Tag Archives: funding

Expenditures group considers potential recommendations

The Texas Commission on Public School Finance working group on expenditures met Thursday morning to discuss the group’s recommendations. Group leader state Rep. Dan Huberty (R-Houston), who chairs the House Public Education Committee, indicated no vote would be taken Thursday.

The school finance commission expenditures working group meeting August 9, 2018.

The first potential recommendations related to repeals that could free up “pots of money” to be reallocated. Commission Chair Scott Brister expressed confusion over how specific programs are funded, and suggested eliminating most programmatic funding and directing it toward the basic allotment instead. This included a discussion of repealing the high school allotment, the 1992-93 hold harmless provision, the staff allotment, the gifted and talented allotment, the public education grant (PEG) allotment, the transportation allotment, the local option homestead exemption for certain districts, the recapture discount, and the early agreement credit.

The staff allotment provides $250 for each part-time employee and $500 for each full-time not subject to the minimum salary schedule, which includes counselors and librarians – basically anyone who is not a teacher. State Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas) indicated he would be hesitant to repeal this allotment because he believes it serves its intended purpose. State Board of Education (SBOE) Member Keven Ellis contended that districts would be unlikely to reduce staff if that allotment were to go away.

State Sen. Larry Taylor (R-Galveston), who chairs the Senate Education Committee), proposed repealing the gifted and talented allotment. Sen. Taylor argued that most schools are already receiving five percent of their funding through this allotment, and including it into the basic allotment could allow districts more spending freedom. Sen. West clarified that members are not proposing that this money go away, only that it be delivered through a different mechanism, such as the basic allotment.

The discussion regarding the transportation allotment followed much the same logic. However, Member Ellis noted that rural districts face disproportionate transportation costs due to physical size and population density. Sen. Taylor suggested tying the funding to mileage. Sen. West offered the idea of weighted funding based on mileage. Chair Brister then questioned the value of schools having buses in general, suggesting that some districts would do better to simply encourage parents to carpool.

Rep. Huberty suggested PEG grants should be left alone because they offer a real incentive for districts to accept transfer students. It’s important to note that this is often cited as a key component of the public school choice system.

The group discussed using current year values for Foundation School Program (FSP) calculations, which would affect districts experiencing positive growth and negative growth differently. Rep. Huberty also noted that districts in which a significant portion of the local property wealth is tied to mineral wealth could experience more volatility.

Sen. Taylor suggested that pre-K is one of the areas in which districts could invest general dollars that have been untethered from specific programs, as discussed. The group discussed whether to incentivize half-day or full-day pre-K in order to achieve the goal of getting students reading by the third grade.

The group also discussed changing the equalized wealth level and simplifying the funding tiers, the recapture system in general, and the basic allotment. Brister contended that discussing recapture should be the purview of the working group on revenue, which is led by state Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston). With regard to the basic allotment, members expressed concern over tying the hands of future legislatures by tying funding to a rising cost such as inflation.

Members discussed the adjusted allotment, and Sen. Taylor proposed additional funding for charters. Sen. West quickly voiced opposition to charter expansion and the group quickly moved onto the next topic.

A larger discussion focused on the cost of education index, which was passed in 1984 and last updated in 1991. Member Ellis discussed moving to a more relevant index that includes teacher salaries. Sen. Taylor suggested districts also experience large variations in the cost of transportation, which could play a part in a CEI replacement. Rep. Huberty pointed out that even if the CEI were updated today, it would be out of date again within a few years.

The group took a look at the district size adjustments for small- and mid-sized districts, and Brister expressed the feeling that many smaller districts should be consolidated. Member Ellis noted that many rural districts have already consolidated services such as transportation and food services. Sen. Taylor suggested looking for ways to encourage districts to consolidate.

Regarding special education, Rep. Huberty indicated he did not feel comfortable tweaking weights and arrangements, and special education funding should be based on need. Huberty confirmed there will be more money pumped into special education, and members should wait and see how that funding affects the system before making modifications. Texas Education Agency (TEA) Chief School Finance Officer Leo Lopez said the increased cost of complying with order to serve all qualifying special education students is projected to be $682 million in fiscal year (FY) 2019, $1 billion in FY 2020, and $1.55 billion in FY 2021. Rep. Huberty also asked to explore fulfilling more private placement services within districts; for example, districts could offer incentives to improve retention of high-performing special education teachers.

On the issue of attendance, Sen. Larry Taylor suggested moving away from attendance-based funding requirements. Again, the argument for doing so was to give districts more flexibility, particularly at the high school level.

Members continued to focus on flexibility with regard to career and technical education (CTE), while expressing support for encouraging CTE and expanding middle school programs from eighth to as early as sixth grade. Regarding compensatory education, members discussed moving the identifying mechanism away from using free and reduced-price lunch. Members also looked at expanding the definitions to serve more low-income students who may not technically qualify under the current system. Regarding weights, the group discussed a hypothetical increase to the compensatory education weight to between .225 and .275.

Moving onto English Language Learners (ELLs), Sen. Taylor suggested the state incentive dual language over bilingual education where possible by offering a separate weight, rather than just increasing the bilingual weight.

On the issue of facilities funding, Rep. Huberty pointed out that legislators already voted to increase the new instructional facilities allotment (NIFA), but the system was stretched so thin that the anticipated benefit was not fully delivered. The next step would be to increase the cap from $25 million to $100 million. Sen. West again voiced concern about the saturation of charter schools.

The group then discussed staffing, beginning with a proposal to allow staff members’ children to take advantage of free pre-K. Rep. Huberty then talked about teacher compensation, including programs intended to incentivize top teachers to work at campuses facing the toughest challenges. Lopez suggested a tiered pay program that rewards high-performing teachers would have a low initial startup cost, but would ramp up over time. Member Ellis emphasized the need for local control in setting salaries and implementing locally-developed programs, such as the Dallas ISD program that is often cited as an example of a working performance pay system. Sen. Taylor suggested providing funding for this on the back end for districts that have already put these programs into practice.

Members were unanimous in its support for mental health and wellness programs, but indicated the subject may be beyond the purview of the commission.

The group noted changes to the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) of Texas ranging from adjusting the anticipated rate of return to rising drug costs and benefit reductions. Chair Huberty also indicated this subject may best be tackled by the relevant legislative committees. Notwithstanding this, the group entertained a discussion of requiring charter schools to pay into TRS at the same rate districts are required to pay. Lopez noted the interaction between district TRS contributions and the CEI, should the CEI go away.

Rep. Huberty asked TEA to pull a report together within the next 30 days, so the working group can schedule another public meeting to formally adopt its recommendations. Brister suggested getting recommendations to the full commission by mid- to late October so that the commission could consider them in November.

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

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


The Board of Directors for the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) met this week to discuss the pension fund’s assumed rate of return. Today the board voted to reduce the rate of return from 8% to 7.25%, anticipating a decline in investment revenue. It is now up to the legislature to provide additional funding for TRS in order to prevent a shortfall and stretch the already dwindling resources of educators even further. ATPE Lobbyist Monty Exter testified at the TRS board meeting and explains more about the decision in this post, which also includes a fact sheet provided by TRS staff.


 This week the Senate Select Committee on Violence in Schools and School Security met to discuss the last of the four charges assigned to them by the Lt. Governor. The panel heard invited and public testimony regarding best practices for preventing violence in schools and other topics. Not much longer after the hearing, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick released a statement in which he said he would not support “red flag” laws, laws aimed at seizing the guns of those deemed a danger to themselves or others, citing failed legislation from last session as well as Gov. Abbott’s recent reticence to support red flag laws. The committee will now deliberate and release a report during the first week of August. More details about the hearing can be found in this post by ATPE Lobbyist Kate Kuhlmann.


Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick currently has no plans to debate his Democratic opponent, Mike Collier, despite repeated calls from the Collier campaign and many voters interested in the race for lieutenant governor. In a statement to the Texas Tribune, Allen Blakemore, a strategist for the Patrick campaign said the following:

“It’s no secret Lt. Governor Patrick relishes debates, but since his opponent shows no sign of grasping even the most basic rudiments of state government, our campaign has no plans to debate him,”

In response to this statement, the grassroots educators group Texans for Public Education offered to facilitate the debate by offering assistance “with location,  moderation, with time and date…” and other details. The full statement from the group can be read here.

Read more in this story from the Texas Tribune.


Earlier this week, both the U.S. House and Senate approved legislation aimed at revising the federal law that governs career and technical education (CTE). The Senate first passed a bill reauthorizing the Perkins Career and Technical Education Act. The House concurred with the Senate’s changes and the bill was sent to the President. At this time, President Trump has not yet signed the bill, but it is likely that he will. ATPE Lobbyist Kate Kuhlmann provides more information here.


Congress sends CTE overhaul to President Trump

Congress passed legislation this week to rewrite the primary federal law concerning career and technical education (CTE). The bill now goes to President Trump for his signature.

On Monday, the Senate passed its version of a bill to reauthorize the Perkins Career and Technical Education Act by a voice vote. The upper chamber amended a reauthorization bill already passed by the U.S. House, H.R. 2353, with substitute text containing the Senate’s preferred language to reauthorize the law. The U.S. Senate education committee chairman, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), said the bill limits the role of the Department of Education (ED), giving states more freedom to make decisions about how to utilize federal CTE funding.

The House quickly responded on Wednesday by agreeing to the Senate’s changes and sending the bill to President Trump’s desk for his signature. The Trump Administration has been increasingly supportive of the legislation. White House advisor Ivanka Trump has actively supported passage of the legislation and President Trump released a statement on Wednesday saying that “by enacting it into law, we will continue to prepare students for today’s constantly shifting job market, and we will help employers find the workers they need to compete.”

Still, groups like the Association for Career and Technical Education and Advance CTE and the American Association of School Administrators have expressed opposition for varying reasons. The CTE group expressed concern once the Senate bill was passed that it leaves the potential for unambitious state performance targets and low academic standards for CTE students. The administrators have previously called the legislation too prescriptive.

As we have previously outlined, current funding levels will be continued, and the bill gives states more authority in crafting their goals, as long as they are aligned with requirements under the bill. States will be required to meet those goals within two years or face a potential loss of funding. The bill does provide for some additional funding that will be disseminated to states based on population. President Trump is expected to sign the bill soon.

TRS update: The vote is in

After taking testimony from many active and retired educators and those who advocate for them, including ATPE, the TRS board of directors deliberated today and ultimately adopted an assumed rate of return of 7.25%, down from 8% currently.

You can read more about this issue in previous Teach the Vote blog posts, including this post from yesterday. ATPE has also released this press statement following this morning’s vote.

TRS has provided this infographic to help interested parties better understand the reasons behind the move to a new rate and address some questions related to change.

One thing is certain: the ball is now firmly in the legislatur’es court to properly fund the TRS pension through increased compensation rates. Educators who are interested in the health of the fund should keep that in mind at the ballot box in November.

What’s happening at TRS this week?


This week, the TRS board of directors will discuss and likely take action on a recommendation to lower the assumed rate of return (RoR), based on investment forecasts provided by independent financial experts hired to assess all of the assumptions TRS staff uses for planning purposes. Should the board lower the assumed RoR it would be in line with broader trends in the public pension sector, including TRS’s peers. The vast majority of experts expect less robust investment returns in the near and mid-term future.

In order to maintain the long term health of the fund without decreasing pension benefits, contribution rates will need to be increased to offset an anticipated decrease in investment revenue. Unlike many local pension systems (e.g., municipal, police, and fire), the TRS board does not set contribution rates for either employees or employers; nor does the board set the benefits paid out to retirees. Both TRS contributions and benefits are completely determined by the Texas legislature. Should the legislature fail to pass a plan to provide adequate contributions over time, the only remaining options would be to reduce benefits, further weakening current and future retirees’ retirement security, or put the fund into a situation where benefits being paid out exceed revenues coming in, which would place the fund on a path to eventual insolvency.

The bottom line is that the burden is on the Texas legislature to step up and provide the necessary funding to ensure actuarial soundness of the TRS pension fund and give educators peace of mind that they will not face cuts in their pensions or other dramatic pension plan changes. Historically, the legislature has not been proactive in this area and has not prioritized funding for retired educators’ needs, opting to delay action until the pension fund reaches a crisis level.

Some educator groups have urged their members to flood TRS board members with calls and emails this week. We believe their calls to action, while well-intentioned, are misdirected, as the TRS board has virtually no authority over contributions or benefits and, with regard to investments, has a fiduciary duty to act in what it believes to be the best interest of the fund based on the prudent advice of its financial experts. In other words, TRS has few options at this time, given the legislature’s disregard over the course of decades for the growing financial needs of the pension fund.

The only way to avoid a major TRS funding shortfall that will hurt the educators who depend on the fund is legislative action, not action from TRS. With that in mind, educators who care about the short- and long-term health of TRS should be focused on the legislature, not the TRS board members. Current legislators who have not prioritized TRS funding have caused the current problem. Is it reasonable to expect those same legislators to now fix it, or does it make more since go to the polls in November and elect legislators who will prioritize TRS funding as part of a general dedication toward public education?

Check back tomorrow for a follow-up report on what action the board takes on the assumed RoR.

School finance commission considers first round of recommendations

The Texas Commission on Public School Finance met Tuesday morning to discuss recommendations from the working group on outcomes, lead by Todd Williams. Commission Chair Scott Brister opened the meeting by requesting suggestions for how to pay for the various recommendations the commission has received.

Texas Commission on Public School Finance meeting July 10, 2018.

Texas Education Agency (TEA) Chief School Finance Officer Leo Lopez was the first invited witness, and provided an overview of how public education in Texas is funded. Currently, the state pays 36 percent of the total cost of funding schools. Excluding local recapture, the bulk of funding – 51 percent – is carried by local property taxes. Recapture, which is also local funding but was counted separately for the purposes of Lopez’s presentation on Tuesday, amounts for three percent of funding. The remainder comes from federal funding.

According to TEA’s numbers, state funding on a per-student basis has remained flat since 2008. When adjusted for inflation, this represents a decline in actual dollars. In the same time period, the biggest increase in funding has come from local property taxes. Legislative Budget Board (LBB) Assistant Director John McGeady explained that while the LBB and TEA use different calculations to determine state spending, both sets of data show the state’s share of funding has steadily declined over the past decade.

Williams introduced the same recommendations the working group approved last week, which include outcome-based incentives at the 3rd, 8th, and 12th grade levels. The 3rd grade reading gateway would be supplemented by increased funding for schools with high populations of economically disadvantaged and English learner students that could be used to provide full-day prekindergarten. The 8th grade incentives would target reading and Algebra I, and 12th grade would focus on indicators of post-secondary readiness.

The recommendations from the outcomes working group also include a performance pay system that would reward teachers who complete more rigorous educator preparation programs, provide higher pay for educators according to locally-developed, multi-metric performance evaluation programs, and incent administrators to direct the highest performing educators into campuses and grade levels with the greatest need.

State Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston), who has argued against increasing school funding, argued fiercely against objective data presented by Williams that indicate Texas will miss its “60×30” goal by two decades years. The goal is to ensure that 60 percent of Texas 25- to 34-year olds obtain a postsecondary degree or certificate by 2030. According to current rates of postsecondary attainment, the state will not reach this goal until 2051. Bettencourt argued businesses rely on net migration into the state, despite the fact that this necessarily reduces the number of high paying jobs available to students educated in Texas.

Williams told the members he would welcome feedback on the recommendations, and suggested more testimony could be taken, specifically from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) regarding 60×30 progress. State Rep. Diego Bernal (D-San Antonio) suggested the working group could collect comments and produce a revised draft.

Williams estimated the cost of implementing the recommendations at $1 billion annually, or $2 billion per biennium. This would gradually increase to $2.5 billion annually over a ten-year period, as districts meet stretch goals and additional districts phase in the recommendations. This could ultimately save the state money by higher-paid workers contributing more state taxes, and fewer state resources would be needed for uninsured medical costs and incarceration. The expenditures working group is expected to meet August 9 to work on recommendations. House Public Education Committee Chair Dan Huberty (R-Houston), who leads the expenditures working group, said more than 200 recommendations have been received. The full commission does not plan to meet until September.

Brister said the commission will not hold a vote until the total cost of recommendations can be calculated and until the commission can determine from where the money to pay for them will come.

Working group releases first set of school finance recommendations

The Texas Commission on Public School Finance working group on outcomes met Tuesday in Austin to consider recommendations based on more than 60 hours of testimony heard by the commission since its first meeting in January.

School finance commission working group on outcomes meeting July 3, 2018.

Group leader Todd Williams began the meeting reading from a detailed report that suggested the state should invest more dollars in specific strategies to accelerate reaching the “60×30” goal of ensuring 60 percent of students go onto post-secondary success by the year 2030.

Common themes from testimony included the importance of early intervention, since only 60 percent of students arrive at school kindergarten-ready. The report indicated teachers are the most important in-school factor in student outcomes, and funding should ensure that every teacher candidate has access to high quality educator preparation programs, ensure they stay in the profession and classroom, and ensure they address student challenges as early as possible.

In order to achieve post-secondary achievement, the report suggested funding should ensure graduates do not require remediation in higher education and that achievement of a post-secondary credential is not only expected, but achievable, affordable and supported. In addition, the report suggested systemic incentives, including ensuring that financial incentives are tied to the achievement of our most critical outcomes.

The working group’s formal recommendations encompass three core principles: Ready to learn, ready to teach, and ready to earn. According to the report, funding should include some specific incentives within the formula funding tied to specific goals at critical gates.

The first of these incentive gates is 3rd grade reading, and the working group is recommending providing an additional weight for low income and/or English language learners for pre-K through grade 3. At each district’s discretion, dollars from this 3rd grade reading investment would be sufficient to be used to fund full day pre-K, tutoring interventions, expanded dual language programs, specialized multi-year early childhood professional development, and a longer school year.

The second incentive is funding for every 8th grader who meets the state’s standard in reading and Algebra I. This is expected to help increase college readiness. The third incentive is funding for every high school graduate assessed as college or career ready, who successfully achieves industry certification or enrolls in college or the military. Incentives for rewarding low-income student achievement should be higher in recognition of the greater associated challenges. State Rep. Diego Bernal (D-San Antonio) was emphatic that incentives should not further increase inequity in the school funding system.

The fourth incentive is to provide the optional ability for districts to implement multi-measure evaluation systems and fund higher teacher distinction levels to attract and retain high-quality teachers. The working group noted the issues with current salary levels in recruiting and retaining teachers, and expressed the goal that districts be able to pay top-quality teachers more. Melissa Martin, the only teacher on the commission, said she’s torn over performance pay. Martin voiced concern that evaluations are property constructed and not totally subjective, which could introduce campus politics into the process.

The working group included the following additional recommendations:

  • Adjust compensatory education funding (currently $3.9 billion annually) in recognition that “free and reduced lunch” percentages are a very simplistic measure and do not adequately reflect the varying levels of poverty that exist throughout the state.
  • Strongly consider eliminating the five end-of-course (“EOC”) STAAR assessments and replacing with either SAT or ACT assessments that can measure growth based on a pre-SAT/ACT assessment given in 9th grade vs. a SAT/ACT assessment given in the 11th grade.
  • For districts choosing to implement a full day Pre-K program, consider crediting the appropriate full-day attendance for purposes of funding within the Foundation School Program.
  • TEA financially incent dual language strategies and disallow ELL pullout strategies as an accepted approach toward ELL instruction for larger districts exceeding 5,000 students (this subset of districts educates roughly 80% of all Texas students).
  • Align the current CTE weight of 1.35 (equivalent to $2.2 billion annually) toward CTE programs of study that are vigorously tied to the attainment of living wage credentials aligned with current workforce need and/or which provide students with critical financial literacy skills.
  • Amend legislation to require that failing ISD elementary and middle school campuses may be reconstituted after three years with an ACE-like school reconstitution plan (where better educators have been purposely placed at the struggling campus) with the state providing matching funds to reduce district costs.
  • To reduce prison recidivism and its associated costs to the state, TEA should amend the accountability system to incent school districts to help formerly incarcerated individuals receive their high school diploma or GED.
  • State funding should target professional development training towards schools/districts willing to launch blended learning and personalized learning pilots that help students matriculate faster than their peers if necessary, providing net savings in the long run to the state due to paying for less seat time.
  • Schools should be incentivized by the academic accountability system by creating a separate post-secondary readiness academic distinction. In addition, additional state funding should be awarded if the high school achieves the post-secondary readiness academic distinction.

The working group also expressed support for researching the costs associated with providing all-day pre-K for teachers’ children. The report concludes, “For us to succeed requires very substantive, immediate action on the part of the state (emphasis in original document) – we simply cannot “tweak” our K-12 system to meet this critical objective. Only by making strategic, impactful investments above current levels in the key areas noted, and implementing the innovative structural formula changes that are necessary, can we ensure Texas remains a thriving economy that all of its citizens can participate in.”

The recommendations carry an estimated $1 billion annual price tag, which would average out to about $200 per student and a 4 percent increase in the current basic allotment – still below 2008 inflation adjusted funding levels. This would gradually increase to $2.5 billion annually by 2030, which would average out to $450 per student, which would only be achieved if all districts implement performance pay programs. According to the report, this would still place Texas in the lowest quartile of per-student spending compared to other states.

The report argues these measures could pay for themselves by creating up to $4 billion in incremental potential yearly earnings and up to $250 million in additional state sales taxes for each yearly graduating cohort. Better-prepared graduates will earn more money and pay more in taxes. The report suggests success could also reduce growth in the approximate $12 billion the state spends each year in uninsured medical costs and incarceration.

The report, as amended, was approved with a unanimous vote of the five working group members. You can read all of the recommendations in the full draft report from the outcomes working group here, however some of the recommendations were altered or struck in Tuesday’s meeting. This article contains the most up-to-date versions of the recommendations. The full commission meets July 10.

A busy education week in Washington

This week’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on collective bargaining topped the education news coming out of Washington, but across the street, Congress was working on a few public education issues as well. A U.S. Senate committee gave early approval to a future education budget, a separate Senate committee advanced a bill to revamp the federal role in Career and Technical Education (CTE), and the Trump Administration continued its work on school safety.

Federal education funding

The U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies marked up a bill this week to address funding for the education department in fiscal year 2019 (FY19). While the bill still has to get the approval of the full appropriations committee, the full Senate, and then the U.S. House, it is an early indicator of how the U.S. Senate intends to fund education in the future. On the other side of the building, the House has its own version of an FY19 education funding bill sitting in the same spot as its senate companion (having passed out of the subcommittee). Overall, the Senate bill would provide $71.4 billion in funding for the Department of Education, which represents a $541 million increase, while the House bill grants $71 billion, a $43 million bump. The respective committees have summaries of the House and Senate bills posted for more information.

Rewrite of the federal CTE law

Those funding bills would stabilize funding for CTE at or just above current levels for FY19, and a separate bill to reauthorize the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act is gaining considerable steam. The White House and other major players have backed the legislation, and it easily passed out of the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on Tuesday. The bill would give states more authority in crafting their goals, as long as they are aligned with requirements under the bill, but states would be required to meet those goals within two years or face losing funding. A House version of the bill has already made its way to the Senate, where it has sat while the Senate works on this version of the bill. One loud voice opposing the Senate version is the American Association of School Administrators, who called the bill too prescriptive and a step away from the flexibility advancements made under ESSA.

School safety commission

Meanwhile, the Federal Commission on School Safety began what is expected to be a series of regional listening sessions in Lexington, Kentucky this week. The remaining sessions have not been announced, but the commission intends to host more, calling this week’s meeting the “Midwest” session. The commission was announced by President Trump in March following the Marjory Stoneman Douglas school shooting in Parkland, Florida. It is chaired by Secretary of Education Betsy Devos and is also made up of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar and Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen. The commission has already conducted some of its work in Washington both publicly and through private meetings.

Back in Texas, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) announced a federal grant opportunity pertaining to school safety: the STOP School Violence Prevention and Mental Health Training Program grant is available through the US Department of Justice. TEA said it intends to apply, but also shared that the opportunity is open to individual ISDs. More information on the grant can be found here.

ATPE meets with lawmakers, congressional staff in Washington

ATPE 2017-18 State President Carl Garner and State Vice President Byron Hildebrand at the U.S. Capitol, June 11, 2018

Carl Garner, Rep. Beto O’Rourke, Jennifer Mitchell Canaday, and Byron Hildebrand in Washington, DC, June 12, 2018

A group of ATPE state leaders and lobbyists were in the nation’s capital this week to advocate for pro-public education legislation. ATPE State President Carl Garner, State Vice President Byron Hildebrand, and Governmental Relations Director Jennifer Mitchell Canaday joined ATPE’s Washington-based lobbyist David Pore for meetings with our Texas congressional delegation on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Our visiting ATPE group held numerous productive meetings, including visits to the offices of U.S. Sen. John Cornyn and U.S. Representatives Kevin Brady, Beto O’Rourke, Henry Cuellar, Pete Olson, John Carter, Lloyd Doggett, Will Hurd, Roger Williams, and Jeb Hensarling.

Byron Hildebrand, Carl Garner, Rep. Kevin Brady, and Jennifer Mitchell Canaday at the U.S. Capitol, June 12, 2018

The bulk of ATPE’s discussions with our congressional delegation focused on the need to repeal and replace the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) that reduces Social Security benefits for many educators and other public servants. Rep. Brady, who chairs the powerful U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, has been leading an effort to replace the WEP with a different formula that will provide Texas educators with Social Security benefits that are calculated in a more transparent, equitable, and predictable manner. Chairman Brady outlined his vision for a new plan to replace the WEP in a guest post for Teach the Vote back in November. ATPE’s team also visited this week with the staff of the Ways and Means Committee who are working on that new WEP legislation that is expected to be filed soon.

Hildebrand, Garner, Claire Sanderson from Sen. John Cornyn’s office, and ATPE contract lobbyist David Pore in Washington, DC, June 12, 2018

Other topics of discussion during this week’s meeting included school safety, maintaining funding for teacher preparation programs under Title II of the Higher Education Act, and preventing federal vouchers that would send public tax dollars to unregulated private schools. ATPE recently lobbied our congressional leaders to oppose an attempted amendment to a national defense bill that would have created an Education Savings Account voucher for students from military families. ATPE joined a number of military groups in opposing the amendment, which was recently ruled out of order and prevented from being added to the bill.

Hildebrand and Garner at the White House’s Truman Bowling Alley, June 11, 2018

During the trip to Washington, ATPE’s representatives also visited area museums, enjoyed a tour of the U.S. Capitol, and spent a special evening at the White House’s Truman Bowling Alley.

Carl Garner with Rep. Pete Olson in his Washington, DC office, June 13, 2018

 

 

Byron Hildebrand with his congressman, Rep. Henry Cuellar, June 13, 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senate committee talks school security programs

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

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

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

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

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

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