Tag Archives: Teach the Vote

SBEC gives initial approval to weakened abbreviated educator preparation program

The State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) is meeting today in Austin. The board spent significant time this morning on a proposal to create an abbreviated path to the Trade and Industrial Workforce Training certificate. As the board received word of the heartbreaking news regarding a school shooting developing in Santa Fe ISD, members held a moment of silence and broke for a fifteen minute recess.

The abbreviated educator preparation and training program for candidates seeking the Trade and Industrial Workforce Training certificate was codified into law by HB 3349, a bill by Representative Gervin-Hawkins, during the 85th Legislature last year. The law requires SBEC to implement the new abbreviated pathway. The board has seen and discussed the proposal for its past two meetings, but the proposal the board saw today was a vastly different version based on input from the bill’s author and others out of the San Antonio area. ATPE and other educator groups were not a part of that stakeholder group that singularly drove the changes. Today, ATPE joined a chorus of stakeholders from the education community in opposing the changes.

Stressing the board’s recent focus on raising standards for teacher training in Texas, ATPE highlighted three major changes under the new proposal that are of concern:

  1. It expands the abbreviated program path to the Marketing and Health Science certificates. These are not included in the bill and were not discussed by legislators as desired abbreviated pathways.
  2. It reduces the number of training hours required before the candidate enters the classroom as the teacher-or-record from 180 to 110. While trade and industrial workforce career individuals bring valuable subject matter expertise to the classroom, they lack the training required to ensure they understand the science behind teaching that subject matter to a child. ATPE sees no reason these candidates should receive less pre-service training than other teacher candidates.
  3. It allows entities other than approved EPPs to provide the remaining 90 hours of training, which is again outside the bounds of the bill and, further, calls into question who is responsible for, approved for, and accountable to training educators.

Rep. Gervin-Hawkins was the only attendee present at the board meeting expressing support for the new trade and industrial workforce training proposal. All four teacher organizations and testimony from a classroom teacher shared the concerns expressed above by ATPE. Teacher board member Suzanne McCall was the only board member to oppose the new proposal. She highlighted testimony from the fourth grade Texas teacher who sees too many of her fellow teachers enter the classroom ill-prepared and watches them struggle. McCall stressed the importance of the foundational knowledge teachers receive before entering the classroom, and reminded the board that teacher pre-service training entails important exposure to things like how to teacher students with special needs. Her attempts to improve the proposal through amendments failed to receive any support from her fellow board members.

Many of the remaining board members seemed poised from the beginning to support the new proposal. Several members seemed unconcerned that these teacher candidates would receive less training than other teachers prior to entering the classroom as the sole teacher responsible for the students of a classroom. Superintendent member Dr. Susan Hull said these candidates don’t need more than 110 hours of training, which equates to roughly 3 weeks. Citizen member Leon Leal said we are disrespecting the career knowledge these candidates bring by expecting them to have the same amount of pre-service training as other teachers. There was interest from superintendent member Dr. Cavazos in removing the addition of the Marketing and Health Science certificates, but he ultimately only expressed concern and chose not to offer an amendment to remove them. Other members of the board advocated for the added certificates. The board’s action today granted only initial approval to the proposal.

The board also gave initial approval to proposals pertaining to the Educators’ Code of Ethics and educator discipline. At the board’s previous meeting in March, ATPE engaged with the board over a proposal to amend the Educators’ Code of Ethics. Texas Education Agency (TEA) staff at that time was looking to add several items that ATPE, other stakeholders, and board members felt didn’t belong because they weaken the Educators’ Code of Ethics and the high regard to which it should be held. Board members asked TEA to come back to them with more appropriate revisions. ATPE and other stakeholders worked with the staff to revise the text and was ultimately successful at moving a key piece of concern to the disciplinary chapter, where it is more appropriately housed.

The board will be back to consider the above items for final adoption at the August 3 meeting.

Calling all “new” teachers: TEA needs your feedback

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) is calling on “new” teachers to provide feedback on how well they were prepared to teach by their educator preparation program (EPP). The information collected is a critical piece of the system that holds EPPs accountable. The input you provide is valuable!

If you are a new teacher, which in this case refers to teachers teaching in their first year under a standard certificate, you should have received an email on April 18 containing the link to fill out the new teacher survey. The survey contains multiple choice question that are based on the Texas teacher standards and can be filled out in one sitting or in more than one session, if needed. Once you have submitted the survey, you will receive 10 continuing professional education (CPE) credits.

Even if you are not sure you qualify as a new teacher, please take a moment to fill out the survey you received. The prompts at the beginning of the survey will direct you to the end if you do not qualify. Your feedback on this survey is valuable to ensuring educators in Texas receive the quality training they deserve prior to standard certification.

Please fill out the survey by June 15. If you have any questions or would like to request another link to the survey, please email TEA at pilotteachersurvey@tea.texas.gov.

Teach the Vote’s Week in Review: May 11, 2018

From Austin to the nation’s capital, here’s a look at how ATPE’s lobby team has been working hard for you this week:


Early voting starts Monday for Texas’s Republican and Democratic primary runoffs on May 22. This week ATPE continued to highlight races across the state where education has pushed to the forefront of political discourse heading into the runoffs. We encourage you to learn more about the races in your district by visiting the candidates section of TeachtheVote.org and by checking out our runoff spotlights for candidates in House Districts 4, 8, 54, 62, and 121.

Remember, if you voted in a party primary back in March, you may only vote in the same party’s runoff election this month. If you are registered but did not vote at all in March, you may choose to vote in either party’s runoff election. You can find more information on eligibility to participate in the runoffs and what you need to do here.

Early voting for the runoffs is May 14-18, 2018, and runoff election day is May 22,2018.

 


ATPE’s lobby team has been working to prevent a controversial private school voucher amendment from being added to a national defense bill that is on the move. The U.S. House Committee on Armed Services met this week to consider the National Defense Authorization Act. Our Austin- and Washington-based lobbyists have watched the development of this bill closely since learning that discussions of adding a voucher were underway in the House. As ATPE Lobbyist Kate Kuhlmann reports today, the potential voucher, in the form of an Education Savings Account (ESA), would funnel existing federal Impact Aid dollars to military families without accountability for how those funds are spent. While the ESA didn’t make it into the bill during committee, it now heads to the floor of the House for debate. There, it could still be added through the amendment process.

ATPE sent a letter this week to Chairman Pete Sessions (R-TX), who leads the committee that determines which amendments will be considered on the House floor, asking him not to allow the voucher amendment. The letter highlights that we join the Military Coalition, a group of 25 organizations representing more than 5.5 million active and former members of the U.S. Military, in opposing the voucher. “The $2,500 voucher program created by HR 5199,” ATPE Governmental Relations Director Jennifer Mitchell Canaday wrote, “would drain limited dollars from both the public school system in Texas as well the Federal Impact Aid Program, hurting the very military-connected students it purports to help.” Read the full letter here and check back for developments on this issue.

 


An article by the Texas Tribune this week explored how charter schools operate in a precarious gray space that makes them a government entity at some times and a private entity at others. ATPE Lobbyist Monty Exter is quoted in the full-length article by Emma Platoff, which is republished here on Teach the Vote.

 


In an effort to encourage parents, teachers, and school leaders to actively participate in the rulemaking process, TEA sent a letter to school administrators on Wednesday requesting that school districts and open-enrollment charter schools post upcoming rulemaking actions on their websites. Learn more about the request and ATPE’s involvement in rulemaking changes in this blog post by ATPE Lobbyist Mark Wiggins.

 


 

House Pensions Committee meeting May 10, 2018, in Dallas.

The Teacher Retirement System (TRS) of Texas was one of the many items discussed at Thursday’s meeting of the House Committee on Pensions held in Dallas, TX. The meeting, which focused on the committee’s interim charges, featured testimony from TRS Executive Director Brian Guthrie plus a number of active and retired educators. ATPE Lobbyist Mark Wiggins attended the hearing and provided full details in his blog post here.

 


TEA encourages education stakeholders to share rulemaking input

In a letter addressed to school administrators Tuesday, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) requested that school districts and open-enrollment charter schools include upcoming rulemaking actions on their websites in order to encourage school leaders, parents, and teachers to participate in the rulemaking process. The agency is asking districts and charters to post links to the TEA’s web pages that host proposed rules of the Commissioner of Education, the State Board of Education (SBOE), and the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC).

Along with legislative action at the Texas Capitol, administrative rulemaking is one of the two main ways education policy is made. However, unlike the Texas Legislature, which is only active for 140 days every two years, state administrative bodies make rules year-round. When it comes to public education, the Commissioner of Education, the SBOE, and SBEC each have express rulemaking authority over a defined set of topics. While very different from the legislative process, the rulemaking process also makes use of public input. To increase public accessibility, the TEA has implemented new electronic forms to provide public comment on proposed rules, which can be found by clicking on the corresponding links above. The agency has also created a frequently-asked questions (FAQ) page about the rulemaking process.

ATPE’s lobby team regularly participates in the rulemaking proceses by giving written and oral input to the commissioner and state boards on issues of concern to our membership. Also, we frequently post about significant rulemaking actions here on our blog at TeachTheVote.org, and we encourage you similarly to follow rulemaking developments that affect you, your colleagues, your students, and your classrooms. Submitting feedback on these rulemaking actions is a great way to continue to have your teacher voice heard on important education policy matters throughout the year!

From the Texas Tribune: Are charter schools private? In Texas courts, it depends why you’re asking.

Texas charter schools are sometimes private and sometimes governmental — a legal framework that has helped them avoid costly lawsuits.

by Emma Platoff, The Texas Tribune

May 7, 2018

istock.com

In 2006, in Dallas, a construction company sued a charter school, alleging that the school stiffed workers on a building contract to the tune of a couple hundred thousand dollars.

Eight years later, in Houston, a third grade teacher sued the charter school where she worked, alleging that it had falsified test scores, that it failed to properly provide for students with disabilities and that mold in her classroom had made her sick.

Their claims did not make it very far.

The teacher couldn’t sue the charter because, the Texas Supreme Court said, it’s not a government entity. The construction company couldn’t sue, the same court said years earlier, because it was.

Questions about the legal status of charter schools — which receive taxpayer money but are privately run, usually by nonprofit corporations — are broad, existential ones in Texas, where disputes over school funding are among the Legislature’s most contentious. But those categories take on intense practical significance in the courtroom, where the rules that govern private- and public-sector employers vary widely. In two significant Texas Supreme Court cases over the last decade, charter schools and their lawyers have sidestepped lawsuits over employment and contract issues by playing both sides of that fence. In some cases, charter schools can’t be sued because they’re government entities; in others, they’re immune because they’re private.

That difference is intentional. Charter schools were designed, as former Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett wrote in the construction company opinion, to “operate with greater flexibility than traditional public schools, in hopes of spurring innovation and improving student achievement.”

Because of that aim, charter schools are not subject to all the same laws as their traditional counterparts. That legal structure helps charter schools retain their “freedom and flexibility,” said Joseph Hoffer, who argued successfully for the charter school in the Houston case.

But some advocates point out that the rules for charter schools seem to target the wrong things.

The Whistleblower Act — which did not allow the teacher to sue — is perhaps the best example.

“How is it innovative to ensure that your employees are silenced if you are doing something inappropriate?” questioned Monty Exter, a lobbyist for the Association of Texas Professional Educators. “I would think that you would want to have those internal watchdogs looking out for kids.”

“When do the rules apply to you?”

There are a lot of unresolved legal issues surrounding charter schools, which are still relatively young educational institutions. Most of them center, as former State Board of Education Vice Chair Thomas Ratliff puts it, on the question, “Is a charter school a public school or a private entity?”

“It’s not that easy,” Ratliff said. “The answer, in a lot of cases, is both.”

In 2015, lawmakers said that for the purposes of the law, charter schools should be considered government entities when the lawmakers say so — and only then.

Some of those “when”s are common sense. Charter schools are subject to the Texas Public Information Act and the Open Meetings Act. Their teachers can be covered by the Teacher Retirement System of Texas. And they enjoy, for the most part, the same protections and immunities from lawsuits that traditional public school districts have, said David Anderson, who worked as the Texas Education Agency’s general counsel for two decades.

In other instances, charter schools are considered private; in many cases, they’re protected from suit. That’s a good thing, Hoffer said.

“Remember,” he said, “since they’re publicly funded, we want to protect the public funds from being attacked.”

But traditional public schools subject to whistleblower claims are also publicly funded. Employees who claim retaliation under the law can win monetary damages or even get their jobs back. That’s not the case with charter schools, and advocates say it’s unfair that those schools are given essentially all the protections of a school district while also enjoying some benefits of private employers.

“You have a charter school that can, in one breath, say, ‘Hey, we’re a public school, don’t sue us,’ and in the next say, ‘Hey, we’re not a public school, don’t sue us,’” said Lorna McMillion, who defended the would-be whistleblower in Houston. “If you’re a charter school who wants to get funding like a public school and wants to be treated like a public school, when do the rules apply to you and when do they not?”

The public-private dance has saved charter schools, in several cases, from lawsuits — like those filed by the third-grade teacher (the charter school’s lawyer dismissed her as a “serial litigator” — the TEA looked into a “testing security” complaint but determined it did not merit a full investigation) and by the construction company (the charter school’s lawyer in that case said the school followed its written contract). In the case of the few charter schools not run by nonprofit corporations, the legal waters are even murkier.

Lindsey Gordon, general counsel for the Texas Charter Schools Association, said the organization supports the Legislature’s current framework and protested that charter schools are not harder to sue than school districts. Every lawsuit, she argued, succeeds on its individual merits.

But would-be litigators have at least some options for suing a traditional public school that they can’t use to sue charter schools. McMillion said the Texas Supreme Court has made it impossible to sue charter schools using the most common legal avenues.

Meanwhile, charter schools have to follow some of the laws that many educators argue most directly impede schools’ ability to innovate. Charter schools are subject to the same test-based accountability system as school districts.

The legal exemptions, advocates said, seem not to foster creativity but rather to help the non-traditional schools avoid costly litigation.

“Charter schools are straddling the fence, on both sides, to make sure they have an advantageous legal position where it is harder to get them,” sad Evan Lange, a Dallas workers’ rights attorney who recently lost a case to an area charter school. “They take the benefits of being private and the benefits of being government. They’re choosing both.”

The Legislature has, in the past, added legal restrictions to charter schools when the need presented itself. In 2013, the Legislature brought nepotism laws for charter schools in line with those for other public schools. The change came after the Texas Education Agency investigated several potential abuses where charter school board members hired family members and paid them generous salaries.

The Whistleblower Act might very well go that way, said Thomas Fuller, a North Texas lawyer who works mostly with charter schools. While the law continues to develop on the relatively new species of school, there may be some “curious outcomes,” he said.

“It left a lot of us scratching our heads, too,” Fuller said. “I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see a number of those [bills] filed in the next session making charter schools subject to the Whistleblower’s Act.”

But in the meantime, advocates warn, the ruling could deter other charter school teachers from reporting abuse they see at work. Just this year, Michael Feinberg, the founder of one of the country’s most successful networks of charter schools, was dismissed following claims that he sexually abused a student in Houston in the 1990s. Cases like Feinberg’s make clear why it’s important for school personnel to feel safe bringing forward such allegations, advocates said.

And while the Legislature can go back and correct oversights that arise, it will be difficult for lawmakers to predict every possible legal fight that could ensnare a charter school — meaning more oversights are near-unavoidable.

“Not a good place to be an employee”

The peculiar legal status of charter schools has a particular impact on employees.

Teachers in traditional public schools enjoy a suite of protections that is not mandated for charter school teachers — including, for the most part, year-long contracts that grant teachers due process rights, Exter said. Texas charter school teachers don’t all have to be certified teachers, meaning they’re more easily replaced. They’re easier to fire in the middle of the year. And if they’re fired, they have even less recourse for challenging the decision.

And unlike teachers at private schools, charter school teachers don’t get the shield of the National Labor Relations Act, which contains some of the nation’s strongest protections against unfair labor practices. Texas charter schools — unlike other states’ equivalents — are not included in that protection because they are considered arms of the government. Texas is, so far, the only state whose charter school teachers are not protected by that act.

That’s thanks to a ruling that came down in March. The case made a difficult scenario worse for teachers in a state that’s already “not a good place to be an employee,” said Lange, the Dallas workers’ attorney.

Charter school supporters might argue that more freedom for the schools allows them to get rid of bad teachers and bring in better ones.

But in a sector of public education with far less oversight than traditional school districts, it’s easy to see how a teacher could find herself fired and out of options. A public school teacher who speaks out against a school practice she disagrees with — STAAR testing, say — is protected from government retaliation by the First Amendment.

But, Lange said, a charter school employee, who enjoys no such protection, could be fired more easily. Their schools, meanwhile, can in one breath claim the privileges of being public and in the next enjoy the freedom of the private sector.

“They literally want to have their cake and eat it too. That’s all charter schools do,” Lange said.

Disclosure: The Association of Texas Professional Educators has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2018/04/20/texas-teachers-employee-benefits-dead-last-retirement-funding/.

 

Texas Tribune mission statement

The Texas Tribune is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Runoff Spotlight – Get to know the candidates in House District 4

When it comes to public education, the Texas Legislature has incredible power to decide how our students are educated, how our schools are funded, and how our educators are treated. From per-pupil funding to student testing to teacher pay and benefits, these issues and more will be at the forefront of the 2019 legislative session, making the 2018 election cycle extremely critical. Most of the legislators who will make up the ranks of the 86th legislature next January were decided on March 6 when Texas held its primary elections, and the bulk of the rest are looking toward competitive races in November. For the residents of a few key districts, however, the decision on who will represent them next session will be made on May 22, 2018, which is the date of the primary runoff election.

ATPE is taking a closer look at some of the runoffs that will be decided in May, where the candidates squaring off against each other have identified public education as a key campaign issue. Today, we’re analyzing the Republican primary runoff for House District (HD) 4. To learn more about the candidates vying for this seat, click on the candidate’s name and you will be taken to that candidate’s full profile on Teach the Vote.

The Candidates: Keith Bell (R) vs Stuart Spitzer (R)

HD 4 covers all of Kaufman and most of Henderson counties. The incumbent Rep. Lance Gooden (R) is running for a U.S. congressional seat, creating an open seat.

Candidate Keith Bell is a business owner and rancher who has served on the Forney ISD school board for 20 years. Responding to the ATPE Candidate Survey, Bell has said enhancing school funding is his biggest priority, should he get elected. He has been endorsed by the pro-public education groups Texas Parent PAC and Texans for Public Education.

Candidate Stuart Spitzer represented HD 4 during the 84th legislative session before losing his seat to Gooden. While he did not respond to this year’s ATPE Candidate Survey, Dr. Spitzer stated in response to the 2014 ATPE candidate survey that he believes TRS is a part of the “nanny” state and called 401(k) style investment of teacher retirement dollars a “liberty issue,” adopting language  commonly used by  those who support dismantling the TRS defined benefit pension system. Spitzer has been endorsed by the Texas Home School Coalition, a pro-voucher organization, and by Empower Texans/Texans For Fiscal Responsibility, which supports limiting state spending on public education; eliminating educators’ right to use dues deduction; private school vouchers; and privatizing the management of existing public schools.

For additional information on this race or the primary runoff elections in general, contact ATPE Government Relations at government@atpe.org.

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

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


This May, many Texans will be making not one, but two trips to the ballot box. ATPE wants to ensure that all educators are aware of the two important elections taking place next month.

Saturday, May 5th is the uniform election date when municipal propositions, elections, and issues will be decided. Meanwhile, Tuesday, May 22nd is when state level primary runoff elections will be held. While any registered voter can participate in the May 5th municipal election, participation in the primary runoffs depends on whether you previously voted in the March primaries and in which primary election you voted.

For more information about the candidates and your eligibility to vote in the upcoming primary runoffs, check out this new blog post by ATPE Lobbyist Monty Exter.

 


Texas has a new “Grow Your Own” grant program designed by the Texas Rural Schools Taskforce to address  challenges faced by rural school districts and foster a more robust and diverse teaching force. This week, TEA released the names of the 25 school districts that received the 2018-19 “Grow Your Own” grant. Read more about them in this blog post from ATPE Governmental Relations Specialist Bria Moore.

 


The Texas Education Agency has finalized its plan to address special education. Professional development for special education teachers; resources and outreach for parents of special needs children; funding at the district level for students previously denied access to special education services; and additional staffing and resources were the four final measures proposed by TEA in its efforts to redress issues plaguing special education in the state. While the proposed measures would cost the state $212 million over the next five years, TEA is unable to commit additional funds to support the plan leaving the burden to fund these measures on the shoulders of the 86th Legislature which is set to reconvene in 2019. ATPE Lobbyist Kate Kuhlmann explains more about the plan in this blog post.

 


Houston ISD has notified district teachers of its plan to begin staff layoffs. As reported by the Houston Chronicle this afternoon, district employees received correspondence informing then that an unspecified number of layoffs would begin shortly due to budget constraints in the district. The financial strain of Hurricane Harvey coupled with new recapture woes have resulted in a projected deficit of $115 million for the district. The HISD administration has said that the number of layoffs will depend on how many teachers leave the district through attrition at the end of this school year.

Today’s announcement comes on the heels of a highly contentious HISD board meeting earlier this week that was shut down when protests broke out over a planned vote to turn over management of some of the district’s struggling campuses to a charter school operator. That move is part of a plan authorized by new legislation that ATPE opposed in 2017. Schools otherwise facing closure have an option to partner with charter holders for a temporary pause in their progressive sanctions, and HISD has proposed this course of action for 10 of its campuses despite heavy opposition from the community. Waco ISD also took similar action this week, opting to partner with a charter operator to avoid the closure of five struggling campuses in that district.

Stay tuned to Teach the Vote for updates on this developing story.

 


TEA finalizes plan to improve special education

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) has released its final action plan to address special education in Texas, which has been under scrutiny since 2017. That’s when reporting unveiled what the agency is now acknowledging was an arbitrary and illegal benchmark for the amount of students receiving special education services. After intervention from the federal government and significant stakeholder feedback, TEA’s final plan seeks to repair systematic issues that, in part, denied special education services to a disturbingly large number of Texas schoolchildren.

In a press release issued yesterday, TEA identified four major actions under the plan: a special education professional development system for educators; resources for parents of students who may need special education services and an accompanied outreach effort; funding for school districts providing services to students previously denied; and additional staffing and resources at TEA to support special education services and increase oversight.

TEA has identified some funding for administration of the plan, but highlights that “TEA cannot legally commit additional funds outside of those that are appropriated by the Texas Legislature and the US Congress.” The agency said the plan is designed to work within existing appropriations and identifies a proposed budget of $212 million over the next five years. Stakeholders have argued funding is insufficient to produce effective delivery of the plan, but it will be up to the legislature to allocate additional money for the purpose of increasing adequate services under the plan. The plan does include a commitment from TEA to request additional funding from the 86th Legislature during the 2019 regular session for local special education needs.

The state’s final strategic special education plan and more related information can be viewed at TEA’s Improving Special Education in Texas webpage. The full press release announcing the final plan can be found here.

Teach the Vote’s Week in Review: April 20, 2018

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

 


The Teacher Retirement System (TRS) of Texas board of trustees held multiple meetings this week in Austin.

Highlights of the quarterly meetings included discussions of new rates and policy designs for TRS-ActiveCare for the 2019/2020 school year; the need for increased authorization to hire additional full time employees (FTEs) at the agency; the introduction of the new TRS Communications Director; and a discussion of and failed vote on lowering the TRS pension fund’s expected rate of return.

ATPE Lobbyist Monty Exter attended both the committee and board meetings and penned this wrap-up for our Teach the Vote blog earlier today.

 


The House Public Education Committee held an interim hearing on Wednesday. Topics discussed included the continuing impact of Hurricane Harvey on the state’s public schools, plus implementation of recent education-related bills dealing with school finance, the accountability, system, and student bullying.

Commissioner of Education Mike Morath updated the committee on the state and federal governments’ response to Hurricane Harvey and the 1.5 million students in its affected school districts. Morath indicated that he will propose a new commissioner’s rule in June to provide a plan for accountability waivers for school districts that were forced to close facilities and suffered the displacement of students and staff.

The committee also heard testimony about the controversial “A through F” accountability system that is being implemented in Texas. School districts will be assigned A-F ratings in August, while campus A-F ratings will be released the following year. A number of witnesses during Wednesday’s hearing expressed concerns about the new rating system and its heavy emphasis on student test scores.

For more on the hearing, check out this blog post from ATPE Lobbyist Mark Wiggins.

 


With interim committee hearings in full swing this month, paying for Texas public schools and teachers remains a hot topic.

On Wednesday, the House Appropriations Committee heard from Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar and others about the status of the state’s Economic Stabilization Fund, often referred to as the “Rainy Day Fund.” Read more about recommendations being made for use of the fund to support the state’s funding needs in this blog post from ATPE Lobbyist Monty Exter.

Also this week, our friends at the Texas Tribune shared insights on how Texas teacher pay stacks up against other states. ATPE Lobbyist Monty Exter is quoted in the article republished here on Teach the Vote.

 


The Texas Commission on Public School Finance also convened again this week, with a Thursday meeting focused on tax policy issues and sources of funding for the state’s school finance system. ATPE Lobbyist Kate Kuhlmann has a rundown of that meeting here. She also shared the below update from today’s Expenditures Working Group meeting which covered the cost of education index, compensatory education, and the transportation allotment.

One unsurprising word could be used to summarize testimony from invited panelists at this morning’s Expenditures Working Group meeting: update. On all three topics discussed, expert witnesses pointed to updating both the methodology behind the funding tied to each topic and what each topic intends to address. For the cost of education index, Texas A&M University Bush School Professor Lori Taylor noted that the index is based on teacher salaries and employment patterns from 1990. Taylor is the same expert behind a recent Kansas study on school finance, which determined that state should invest an additional $2 billion in school funding. During this morning’s meeting in Austin, Taylor and the other panelist agreed the cost of living index has value, but needs significant updating; it was suggested that to better account for evolving costs of education, the commissioners should consider recommending a requirement that the state update the index (or even the entire finance system) every 10 years.

Similarly, school districts and other school finance stakeholders pointed to the need for better targeted funding for students supported by a broader category of compensatory education services, and the legislative budget board shared different way to approach funding transportation costs. Watch an archived live stream of the full meeting here for more on the discussions.

 


 

School finance commission focuses on tax policy

The Texas Commission on Public School Finance met today in Austin to cover an agenda focused on tax policy. The day included invited testimony from a series of witness representing both out-of-state entities and Texas-based stakeholders.

National representatives offered individual assessments of the Texas taxing structure as well as perspectives on various reforms. The representatives hailed from the Tax Foundation, Tulane University’s Murphy Institute, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Their individual presentations centered around a variety of policy reforms, including revisions to the property tax, an expansion of the sales tax base, changes to corporate taxing, better tax transparency policies, an update to the gas (or vehicle usage) tax, and a focus on more targeted relief over broad based relief. The broad look at tax policies seemed to drive an overall message that some combination of reforms is the best approach.

The commission also heard from the Texas Education Agency and the Comptroller’s Office regarding Texas’s current sources of funding for public education. The high-level presentation focused on the coordinating chart, which identified the Foundation School Program appropriations and their 2018-2019 biennium levels.

Texas-based entities invited to testify included a range of stakeholders. While many of the same broad tax policy reforms mentioned by the national panelists were addressed, the group offered perspectives more narrowly focused on the Texas taxing and school finance systems. For example, one testifier highlighted a lack of taxpayer transparency with regard to how certain tax revenues are directed. While some education funding is diverted to other budget areas, other revenue is used to supplant the state’s share of education funding when those dollars are intended to be supplemental funding.

Links to the witnesses presentation materials can be found here and a recording of the meeting can be viewed here. The commission’s Working Group on Expenditures will meet tomorrow morning and will hear invited testimony on the cost of education index, compensatory education, and the transportation allotment.