they would have voted on the bill had they been present. Another phenomenon that occurs regularly in the House, where votes are entered via buttons on the representative’s desk and recorded electronically, is the “machine malfunction.” The representative may request a notation in the journal to say that he or she intended to vote “yes” but was recorded as voting “no” or vice versa. These notes do not change the official voting record or outcome, but can lend insight as to the legislator’s intent. Whether the voting machine actually malfunctioned or the legislator’s mind was merely changed after seeing the final vote tally is a matter of interpretation. ATPE’s lobbyists believe these postscripts can be instructive to constituents or perhaps spark a dialogue with their representative, which is why we share this information along with the official record votes.

For all but the freshmen legislators, we have included historical voting records on Teach the Vote, which you’ll see below the most recent session’s votes. These go back as far as 2013, which was the first session in which ATPE published voting histories on Teach the Vote. Also, because there are a fair number of state senators who began their legislative careers as state representatives, we’ve made an effort to include their prior House voting records in addition to their record votes in the Senate. We believe these historical voting records, where available, can be helpful in examining an elected official’s position over time.

We hope you will take a look at how your legislators voted in the 2019 legislative session and use that information for dialogue during the legislative interim and for candidate research for the next election cycle. For additional information about ATPE’s voting records provided on Teach the Vote, contact the ATPE Governmental Relations department.

Exploring legislators’ 2019 voting records on education: Part I

Last week on TeachtheVote.org, ATPE published a series of voting records for all Texas state lawmakers, analyzing their actions taken on significant education-related legislation. This blog post is Part I of a two-part feature on the record votes. Here, we’re taking a closer look at how the ATPE lobby team analyzed and chose the record votes that are featured on the legislators’ profiles.

Which bills are featured in the 2019 legislative voting records on Teach the Vote, and why were they chosen?

Without question, the most significant bill debated and ultimately passed by the 86th Texas Legislature this year was House Bill (HB) 3 by Rep. Dan Huberty (R-Kingwood). This major school finance and public education reform bill, deemed the top priority of the session, resulted in $6.5 billion in increased funding for public education and $5 billion for property tax relief. ATPE’s lobbyists have written extensively about the omnibus bill here on our Teach the Vote blog, and the Texas Education Agency (TEA) has also dedicated a set of online resources to helping Texans understand the many components of the bill. With its high profile, HB 3 figures prominently in the 2019 record votes compiled by ATPE. We’ve selected both the House’s and Senate’s votes on HB 3 on “third reading” as the first record vote featured in this year’s list for Teach the Vote.

There are also a few votes on floor amendments to HB 3 that made our list this year. On the House side, we’ve provided representatives’ votes on House Floor Amendment #15 to HB 3, which dealt with charter school transparency and efficiency. The amendment by Rep. Ernest Bailes (R-Shepherd), which passed and was incorporated into the House’s version of HB 3 but later stripped out by the Senate, requires charter schools to undergo an audit of their fiscal management. The Bailes amendment would have required such an audit to be conducted before a charter could expand or open new campuses, and it also called for charter schools to share the results of those audits publicly on their websites.

For senators, we similarly tracked their votes on three amendments to HB 3:

  • Senate Floor Amendment #8 by Sen. Jose Menendez (D-San Antonio) attempted to remove from the Senate’s version of HB 3 a controversial merit pay program that ATPE and most of the education community opposed.
  • Senate Floor Amendment #30 by Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D-Laredo) also failed to pass but aimed to provide a guaranteed pay raise for all professional public school employees. While teacher pay was another high-profile issue debated throughout the 2019 legislative session, most discussions about pay raises at that point in the session had been limited to classroom teachers and librarians.
  • Also, Senate Floor Amendment #66 by Sen. Jose Menendez (D-San Antonio) was an unsuccessful attempt to add language to the Senate’s version of HB 3 to ensure that state standardized tests were written at the appropriate grade level. Testing was also a subject of great importance to the education community during the legislative session, particularly after studies found that certain test questions on the STAAR test had been written at reading levels well above the grade level being tested. Although the Menendez floor amendment did not get approved by the Senate, another bill passed during the 2019 legislative session (HB 3906) requires a study of STAAR readability, and results of that study should be released beginning in December.

HB 3 ultimately included some additional funding for increasing educator compensation, but it was not the only bill pertaining to teacher pay that lawmakers debated in 2019. Early in the session, the Senate rallied behind Senate Bill (SB) 3 by Sen. Jane Nelson (R-Flower Mound), which Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) pledged would be one of the first bills passed by the full Senate in 2019. Although SB 3 was later rejected in favor of the alternative compensation-related language in HB 3, we’ve included the Senate’s third reading vote on SB 3 in our list of record votes due to its early significance.

ATPE also supported a stand-alone bill in 2019 that was designed to fund and strengthen mentoring programs for teachers. The House’s third reading vote on HB 102 by Rep. Diego Bernal (D-San Antonio) made our list of record votes this year. HB 102 did not get heard in the Senate, but its language was later incorporated into HB 3.

Another piece of legislation related to educator quality produced one of the record votes published on Teach the Vote this year. The House voted to approve HB 1276 by Rep. Jon Rosenthal (D-Houston) on third reading. HB 1276 was designed to prevent elementary grade students from being assigned for two consecutive school years to teachers who had less than one year of teaching experience or teachers who were not certified in the subject being taught as part of the foundation curriculum. Exceptions would have been provided under HB 1276 for new transfer students and for students whose parent or guardian consents to the non-compliant placement. Also, the bill would not have applied to school districts serving fewer than 5,000 students, those exempted under the District of Innovation (DOI) law, or those districts that received a hardship waiver from the commissioner of education. Unfortunately, this ATPE-supported bill did not get heard in the Senate.

School safety was another high priority issue debated during the 2019 legislative session. The key piece of legislation on keeping schools safe was SB 11 by Sen. Larry Taylor (R-Friendswood), aimed at driving funding to implement school safety improvements and provide mental health resources. We’ve featured on our website the third reading vote taken on this bill in both the House and Senate chambers. Also on our list is the House’s treatment of House Floor Amendment #8 by Rep. Steve Allison (R-San Antonio) to SB 11, aimed at improving mental health support by requiring the state to identify regional resources that schools could use to address their students’ mental health needs. Legislators were considering a number of different measures pertaining to mental health resources in the context of the debate about school safety. Particularly in the House, some lawmakers were openly skeptical of efforts to link students with outside mental health professionals, worried about privacy concerns, and generally opposed to perceived government overreach. The controversy surrounding those issues had seemingly killed another high-priority bill aimed at addressing mental health earlier on the same evening that SB 11 was being debated. House leaders used Rep. Allison’s floor amendment as a vehicle for resurrecting the lost bill. Thus, Allison’s original amendment to SB 11 passed, was reconsidered, got amended to include language from the other mental health bill that had already been voted down, and then Floor Amendment #8 passed again. We provided data on both votes approving Floor Amendment #8 since there were some representatives who opted to change their position on the Allison amendment after it was expanded.

The Teacher Retirement System (TRS) also garnered attention during the 2019 session and was an ATPE legislative priority. Lawmakers approved Senate Bill 12 by Sen. Joan Huffman (R-Houston), which increased the contribution rates for the TRS pension fund. ATPE included the third reading votes on this bill taken by both the House and Senate among our record votes compilation. The legislature’s passage of SB 12 resulted in immediate actuarial solvency for the fund, which made it possible for TRS to issue a one-time 13th check to retirees in Sept. 2019. Read more about the TRS bill here.

Another ATPE legislative priority for 2019 was opposing vouchers and stopping the privatization of public schools in any form. Few voucher bills were considered this session, but the full Senate did take a vote on Sen. Taylor’s SB 1455, which we included on our list of record votes. The bill would have expanded full-time virtual schools and created a “virtual voucher.” Despite passing the Senate, SB 1455 did not make it out of a committee on the House side.

The House also took a record vote on HB 1133 by Rep. Jonathan Stickland (R-Bedford), which is included on our list. That bill produced one of the most dramatic debates but did not garner enough votes to pass the House. HB 1133 would have weakened the existing 22:1 cap on elementary school class sizes by moving to a campus-wide, grade-level average. Many ATPE members reached out to their legislators in opposition to this bill, which would have allowed class sizes in the lower grades to dramatically expand.

Finally, there are a few record votes on our list this year that pertain to efforts to restrict legislative advocacy by school districts or dissuade educators from being politically active. One such bill was SB 1569 by Sen. Pat Fallon (R-Prosper), which the Senate voted to approve on third reading but the House left pending in committee. ATPE staunchly opposed SB 1569, which would have restricted educators’ First Amendment rights to engage in political speech, limited their ability to teach students about elections, and unreasonably subjected educators to criminal penalties. Another troubling bill was SB 29 by Sen. Bob Hall (R-Edgewood), which tried to prohibit school districts and other local governmental entities from funding legislative advocacy efforts or paying membership dues to organizations that engage in legislative advocacy. SB 29 made our record votes list in two places. First, the Senate voted to approve the bill on third reading. Later, the House voted the bill down. Interestingly, the vote to defeat SB 29 on the House floor became even more significant after the legislative session ended, when certain Republican lawmakers who opposed the bill were seemingly targeted for retribution by their own party leadership in a taped discussion between House Speaker Dennis Bonnen and the head of the controversial dark money group, Empower Texans. The scandal resulted in Bonnen’s announcing that he would not seek re-election, opening the door for election of a new speaker when the 2021 legislative session convenes.

In any legislative session, there are limited votes taken on the record, offering relatively few options for us to showcase how individual legislators voted on education-related bills. However, we believe the votes listed above offer an informative glimpse into the treatment of public education by the 86th Texas Legislature, and we invite you to check out how your legislators voted by looking them up on our search page here on Teach the Vote. Stay tuned to Teach the Vote for Part II of this blog feature where the ATPE lobbyists will explain more about the usefulness and limitations of record votes in general.

Recap of the October 2019 SBEC meeting

Certification board discusses repeal of master teacher certificates, educator misconduct, and more at its October 2019 meeting.

On Friday, Oct. 4, 2019, the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) met to discuss several agenda items, including the repeal of Master Teacher certificates, implementation of recent educator misconduct legislation, and an update on the EdTPA pilot program.

The meeting began with recognition of the unfortunate passing of board member Dr. Rex Peebles on Sept. 23, 2019. Dr. Peebles was a long-time, trusted voice of expertise and reason in the P-20 public education system. He will be greatly missed and ATPE sends their thoughts and love to the family, friends, and colleagues of Dr. Peebles.

At Friday’s meeting, ATPE weighed in on two discussion and action items: the repeal of the Master Teacher certificate and proposed rule revisions that would expand the criteria for considering “good cause” as a mitigating factor in disciplinary cases stemming from an educator’s abandonment of their contract.

First, SBEC adopted language to implement the repeal of the Master Teacher certificates, as required by this year’s House Bill (HB) 3. Master Teacher certificate holders will be able to continue teaching under their certificate until it is no longer valid and will be considered “Legacy Master Teachers” pursuant to HB 3. ATPE submitted written testimony on this item, urging Texas Education Agency (TEA) staff and SBEC members to use their rule-making ability to ensure that affected teachers can maintain their current teaching assignments after the expiration of their Master Teacher certificates. We believe that the rigor of the Master Teacher certification process should not be ignored and are pleased that TEA has indicated they will explore options to amend rule language to alleviate the unintended consequences of this legislation.

ATPE Lobbyist Andrea Chevalier testifying before SBEC, Oct. 4, 2019

Additionally, ATPE Lobbyist Andrea Chevalier provided oral testimony in support of the board’s efforts to expand the criteria for good cause when addressing contract abandonment cases. At the board’s July 2019 work-group meeting, members discussed the need for increased flexibility in determining what constitutes good cause. This would allow the board to avoid or lessen sanctions for educators who found it necessary to abandon their contracts under unique and acceptable circumstances that are not currently covered by the existing SBEC rules. To make these changes, new language was proposed at Friday’s meeting as part of a larger agenda item that implements several educator misconduct and reporting bills from the 86th legislative session. (The 2019 bills related to this agenda item are Senate Bill (SB) 1230, SB 1476, SB 37, and HB 3.) Due to testimony on the item, the board voted to split off the contract abandonment language from the rule proposal that was before them this month in order to allow for discussion on the issue at a later time. The board expressed that they would like to try to get more certainty into the rule language and requested another work-group on broader disciplinary issues. The proposed language for this rule will be open for public comment in the Texas Register from Oct. 25 to Nov. 25, 2019.

Discussion and action items:

In order to implement three bills from the 85th legislative session (SB 1839, HB 2039, and HB 3349), the board added language for admission requirements for the Early Childhood-Grade 3 and Trade and Industrial Workforce Training: Grades 6-12 certificates. The board also amended the rule language to allow for subject-matter-only assessments to be used in lieu of current Pre-Admission Content Tests (PACTs), which test both content and pedagogy. The rationale for this change was that an individual entering an educator preparation program (EPP) would not have pedagogical expertise and therefore should not be assessed in that area.

To implement SB 1200 passed by the 86th Legislature, the board adopted revisions to their rule that would allow military spouses who are licensed in other states (and in good standing) to teach in Texas.

SBEC also took action on several items relating to EPPs. Language to improve the Accountability System for Educator Preparation Programs (ASEP) was approved, including changes that would allow EPPs to be commended for their performance. The board also adopted the new accountability manual into rule and voted to allow SBEC to require action plans for low-performing EPPs, among other items. SBEC board members also approved several EPPs to continue operating for five years. As a consequence of ASEP ratings, one program was closed on Friday. After a five-year review, the Texas Alternative Certification Program Brownsville (TACPB) was required to submit a compliance plan to TEA. The program opted to cease its operations instead, and SBEC voted to formally close The board also voted to approve Ana G. Mendez University as a new alternative certification EPP. The program will be unique in Texas, as it plans to instruct students on become educators using a dual language model.

As noted during Friday’s meeting, the board will soon begin its required four-year rule review for two sets of SBEC rules. The first review is for 19 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 232, General Certification Provisions, which regulates certificate renewal, continuing professional development, and national criminal history record information. The second review is for 19 TAC Chapter 230, Professional Educator Preparation and Certification, which deals with procedures for issuance of certificates and permits, testing requirements and fees, and the types and classes of certificates issued by the board. Both of these chapters will be open for public comment in the Texas Register from Oct. 25 to Nov. 25, 2019.

Mark your calendars! The board also approved its meeting dates for 2020:

  • Feb. 21, 2020
  • May 1, 2020
  • July 24, 2020
  • Oct. 9, 2020
  • Dec. 11, 2020

Discussion-only items (no rule action required at this time):

The board discussed several possible future revisions to SBEC rules for professional educator preparation and certification found in 19 TAC Chapter 230. One of these changes would allow the Educational Aide I certificate to be issued as an industry-based certification. Graduating high school students who take education and training courses would be able to get the Educational Aide I certification and begin a career in education, helping to improve the teacher pipeline. Another change would reduce the number of days for computer and paper-based certification examination retakes from 45 down to 30 days. In order to comply with SB 1839 and HB 2039 passed in 2017 by the 85th Legislature, future rule revisions are expected to include prohibiting educators from gaining certification for Early Childhood: Prekindergarten-Grade 3 through the certification by exam (CBE) route. Stakeholders from the deaf and hard-of-hearing community testified at Friday’s meeting to request that the board also include the Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing EC-12 certification on the list of exams excluded from CBE. To implement HB 3, 86th Legislature, this chapter of SBEC rules will also include revisions mandating that educators who teach any grade from pre-K to 6th grade be required to pass the Science of Teaching Reading certification exam beginning Jan. 1, 2021.

Also up for discussion only was 19 TAC Chapter 228, which pertains to requirements for EPPs. The revisions being contemplated would implement this year’s HB 18, allowing educator certification candidates to obtain instruction in mental health, substance abuse, and youth suicide as part of their educational degree plan. The revisions would also prohibit an EPP that is consolidating or closing from admitting candidates if those candidates would not be able to finish the program. Additionally, new rules would require that candidates complete their internship, clinical teaching, or practicum within one program. The rule changes discussed would prohibit practicums from occurring exclusively in the summer. Revisions in this chapter would also allow for candidate placement into a program for cases in which educators must complete their clinical teaching or practicum out-of-state or out-of-country due to particular reasons (military assignment, illness, spouse transfer, etc.).

TEA staff also presented the board with data and information on formal complaints against EPPs and on deactivations of certificates being pursued through alternative and post-baccalaureate certification routes. Formal complaints that involve violations of the SBEC administrative rules require TEA staff to make sanction recommendations to the board. Certification deactivations are similar to contract abandonment cases in that they occur when an educator on an intern or probationary certificate leaves their teaching assignment before it has concluded. There are no educator or EPP sanctions for such deactivations. The board asked for more data regarding deactivations and will take this item up again at its next meeting.

TEA staff gave an update on the progress of the EdTPA pilot. EdTPA is a performance assessment that has been proposed as a replacement for the PPR exam, should the pilot program provide adequate evidence that EdTPA is a viable option. As of Sept. 1, 2019, the 27 programs participating in the pilot have completed 42 trainings, with 27 more scheduled. TEA staff indicated that most pilot programs will have their candidates submit their EdTPA portfolios in the spring of 2020. As for updated demographic data, the pilot participants are represented in 17 out of the 20 education service center regions in Texas. The actual number of participants is lower than what was originally projected (1700-1750) with about 600 reported candidates and an anticipated additional 250 candidates expected to join in the spring. TEA staff reported that there is “room to improve” with regard to African American representation among candidates. In an attempt to gain a more diverse candidate pool, TEA will open the application for Year 2 pilot participants this month. Board member Tommy Coleman requested that the board discuss at its next meeting how the EdTPA pilot and parallel T-TESS pilot (being run by university faculty) can use the same data points and collection methods.

The next SBEC meeting will be held on Dec. 9, 2019. Check back on our Teach the Vote blog after the December meeting for a summary.

New School Year, New Laws: Professional Responsibilities

In last week’s “New School Year, New Laws” blog post, we discussed new professional opportunities and educator support programs like mentoring that resulted from the 86th legislative session. For the latest installment in our ongoing series for ATPE, we will talk this week about other legislative changes made this year that will impact the ethical and professional responsibilities of those who work in Texas public schools.

House Bill (HB) 3 by Rep. Dan Huberty (R-Kingwood): Do not hire registry

School superintendents and principals have long had certain obligations to report to the state certain allegations of misconduct against certified educators who work in their schools. The State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) is authorized to issue sanctions, up to and including revocation of an educator’s certificate, against individuals who hold educator certificates and are found to have committed misconduct. Similarly, SBEC may refuse to grant a certificate to an individual who does not meet state standards. However, SBEC has not had the authority or logistical means to take punitive actions against non-certified school employees in an attempt to deter similar misconduct by those individuals.

Under HB 3, school districts will now be required to report to the state misconduct allegations that arise against their non-certified employees, too. This includes allegations regarding abuse of, unlawful acts with, involvement in a romantic relationship with, or solicitation/engagement in sexual contact with a student or minor. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) now has the authority under HB 3 to investigate such reports against non-certified employees, since there previously was no body to look into cases involving these individuals who are not regulated by SBEC.

HB 3 also requires that TEA create a publicly accessible “do not hire registry” no later than Jan. 1, 2020. The registry will contain the names of individuals, both certified and non-certified, who have been deemed ineligible for hire in a public school based on their criminal history records or misconduct. Since there was no mechanism under previous law to sanction non-certified employees for misconduct, this issue became of increasing concern with growth in the number of charter schools and “Districts of Innovation” in Texas; both of those types of schools can exempt themselves from teacher certification requirements that apply to traditional public schools and may hire non-certified staff for positions that require regular interaction with students. With the update to the law under HB 3, schools throughout Texas will be required to discharge or refuse to hire anyone on the new do not hire registry.

HB 3 also expanded the criteria for designating those who are ineligible to be employed in a public school. Under previous law, a school district could not hire or was forced to discharge any employees who were required by law to register as a sex offender. Now, school districts must also do the same for those who may not be required to register as sex offenders but have committed offenses involving minors such as sexual assault, abandonment, endangerment, leaving a child in a vehicle, and indecency (as described by Title 5 of the Texas Penal Code). Additionally, the expansion of these criteria now encompasses not only those individuals who are convicted, but also those placed on deferred adjudication community service due to the offense committed.

TEA staff and SBEC are currently in the process of developing and discussing new administrative rule language to implement these provisions of HB 3. We expect these items to be discussed at the next SBEC meeting on Oct. 4, 2019, and we will be posting an update here on our Teach the Vote blog at that time.

Additionally, the Commissioner’s rules for the do-not-hire registry are open for public comment. Please see below, as posted on the TEA website:

These educator misconduct provisions of HB 3 became effective immediately with the enactment of the school finance bill.

Senate Bill (SB) 1476 by Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston): Educator misconduct investigations

SB 1476 allows public school administrators to skip out on misconduct reporting requirements for certified employees by meeting a few criteria. First, the superintendent must carry out an investigation and determine that the allegations are false. Second, this investigation and determination must occur before the educator resigns or is terminated from employment.

This bill was effective immediately upon being signed by the governor on June 14, 2019.

SB 944 by Sen. Kirk Watson (D-Austin): Public information law

SB 944 is an “open government” bill that requires that public information maintained on a privately owned device must be preserved in its original form on the device unless it is transferred to the district’s public information officer for backup. Because educators are public employees, this law will apply to any official business/school-related texts, emails, etc. stored on the educators’ personal devices, such as tablets, cell phones, and laptops. The law applies to former and current public employees, but only for information created or received on or after Sept. 1, 2019. If you keep such public information on any of your personal devices, ATPE recommends that you check with your school district for guidance on this law, including its local policies regarding how long you should archive or backup the information stored on your device.

This law took effect Sept. 1, 2019.


We encourage you to revisit Teach the Vote next week when we’ll be publishing the next “New School Year, New Laws” blog series post about pension and benefits changes that resulted from the 2019 legislative session. ATPE believes it is vitally important for educators to make sure they know and understand the laws that govern their profession and affect their classrooms. For even more information on new laws impacting public education in Texas, be sure to check out ATPE’s comprehensive report, “Know the Law: An Educator’s Guide to Changes Enacted by the 86th Texas Legislature,” created by the experienced staff of ATPE’s Member Legal Services department.

New School Year, New Laws: Special Education

In this week’s blog post in the “New School Year, New Laws” series, the ATPE lobby team looks at changes to special education resulting from the 86th legislative session earlier this year.

Three years ago, the Houston Chronicle published an investigative series on how Texas was systematically denying special education services to students through an arbitrary 8.5% cap on special education enrollment. After confirming the findings, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) ordered the state to complete a Special Education Strategic Plan and Corrective Action Response. In the interim before the 2019 legislative session, special education advocates worked diligently with lawmakers, the Texas Commission on Public School Finance, and the Texas Education Agency (TEA) on the strategic plan, corrective action response, and special education funding to try to mitigate the negative effects of having denied years of services to students. This involvement from stakeholders helped to prioritize special education in the legislative session.

Below are some of the bills passed this year to address special education funding and various initiatives for students with special needs.

House Bill (HB) 3 by Rep. Dan Huberty (R-Kingwood): Special education funding and advisory committee

Special education in Texas is currently funded through a system of weights based on student placement. For example, the weight for a homebound student is 5.0 (meaning that a school district receives 5 times the amount of the basic allotment for that student). The mainstream weight covers approximately 85% of students receiving special education services, according to the TEA. Rep. Mary Gonzalez (D-Clint) amended HB 3 to increase the mainstream weight from 1.1 to 1.15, which will generate hundreds of extra dollars for every student receiving special education services in the general education classroom. As an aside, stakeholders and agency officials alike are urging that the rhetoric around special education shift to characterize special education as a service rather than a placement.

HB 3 also creates a new dyslexia weight of 0.1, which will help direct even more money to students with special needs. The dyslexia weight will also capture and fund students who are receiving services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which is not federally funded like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Lastly, HB 3 establishes a 14-member special education allotment advisory committee that will make recommendations on special education funding. In September, the commissioner of education will appoint committee members, to include a variety of stakeholders both within and outside of the school setting, including two teachers.

These provisions of HB 3 became effective immediately upon the passage of the bill.

Senate Bill (SB) 500 by Sen. Jane Nelson (R-Flower Mound): Addressing maintenance of financial support in the supplemental budget

Just before the 2019 legislative session began, news broke that Texas had failed to maintain “state financial support” under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Essentially, the state spent $33.3 million less on special education in 2012 than it spent in the prior year, which is not allowed. Unfortunately, the state continued this trend in 2017, 2018, and 2019, and it is now estimated that the resulting federal penalty will reach $233 million.

This year’s supplemental spending bill, SB 500, included over $219 million to settle maintenance of financial support costs and to prevent future penalties.

SB 139 by Sen. Jose Rodriguez (D-El Paso): Notification of enrollment opportunities

SB 139 specifically addresses the aforementioned 8.5% cap on enrollment in special education by requiring TEA to develop a notice regarding the elimination of the arbitrary limit. The notice must also include the rights of children under state and federal law and how parents and guardians can initiate referral and evaluation for special education services.

HB 111 by Rep. Mary Gonzalez (D-Clint): Trafficking, abuse, and maltreatment training

As part of their district improvement plan, school districts are required to adopt and implement a policy on sexual abuse, sex trafficking, and other maltreatment of children. Districts must incorporate methods to increase awareness of these issues by providing training for new and existing employees on prevention techniques and the recognition of sexual abuse, sex trafficking, and other maltreatment of students. HB 111 specifically adds that the training should also include prevention and recognition for students with significant cognitive disabilities. HB 111 became effective immediately.

HB 165 by Rep. Diego Bernal (D-San Antonio): High school endorsements

Effective immediately, HB 165 allows students receiving special education services to earn high school endorsements on their transcripts if they complete, with or without modification, the foundation high school curriculum requirements and the additional endorsement curriculum requirements. Under previous law, a student receiving special education services was unable to earn an endorsement by virtue of being enrolled in a modified curriculum. This prevented the student from earning a Distinguished Level of Achievement upon graduation, which is an eligibility requirement for automatic admission to a public institution of higher education in Texas.

SB 522 by Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D-Laredo): Services for students with visual impairments

SB 522 aims to improve the educational services provided to students with a visual impairment by aligning the terminology in state law with federal law regarding these students. Additionally, the individualized education plan (IEP) for students with a visual impairment must now include instruction in braille and the use of braille unless the student’s admission, review, and dismissal (ARD) committee determines that a different form of instruction is more appropriate. Under SB 522, instruction in braille must be provided by a teacher certified to teach students with visual impairments. This law became effective immediately.

SB 712 by Sen. Eddie Lucio, Jr. (D-Brownsville) and HB 3630 by Rep. Morgan Meyer (R-Highland Park): Prohibiting aversive disciplinary techniques

SB 712 and HB 3630 by are identical bills that prohibit the use of certain techniques on students that are meant to discourage recurring behaviors. These aversive techniques are defined in physical terms, such as inflicting pain on a student, as well as in social, emotional, and mental terms, such as verbally demeaning a student or using a timeout when such breaks are not a part of the student’s individualized education plan (IEP). This legislation does not affect a teacher’s ability to remove students under Texas Education Code Section 37.002, which allows teachers to remove students who are repetitively disruptive and limiting the learning of others. Both bills were effective immediately upon their passage earlier this year.


See the TEA’s “HB 3 in 30” video on special education for additional detail on legislative changes. For more information on the issues featured in our “New School Year, New Laws” series, be sure to check out “An Educator’s Guide to Changes Enacted by the 86th Texas Legislature,” in which ATPE’s attorneys provide a comprehensive look at new education laws passed in 2019. Join us next Monday here on Teach the Vote to read about legislative changes regarding professional opportunities for educators.

Teach the Vote’s Week in Review: Sept. 13, 2019

Here’s this week’s education news wrap-up, courtesy of the ATPE Governmental Relations team:


SBOE Committee on School Initiatives meeting, Sept. 12, 2019

This week, members of the State Board of Education (SBOE) gathered in Austin to hold a series of meetings over Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, which ATPE’s lobbyists have been attending. View the full SBOE agenda and additional information about this week’s meetings here.

To kick things off, the board on Wednesday discussed the Texas Resource Review (TRR) process, formerly known as the Instructional Materials Quality Evaluation (IMQE). Acting as a rubric for instructional materials for English Language Arts and Reading (ELAR) in grades 3-8, the TRR will serve as a type of “consumer reports”  resources for school districts and educators looking for quality instructional materials. Read a full recap of Wednesday’s board meeting in this blog post from ATPE Lobbyist Mark Wiggins.

Other topics of discussion during this week’s meetings of the board and its committees include a new procedure for nominating members to the School Land Board (SLB), the ed prep assessment pilot known as “EdTPA,” and the Generation 25 charter application that would establish charters with new operators as opposed to letting existing charter holders expand their operations. ATPE’s Wiggins has more on the discussion of these items in this blog post from Thursday.

The board will wrap up its September meetings today. The full board’s agenda for today includes hearing from Commissioner of Education Mike Morath. Read more about his remarks at today’s SBOE meeting, which covered accountability and new reading academy requirements, in this Teach the Vote blog post from ATPE Lobbyist Andrea Chevalier.

Commissioner of Education Mike Morath speaking to the ATPE Board of Directors, Sept. 7, 2019

The board also took time today to recognize outgoing chair Donna Bahorich for her leadership with an honorary resolution. This will be the last meeting over which Bahorich will preside, pending the governor’s naming of a new chair for the SBOE.

Related: Commissioner Mike Morath also visited the ATPE Board of Directors meeting in Pflugerville on Sept. 7, 2019. The commissioner updated the board on accountability ratings, discussed the issue of merit pay, and more.


This year’s legislative session saw a slew of bills relating to assessments, from their administration and content to their duration and much more. For an in-depth look at which laws from the 86th session will affect things like end-of-course exams, individual graduation committees (IGCs), and the length of standardized state assessments, check out this week’s blog post by ATPE Lobbyist Andrea Chevalier. On Monday, we’ll have a another new post for our ongoing “New School Year, New Laws” weekly series here on Teach the Vote. You can also learn more about many new laws affecting educators in this comprehensive digital guide compiled by ATPE’s legal staff.


The latest iteration of “HB 3 in 30,” the Texas Education Agency’s weekly video series that breaks down the signature education bill of the 86th session, focuses on reading practices. Click here to watch the most recent video and access all the prior videos in the HB 3 in 30 series.


It was announced this week that Harrison Keller will become the new Commissioner of Higher Education, following the recent retirement of Commissioner Raymund Peredes. The announcement came Wednesday after a unanimous vote by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB). Keller, who assumes the post on Oct. 1, has worked for the University of Texas and was a longtime education policy adviser to a former Texas Speaker of the House, Rep. Tom Craddick (R-Midland).


ELECTION UPDATE: Yet another big retirement announcement came today with Sen. José Rodriguez (D-El Paso) announcing that he will not seek re-election. An attorney, Sen. Rodriguez has described himself as the first member of his family to attend college. He was first elected to the Senate District 29 seat in 2010 and has also chaired the Senate Democratic Caucus.

Early voting for the upcoming November election begins on Oct. 21, just five weeks from now. For more information about what’s going to be on the ballot, check out our previous Teach the Vote blog posts on proposed constitutional amendments and some special elections that will be taking place on the same day. You can also use the resources provided by the Texas Educators Vote coalition to help ensure you are ready to vote. The deadline to register to vote for the November 5 election is Oct. 7, 2019.

New School Year, New Laws: Curriculum and Instruction

When the 86th Texas Legislature convened for its 2019 regular session, members of the state Senate and House of Representatives focused much of their attention on school finance and school safety. Issues that once held center-stage in a legislative session, like accountability, vouchers, and payroll deduction took a backseat (or weren’t even in the car). However, there were several bills passed this year that will impact teachers’ bread and butter – teaching and learning. In this week’s “New School Year, New Laws” post, we will fill you in on legislative changes impacting curriculum and instruction.

House Bill (HB) 391 by Rep. César Blanco (D-El Paso): Printed instructional materials

By law, parents are entitled to request that their child be allowed to take home instructional materials. Districts and charter schools must honor this request. However, in some cases, those instructional materials are online and the parents do not have the appropriate technology at home to access them. In this event, HB 391 dictates that the district or charter school provide the materials in print, which could be printouts of the relevant electronic materials. This law became effective immediately upon its passage.

HB 2984 by Rep. Steve Allison (R-San Antonio): Technology applications TEKS

Technology applications is part of the “enrichment curriculum” offered by school districts. HB 2984 directs the State Board of Education (SBOE) to revise the grades K-8 Texas essential knowledge and skills (TEKS) for technology applications, specifically by adding in curriculum standards for coding, computer programming, computational thinking, and cybersecurity. The SBOE must complete this task by Dec. 31, 2020, so be on the lookout for information from ATPE about opportunities to participate in the process and provide public comment.

HB 3012 by Rep. James Talarico (D-Round Rock): Providing instruction to students who are suspended

Most teachers have probably experienced what happens when a student is placed in either in-school or out-of-school suspension (ISS/OSS). The student often comes back to the classroom having missed days or weeks of instruction that can be hard to make up. HB 3012 requires districts to provide suspended students with an alternative means of accessing all “foundation curriculum” or core coursework (math, science, English language arts, and social studies). The district must also provide at least one option for receiving the coursework that doesn’t require access to the Internet. Whether or not this requirement for providing coursework will trickle down to the individual teacher level is still unclear. This bill became effective immediately.

HB 4310 by Rep. Harold Dutton (D- Houston): Time for scope and sequence

HB 4310 applies to the scope and sequence created by districts for foundation curricula. Under the new law, a district must ensure sufficient time for teachers to teach and students to learn the TEKS in a given scope and sequence. Additionally, a district cannot penalize a teacher who determines that their students need more or less time and thus doesn’t follow the scope and sequence. However, the law does say that a district can take action with respect to teachers who don’t follow the scope and sequence if there is documented evidence of a deficiency in their classroom instruction. This law became effective immediately.

HB 3 by Rep. Dan Huberty (R-Kingwood): G/T programming and funding

The gifted and talented (G/T) allotment was eliminated in this year’s big school finance bill, HB 3, but the requirement that school districts provide G/T programming did not go away. When HB 3 was heard by the House Public Education and Senate Education committees, many parents and students testified on the importance of keeping gifted and talented programming and urged lawmakers to maintain the allotment. In response, Chairman Huberty and other lawmakers explained that funding for G/T through the allotment has been capped at 5% of average daily attendance, even though a district may actually enroll more than 5% of its students in G/T programs. As a result, every district essentially received the maximum amount possible. HB 3 rolls this amount into the new basic allotment as the mechanism for funding G/T, rather than having a stand-alone allotment.

To quell fears that G/T programs might disappear along with the allotment, HB 3 states that districts must provide a G/T program consistent with the state plan for G/T and must annually certify to the commissioner of education their compliance with the law. If a district does not comply, the state will revoke its funding in an amount calculated using the same formula for the old G/T allotment. The bill also requires districts to comply with the use of G/T funds as outlined in State Board of Education (SBOE) rule.

These changes to how G/T programs are funded took effect immediately upon the passage of HB 3. Learn more about the new G/T requirements and funding expectations in this “HB 3 in 30” video provided by the Texas Education Agency (TEA).

HB 4205 by Rep. Tom Craddick (R-Midland): Teacher effectiveness and value-added modeling in turnaround schools

HB 4205 was originally introduced as a bill to allow a campus in Midland ISD to be repurposed by a nonprofit entity while maintaining the same student population. As the bill made its way through the legislative process, it was expanded beyond Midland ISD and amended to include language from Senate Bill (SB) 1412 by Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock) regarding accelerated campus excellence (ACE) plans. ACE is a campus turnaround option that prescribes personnel, compensation, and programming decisions meant to improve student performance. A last-stage amendment also added a requirement that personnel decisions under a school’s ACE turnaround plan must be made using a value-added model (VAM) for determining instructional effectiveness. After this change was made, which ATPE opposed, the House unfortunately voted to concur in the Senate amendments and the bill was signed by the Governor.

Under the final version of HB 4205 as passed, at least 60 percent of teachers assigned to the campus must have demonstrated instructional effectiveness during the previous school year. For teachers who taught in the same district in the prior year, this effectiveness standard is to be determined by classroom observation and assessing the teacher’s impact on student growth using VAM based on at least one student assessment instrument selected by the district. For teachers who did not teach in the district the previous year, instructional effectiveness will be determined by data and other evidence indicating that if the teacher had taught in the district, they would have been ranked among the top half of teachers there. Teacher pay under this type of plan must include a three-year commitment to provide “significant incentives” to compensate high-performing principals and teachers.

In the 2019-20 school year, the ACE provisions in HB 4205 will only apply to one district that received an unacceptable rating for 2017-18, as chosen by the commissioner of education. In 2020-21, the ACE option under HB 4205 will open up to all districts that have been required to complete a campus turnaround plan.

There are many aspects of this new law that ATPE opposes, which we expressed to lawmakers through oral testimony and written input on SB 1412 and HB 4205 as they were moving through the legislative process earlier this year. Our opposition was based on the following formal positions that have been adopted by ATPE members:

  • ATPE opposes 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.
  • ATPE believes students’ state-level standardized test scores should not be a component of teacher evaluations until such time as they can be validated through a consensus of independent research and peer review for that purpose.
  • ATPE opposes the use of value-added modeling or measurement (VAM) at the individual teacher level for teacher evaluation purposes or decisions about continued employment of teachers. (Learn more about our VAM concerns here.)
  • ATPE supports incorporating measures of student growth at the campus level or higher into evaluations of educators as long as the measures are developed with educator input, piloted, and deemed statistically reliable.
  • ATPE opposes incentive or performance pay programs unless they are designed in an equitable and fair manner as determined by educators on a campus basis.

Your ATPE Governmental Relations team will be monitoring these pieces of legislation as they are implemented.


Next Monday, we will continue ATPE’s “New School Year, New Laws” series here on Teach the Vote with a post on assessment-related bills passed during the 2019 legislative session.