Tag Archives: discipline

Senate Education passes first bills out of committee

Senate Education Committee meeting March 19, 2019.

The Senate Education Committee met Tuesday to consider several bills and pass its first bills of the legislative session. Members voted the following bills out of committee:

  • SB 244 (6-2, with Sens. ‬Powell and West opposing)
  • ‪SB 477 (8-0, placed on the local and uncontested calendar)
  • SB 811 (6-2, with Sens. Powell and West opposing)

Members heard testimony on a number of bills, including several that revisited educator misconduct issues addressed during the 2017 legislative session.

Senate Bill (SB) 1256 by state Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston) builds upon the original work done by SB 7 from the 85th Texas Legislature. The bill would expand the ability to track teachers who have been involved in illicit relationships with students to non-certified teachers and school employees by creating a separate registry managed by the Texas Education Agency (TEA). The bill would also allow TEA to close charter schools and revoke district of innovation (DOI) status for districts that fail to comply with the new law. ATPE supported this bill for thoughtfully filling in the gaps left by SB 7, which ATPE supported in 2017.

SB 1230 and SB 1231 by Bettencourt also build upon SB 7 by pulling in private schools and by expanding child abuse and neglect reporting requirements to private schools and charters, respectively. SB 1476 addresses reporting requirements to the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) when an educator has been found to be wrongfully accused of misconduct. ATPE supported this bill.

A related bill, SB 933 by Bettencourt, would create an office of inspector general (OIG) within TEA with the ability to investigate districts and charter schools for potential fraud, waste, and abuse. The committee approved an amendment that expanded the inspector general’s purview to include the agency itself, which is in line with other agency offices of inspector general. Sen Kirk Watson (D-Austin) questioned the cost of creating and staffing an entirely new investigatory division and the veracity of the accompanying fiscal note that stated it would cost the state nothing.

SB 458 by Sen. Joan Huffman (R-Houston) would add sexual abuse, human trafficking, and other maltreatment of children to the list of training topics required of public school board members.

Members also discussed SB 316 by Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola), which would allow the state office of attorney general (OAG) to defend a teacher in a civil suit “as a result of an act that the teacher in good faith believed was incident to or within the scope of the teacher’s duties if the attorney general determines that the teacher acted in good faith.” Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas) asked whether a teacher has the ability to waive the attorney general’s offer and use their own representation. Sen. Watson raised important questions about the subjective interpretation of “scope of duties” and “good faith.” ATPE submitted neutral written testimony that raised similar concerns, along with important considerations regarding legal timelines that could leave teachers in the lurch.

Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D-Laredo) offered SB 54, which addressed students participating in regional day school programs for the deaf; SB 522, relating to the development of a individual education programs (IEP) for a student with a visual impairment; and SB 895, relating to the language acquisition of children eight years of age or younger who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Sen. Kel Seliger (R-Amarillo) offered SB 213, which would repeal the sunset on individual graduation committees (IGC). Currently, a student who fails one or more STAAR tests required for graduation may ask for an IGC to weigh their overall student career and potentially allow them to graduate. This ensures children who are otherwise strong students but may have performed poorly on STAAR for a variety of reasons are not handicapped by the refusal of a high school diploma. Under current law, students will lose this option after the 2018-2019 school year. ATPE supported this bill as an important safety measure, in particular when recent investigations have thrown the validity of the STAAR test itself into question.

SB 364 by Sen. Watson would require TEA develop model policies on the recess period during the school day that encourage constructive, age-appropriate outdoor playtime. The model policies must include guidelines for outdoor equipment and facilities on public school campuses that maximize the effectiveness of outdoor physical activity. ATPE supported this bill.

SB 372 by Sen. Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels) would allow charter schools to employ security personnel and commission peace officers.

SB 435 by Sen. Jane Nelson (R-Flower Mound) would add opioid addiction to the list of topics covered by local school health advisory councils (SHAC).

 

 

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.

Major Texas education groups agree on charter school policy agenda

This month, 15 major education groups in Texas agreed on a policy agenda for charter schools.

The groups include the Association of Texas Professional Educators (ATPE), the Texas State Teachers Association, the Texas Association of School Administrators, the Texas Classroom Teachers Association, the Texas American Federation of Teachers, the Texas Association of School Boards, the Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association, the Coalition for Education Funding, Pastors for Texas Children, Raise Your Hand Texas, the Fast Growth School Coalition, the Texas Association of Community Schools, the Texas Association of Midsize Schools, the Texas School Alliance, and the Intercultural Development and Research Association.

In Texas, 5.5% of students attend charter schools yet they receive 10% of state funding for education. Because charters cannot levy taxes, charter schools are 100% funded by the state. Each charter school student generates the sum of the statewide average adjusted allotment (basic allotment adjusted using various weights for special populations and circumstances) and the statewide average property tax revenue across school districts. Last session, charters gained access for the first time to $60 million in facilities funding, or about $200 per student.

While charters are subject to the same accountability as traditional school districts, there are many differences in how charters operate. Texas law allows charters to accept and expel students based on academics and discipline, to employ non-certified teachers, and to choose whether or not to employ any counselors or school nurses. Additionally, the majority of charter expansion is under the charter amendment process, which allows for uninhibited growth of charter schools.

The joint policy agenda of the groups listed above focuses on increasing the transparency and efficiency of charter schools through seven recommendations for lawmakers:

  1. Allow for public transparency and input before any new charter amendments are approved in a certain community.
  2. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) should consider creating a standard charter application process and maintain an accurate charter school wait list to correctly document the number of unique students desiring charter admission.
  3. Charters should not be able to admit and expel students based on academics and discipline, as this creates inequality between charters and traditional school districts despite the fact that both receive public funds and are expected to educate all students.
  4. The Commissioner of Education should adopt procedures to analyze and report on the expected fiscal, academic, and program impact of each new charter school in order to maintain efficiency of the entire public school system.
  5. Since charters receive nearly $3 billion in public funds each year, they should publicly disclose their financial dealings, including leases, mortgages, contracts, and bond debt.
  6. Parents need to make informed decisions about where to enroll their children and should therefore have access to information on each charter school’s website such as student rates of expulsion, teacher certification and attrition rates, and the percentage of special education students.
  7. Charters received an estimated $882 million more than the school districts in which they reside during the last biennium. It is important to equalize this funding and require charters to pay into the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) just as districts do in order to create parity.

From the Texas Tribune: New Truancy Law Set to Put Pressure on Schools, Parents

by Terri Langford, The Texas Tribune
August 8, 2015

When the state’s new truancy law takes effect Sept. 1, students will no longer face criminal sanctions — penalties that could include jail time — for skipping school. But there is likely to be more pressure on schools — and on parents, who could face more cases if their kids fail to show up for class.

“I anticipate an increase in prosecutions of parents under this new statute,” said Ryan Kellus Turner, general counsel and director of education for the Texas Municipal Courts Education Center in Austin, which helps provide training on municipal court procedures.

Both the education center and Texas Education Agency officials have spent the summer trying to chop the bulky House Bill 2398 into serviceable bites for educators and judges who face a dramatic shift this fall in the way they deal with chronic school skippers. That shift includes a new requirement for all public schools to implement truancy prevention programs and new directives on how the courts can penalize school skippers.

For years, Texas was one of two states that made truancy a criminal violation. Public school students who had at least 10 unexcused absences in a six-month period found their truancy cases heard by justices of the peace or municipal judges. Schools also had the option of sending students with three unexcused absences within a four-week period to the adult courts.

Under the old law, students could see fines as punishment. But those 17 and older who failed to pay those fines could be charged with contempt and, in some cases, wound up in adult jails. For example, 21,576 truancy cases were filed so far this year in Dallas County. Of those, three students were jailed for failing to comply with the judge’s orders.

Under the new law crafted this year by state Rep. James White, R-Woodville, and state Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, schools can no longer send students with three unexcused absences within the four-week period to truancy courts. Instead, school officials will notify parents of the absences and warn them of the consequences, which could be a fine or a loss of driving privileges if the student racks up more absences or a criminal complaint against the parents. In addition, a face-to-face meeting between the school officials and the parents will be set up, and the student must be enrolled in a truancy prevention program.

Starting Sept. 1, schools will have some kind of truancy prevention program in place that will probably come in the form of mentoring and counseling.

If a student age 12 or older has 10 unexcused absences in a six-month period, school officials must first must determine if the absences are because the student is homeless, pregnant, in foster care or is a primary earner for the family. If the student’s situation matches any of those categories, then the school is to offer counseling support.

If the student does not fall into any of those categories and the anti-truancy programs have not worked, the school can refer the child to truancy court, where the student can face a $100 fine, a loss of driving privileges and perhaps a referral to the juvenile court system.

Like the old law, the new one allows schools to file a criminal complaint against a parent, but only if school can prove the absences were the result of the parent’s negligence. Negligence in Texas is defined as deviating from the “normal standard of care.” In such cases, parents will face a maximum fine of $500.

Turner says parents could see more criminal complaints if courts believe that a student’s legal guardian is not helping get that child to school.

“Even under this new law, the parent contributing to nonattendance is still a misdemeanor,” Turner said.

But the Texas Education Agency notes that a court now can dismiss a charge against a parent of contributing to the truancy if a judge finds that the dismissal “would be in the best interest of justice” and the student is unlikely to continue skipping school or has a good reason justifying the absence.

White, the original bill sponsor, said parents need to take school attendance seriously. School attendance is mandatory in Texas, and that does not change under this new law.

The only thing that does change is a shift from court referral to earlier intervention by schools.

“This piece of legislation marks a serious paradigm shift by lawmakers,” Turner explained. “Under the old law, the message from the Legislature was we want these cases prosecuted and we want these kids in court.”

Texas_Tribune_Interactive_Truancy_Flowchart

 

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2015/08/08/new-truancy-law-puts-pressure-schools/The Texas Tribune is a nonpartisan, nonprofit media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them – about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

House committees look at student ticketing, math courses and testing

The House Committee on Public Education met twice this week to review the implementation of several bills passed last year. The first was a joint hearing with the House Committee on Corrections to discuss school discipline and the implementation of Senate Bills (SB) 393 and 1114 related to student ticketing. In a separate meeting, the education committee had ongoing discussions about the implementation of House Bill (HB) 5, the bill that made sweeping changes to the state’s graduation requirements and testing requirements.

SB 393 and SB 1114 were passed in 2013 in an attempt to reduce the issuance of criminal tickets to students for minor school offenses. This week’s joint committee meeting revealed that since the implementation of those bills in September of last year, the number of court filings resulting from the issuance of class C misdemeanor tickets for school offenses has dropped by 90,000. That number represents an 83 percent decrease. During the same period, the number of school arrests, suspensions and referrals to alternative campuses has remained stable or decreased slightly. According to testimony at the hearing, this suggests that the drop in student ticketing has not had a negative impact on the campus environment with regard to discipline.

While SB 393 and SB 1114 did not cut off the ability to use the criminal justice system as a deterrent and tool to maintain school discipline, the goal of the bills was to decriminalize school offenses in most situations. Advocates on all side of this issue want to reduce the school-to-prison pipeline, and in doing so, ATPE also wants to ensure that educators feel supported and in fact are supported in their efforts to maintain discipline in their classrooms.

We want to know what you think about student ticketing. Please post your comments on our blog and let us know what your experience has been at the campus level since the passage of SB 393 and SB 1114.

During the subsequent meeting on Oct. 8, the House Committee on Public Education heard from Texas Education Agency (TEA) officials and experts about new courses being developed in response to HB 5 to serve as equivalently rigorous alternatives to Algebra II. According to testimony at the hearing, the new Non-AP Statistics course being developed is on track to be completed soon. The Algebraic Reasoning course is proving to be more difficult. Many advocates of that course, including some legislators, envision Algebraic Reasoning as an applications-style course for Algebra II. However, that type of course is proving more challenging to develop because any course based on the existing Algebra II TEKS that would require a teacher to use applications would likely cross the line into specifying a method of teaching, which is illegal in Texas.

Despite the difficulties, Dr. Uri Treisman of the University of Texas’ Dana Center, a mathematics think tank, applauded the state on the efforts being made and informed the committee that what they are striving for is in alignment with where higher education has been moving. According to Dr. Treisman, institutions of higher education have for several years been moving away from a single college math pathway based on Algebra, favoring multiple pathways instead. Such pathways include the traditional Algebra route as well as pathways based on Statistics and Quantitative Modeling.

In addition to the receiving the update on new math courses, committee members raised several questions about the state’s testing and accountability system. The committee voiced considerable concern about the removal of the STAAR Modified test and the impact of that change on schools and students with disabilities. TEA representatives also caused a stir among the committee when they relayed that TEA had kicked out sample STAAR test items based on the percentage of students who answered the question correctly. According to TEA, if more than 90-95 percent or less than 25 percent of tests takers answered an item correctly, it was removed. The committee noted that it seemed patently unfair to remove a question that tested basic TEKS merely because all or nearly all students answered the question correctly. A public witness who testified later during the hearing noted that by removing questions in that manner, TEA had essentially converted what was supposed to be a criterion-referenced assessment into a normative assessment. Many education experts believe that normative assessments should never be used for high stakes or accountability purposes.

At one point during the hearing, Rep. Dan Huberty (R-Humble) announced that he was seriously considering filing a bill in the next session to do away with state-mandated standardized testing altogether. A representative of Texans Advocating for Meaningful Student Assessment (TAMSA) shared with the committee that more than 35 states do not use standardized testing as a graduation requirement and implored the committee to consider changing state law to make any statewide testing system diagnostic only. ATPE member Cynthia Ruiz, an English teacher from Pflugerville ISD, eloquently testified about the problem of teaching to the test and the failings of the STAAR writing test. Several committee members thanked her for her testimony.

Video of the Joint Committee hearing on school discipline and student ticketing can be viewed here. Video of the House Public Education Committee’s HB 5 hearing can be viewed here.

Vote for candidates who will insist on class-size limits

This is the sixth post in our A Dozen Days, A Dozen Ways to Vote Your Profession series.


At issue: Research shows that smaller classes improve education by increasing the interaction between teachers and individual students, minimizing discipline issues, improving classroom management, boosting teacher morale and producing dramatically better educational outcomes for students. Studies have linked a rise in scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to reductions in class size, especially after class-size limits were first adopted in Texas. State law limits classrooms in grades K-4 to no more than 22 students per teacher. However, the law allows schools to request waivers of the 22:1 class-size limit if they have limited facilities, a shortage of teachers or an unexpected surge in enrollment. Although the law has been tightened and made more transparent in recent years, thousands of schools still routinely request class-size waivers each year.

Class-size limits are a necessary and worthwhile expenditure: It costs money to keep classes small, and class-size limits are unpopular among politicians who want to cut education spending wherever possible. Larger classes often require less physical space and fewer teachers. That’s why class size is usually one of the first quality control measures sacrificed whenever money is limited.  Immediately after the drastic education budget cuts of 2011, the number of 22:1 class-size waiver requests more than tripled.

Students deserve more one-on-one instructional time with their teachers, a distraction-free classroom and, above all else, a safe learning environment: Opponents of class-size limits typically argue that school districts should have more “flexibility” and “mandate relief” so that they can staff and fill classrooms as they see fit. They also insist that high-quality teachers should be able to successfully teach a greater number of students. Critics of 22:1 tend to ignore the fact that class size affects not only instruction but also student safety and classroom discipline. Consider the many sad incidents of school shootings reported in the news and the heroic acts of many teachers involved. When teachers are tasked with keeping their students safe, even in potentially life-threatening situations, do we want their classes to be larger or smaller? Despite the obvious safety issue, legislators continue to try to weaken or abolish the 22:1 law every legislative session.

You can help educators and students by voting for candidates who respect the importance of class-size limits: Teach the Vote has many resources to help you find pro-public education candidates. For instance, ATPE asked all legislative candidates in a survey, “Would you vote to maintain a hard cap on the number of students per class, or should school administrators be given more flexibility to increase class sizes?” You can read their responses by visiting our 2014 Races search page, looking up the candidates in your district and opening the Survey Response section in each candidate’s profile. Don’t forget that the early voting period continues through Friday, and election day is March 4.

Interim charges for House committees released

Earlier today, Texas Speaker of the House Joe Straus (R–San Antonio) issued interim charges—topics legislative committees are asked to study and report on before the next legislative session begins in January 2015—to the 83rd Legislature.

The charges to the House Public Education Committee are as follows:

1. Monitor the implementation of House Bill 5 (83R) and report on recommendations for improvement. Work with the Texas Education Agency (TEA), the State Board of Education (SBOE), and public and higher education stakeholders to ensure the creation of additional rigorous mathematics and science courses needed to address the current and projected needs of the state’s workforce.

2. Explore innovative, research-based options for improving student achievement beyond standardized test scores. Evaluate standards for effective campus management as well as teacher preparation, certification and training. Review current teacher evaluation tools and instructional methods, such as project-based learning, and recommend any improvements that would promote improved student achievement. Engage stakeholders on how to recruit and retain more of our “best and brightest” into the teaching profession.

3. Solicit input from leading authorities on the traits and characteristics of good governance, effective checks and balances between the board and administration and the effective relationship between a board and the superintendent. Review current oversight authority by TEA over school board policies on governance. Make recommendations on trustee training, potential sanctions and means of grievances, as well as recommendations on whether the role of trustee or superintendent needs to be more clearly defined.

4. Review successful strategies and methods that have improved student achievement at chronically underperforming schools. Identify alternatives that could be offered to current students who are attending these schools and determine how to turn these schools around. Identify the benefits and concerns with alternative governance of underperforming schools.

5. Review the broad scope and breadth of the current Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) in the tested grades, including the format, testing calendar and the limitation on instructional days available. Recommend options to streamline the assessment of TEKS and focus on core concepts. Review current federal testing requirements in grades 3–8 to determine if testing relief is possible.

6. Examine the role of the Harris County Department of Education (HCDE) in serving school districts. Review the programs and services of HCDE, specifically the department’s ability to assist school districts to operate more efficiently. Report any costs or savings the HCDE provides districts and taxpayers. Make recommendations to improve the operation of the HCDE.

7. Review the state regulatory and administrative systems related to public school bond issuances. (Joint charge with the House Committee on Investments and Financial Services.)

8. Study the impact of Senate Bill (SB) 393 (83R) and SB 1114 (83R). Assess the impact of school discipline and school-based policing on referrals to the municipal, justice and juvenile courts, and identify judicial policies or initiatives designed to reduce referrals without having a negative impact on school safety. (Joint charge with the House Committee on Corrections.)

9. Conduct legislative oversight and monitoring of the agencies and programs under the committee’s jurisdiction and the implementation of relevant legislation passed by the 83rd Legislature. In conducting this oversight, the committee should:

a. consider any reforms to state agencies to make them more responsive to Texas taxpayers and citizens;

b. identify issues regarding the agency or its governance that may be appropriate to investigate, improve, remedy or eliminate;

c. determine whether an agency is operating in a transparent and efficient manner; and

d. identify opportunities to streamline programs and services while maintaining the mission of the agency and its programs.

The charges for the House Appropriations Committee include reviewing public education funding formulas. The Appropriations and Pensions Committees will jointly study the fiscal impact of TRS-Care and health care affordability for public school employees.

View the entire packet of House interim charges.