Tag Archives: incentive pay

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.

Commissioner updates SBOE on HB 3 and other education bills

Texas Commissioner of Education Mike Morath updated the State Board of Education (SBOE) today, June 12, 2019, on recent bills passed by the 86th Texas Legislature affecting public education. His remarks included comments on the major school finance and reform bill, House Bill (HB) 3.

Commissioner Morath began with a review of HB 3906, which makes several changes to how state assessments are delivered. Intended do reduce test anxiety, the bill bthis blog post from the ATPE lobby team.

Under HB 3, TEA is required to enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with a public institution to study the STAAR and ensure that the assessment meets certain criteria: It is to be written at the appropriate reading level; should only include content aligned with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for that grade level or earlier grades; and should only include passages written at or below the reading level of the grade level for the assessment. This report is due to the legislature by December 1, 2019.

Commissioner Mike Morath addressing SBOE members on June 12, 2019.

The commissioner provided the board with a high-level review of the main components of HB 3, which the agency estimates will provide an average increase of $635 per student in average daily attendance (ADA). You can read the full analysis of HB 3 by ATPE’s lobbyists here.

Aside from new legislation, Commissioner Morath indicated that the agency has found the financial resources to follow through with the SBOE’s request to create a charter school transparency website, which will provide easy access to more information on charter schools. A beta version of the website will be available by spring 2020. This segued into a discussion on TEA’s process of reviewing applications for new charters, and the commissioner walked the board through the five applications he has recommended for approval, which were announced late last week. SBOE member Ruben Cortez (D-Brownsville) pointed out the short notice and requested that the agency provide its charter recommendations further ahead of time.

SBOE member Barbara Cargill (R-The Woodlands) asked the commissioner to review the incentive pay program created under HB 3. Morath noted that local school districts will be able to develop programs based upon the current T-TESS evaluation system, with Texas Tech University tasked with reviewing districts’ programs for quality control. The commissioner added that while “master” teacher designations were envisioned as roughly the top five percent of teachers based on performance, the bill requires that the system enable all teachers to be mathematically able to qualify for the designation. Commissioner Morath pointed out that HB 3 requires that 90 percent of a district’s incentive pay funding must be used to increase the salary of teachers working on the campus at which the incentive pay program is in place, though not necessarily each teacher. With that in mind, Morath suggested that districts could “craftily invest in a teacher group.”

After the commissioner spoke, TEA’s governmental relations team updated the board on how the SBOE’s legislative recommendations fared during the 2019 legislative session. Hunter Thompson walked members through changes the legislature made to governance of the Permanent School Fund (PSF), which the board oversees, as well as incentives to hire and retain teachers, which Thompson suggested were included in the provisions of HB 3. Thompson also credited HB 3 with accomplishing a number of objectives laid out in the board’s Long-Range Plan (LRP) for Public Education. SBOE chair Donna Bahorich (R-Houston) and member Keven Ellis (R-Lufkin) suggested in the future that the board may consider drafting legislative recommendations earlier in order to spend more time educating legislators about those issues in the run-up to a legislative session.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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