Tag Archives: Teach the Vote

Exploring legislators’ 2019 voting records on education: Part II

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

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

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

Senate Legislative Process (click to open a larger version)

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

House Legislative Process (click to open a larger version)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teach the Vote’s Week in Review: Nov. 22, 2019

Ready for Thanksgiving? Gobble up this week’s education news from the ATPE Governmental Relations team! We wish you a happy Thanksgiving and will post our next weekly summary on Dec. 6, 2019.


ELECTION UPDATE: Republicans in the Texas House of Representatives have launched a new PAC with the help of GOP strategist Karl Rove, and a new round of poll results show President Donald Trump shouldn’t take Texas for granted. Read more in this week’s election roundup from ATPE Lobbyist Mark Wiggins.

A runoff election date of Jan. 28, 2020, has been set for special elections in House Districts 28, 100, and 148. Unless you live in those districts, your next opportunity to vote will be the primary elections on March 3, 2020. Check to see if you are registered to vote here. If you’re not, the deadline to register to vote in the primary by Feb. 3, 2020! Visit TexasEducatorsVote.com to get involved, find activities you can do to drive more participation in elections, and sign up for voting updates.


You may be familiar with your legislators’ position on public education, but do you know how your state representative or senator actually voted on education bills this past session? ATPE lobbyists have carefully hand-picked key education votes from the 86th legislative session and uploaded them to all state legislators’ profiles on our Teach the Vote website for your review.

This collection of recorded votes aims to help Texans find out how their own lawmakers voted on major public education issues and ATPE’s legislative priorities. We invite you to use our search page to gain insight into incumbents’ views on public education. Share the information with your friends and family, too, to help inform decisions at the polls during the critical 2020 election cycle. Also, read up about our featured education bills in the first of a two-part blog series by ATPE Governmental Relations Director Jennifer Mitchell on the record votes and their significance within the broader legislative process.

The candidate filing period for those seeking a place on the ballot in 2020 recently opened. Once filing period ends, ATPE will be updating our Teach the Vote website to include profiles of all the candidates vying for seats in the Texas Legislature or State Board of Education. Stay tuned!


Do you think the state places too much emphasis on standardized testing? Is there another issue you wish the state would address? Tell us about it in our short, three-question survey. This survey is meant to gather ATPE members’ opinions on education issues, including results of the last legislative session. Don’t worry if you didn’t follow the last session too closely, as the ATPE lobby team still wants to hear from you so that we can best represent your voice at the Texas Capitol.

Take our new “Your Voice” survey on ATPE’s Advocacy Central. You must be signed into the ATPE website as a member to participate in the survey, so call the ATPE Member Services department at (800) 777-2873 if you’ve forgotten your password.


The Texas Education Agency (TEA) has released a new video in its “HB 3 in 30” series explaining the various (and plentiful) aspects of the 86th Legislature’s omnibus school finance bill, House Bill (HB) 3. This week’s video dives into K-2 diagnostics, including streamlining of kindergarten readiness instruments, first and second grade diagnostics, dyslexia screening, and professional development. The video gives an overview of new requirements, optional tools and supports, and practice considerations.


 

Exploring legislators’ 2019 voting records on education: Part I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teach the Vote’s Week in Review: Nov. 1, 2019

Happy Friday! Here are your highlights of this week’s education news from the ATPE Governmental Relations team:


ELECTION UPDATE: Today is the first day of November, but it’s your last day to vote early in the constitutional amendment election slated for Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2019.

ATPE is urging all educators to learn what’s on the ballot. (Since you’ll be turning back your clocks this weekend, you’ve got an extra hour to read up on the proposed amendments!) If you miss your chance to vote early today, be sure to go vote on Election Day next Tuesday.

ATPE Lobbyist Mark Wiggins has written an update today on a closely watched special legislative election that is also taking place on Tuesday. Additionally, ATPE Senior Lobbyist Monty Exter has written a post for our blog this week on how to build a culture of voting and get into the habit of voting in every election. Don’t miss your chance to shape the future of public education in Texas. Go vote!


The House Public Education Committee was in town this week for an interim hearing on the implementation of House Bill (HB) 3 and other recent legislation. Monday’s hearing featured invited testimony only, including a presentation by Commissioner of Education Mike Morath. Read more about the meeting in this blog post from ATPE Lobbyist Andrea Chevalier.


Members of the Texas State Senate received their homework assignments this week. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who presides over the Senate, formally released the Senate’s interim charges on Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2019. The charges direct members of the Senate’s various committees to spend the rest of the legislative interim studying particular issues and making recommendations for any new legislation that might be needed in 2021 to address those issues. The interim charges related to public education include a range of topics including teacher recruitment, student discipline, and restricting educators’ political activities. Learn more about what’s in the Senate interim charges in this blog post from ATPE Lobbyist Mark Wiggins.


The Texas Education Agency (TEA) issued a formal report to the legislature this week about Houston ISD, the largest public school district in Texas. Following an investigation, TEA is recommending that  a board of managers be appointed to oversee the district in place of its current elected school board. The school district, meanwhile, has gone to court seeking injunctive relief to prevent Commissioner of Education Mike Morath from taking that action. The lengthy TEA report shared with lawmakers on Wednesday cites improper contracting procedures and violations of the state’s open meetings laws by HISD’s board of trustees. Learn more in this reporting from the Texas Tribune.


On Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2019, the Texas Senate Select Committee on Mass Violence Prevention and Community Safety met again to take testimony from experts and discuss two of its charges. The emphasis of this meeting was on the role of digital media, the dark web, and culture on violence and policy regarding the wearing of masks. Panelists and senators discussed how social media, video games, mental health, and juvenile justice policies have impacted violent occurrences and explored potential legislative actions. Watch the archived hearing here.


 

Building a culture of voting

We are approaching the end of the second week of early voting for the Nov. 5 general election. Have you voted yet? If you answered yes, thank you and congratulations! You are among an influential minority of Texans. If you answered no, you are not alone. Also, it’s not too late!

Why is building a culture of voting among Texas educators such an accomplishment and challenge?

Based on years of anecdotal evidence, I have come to believe the vast majority of educators are naturally apolitical. While many educators’ internal values lean toward either the conservative or progressive, the natural tendency is for most to shy away from politics and politicians. This is true even though education is one of the most regulated professions around, with local, state and federal elected officials all weighing in on almost every aspect of an educator’s job. Despite an apparent natural aversion to politics, teachers have begun to vote in larger numbers over the last two election cycles. This has not been an accident, but rather the result of many people and organizations, including ATPE, encouraging educators to use their considerable voices and working to build a culture of voting.

So, how do you instill a culture of voting in yourself? Much like building a lasting culture of fitness or mindfulness or any other positive lifestyle change, building a culture of voting is about setting realistic goals, planning, prioritization, and consistency.

Setting Goals

At the outset of building a new habit or creating a personal culture change, it’s important to set realistic goals. A goal, which is really just envisioning the end or a significant intermediate point at the beginning, helps us to plan back from that point to where we are today so that we know how to get to where we are going. When we fail to set goals, we don’t know where we are going and can’t plan for how to get there. Equally problematic, when we set up unrealistic goals we set ourselves up for failure when we either realize that it’s too hard to get to where we want to go, or else we try to get there and fail.

For example, it is as unrealistic to think that deciding to engage is going to immediately change the outcome in every election. That’s about as unrealistic as thinking that a decision to start dieting is going to make you look like a supermodel next week. Likewise, it is unrealistic the think that deciding to go vote means you’re going to have the time or energy to become an immediate expert on every proposition or politician that is on the ballet. Start small. Set a goal to vote in every election from today through next November’s general election.

Planning

While it is unrealistic to think that you are going to become an immediate expert on all things political, you are far more likely to meet your goals if you engage in some simple planning. Figure out where you can vote, and then make a plan on when you will go vote. Additionally, it’s a good idea to look at, or better yet print out, a copy of the ballot for any upcoming election before you go vote. You may not have the time or desire to research every candidate or issue that is on there, but knowing ahead of time what and who is on the ballot will allow you to do some basic research on the issues and candidates you most care about. It will also give you more confidence at the polls, and therefore make you more likely to actually get yourself to the polls. It will also speed up the process once you are there.

A few easy-to-use tools to help you plan for voting include ATPE’s blog posts here on Teach the Vote (like this one explaining what’s on the ballot for the November 2019 election and this one profiling the candidates in Fort Bend County’s HD 28 special election). We also recommend the Teach the Vote candidate and officeholder profiles and the League of Women Voters’ nonpartisan Vote 411 website where you can create and print out sample ballots for your voting area.

Prioritizing

Everyone is busy! You can set a goal and make a plan but if you don’t choose to set aside the time to act, the first two steps will have been for naught. Doing things that are good for us is not often fun, and it’s easy, whether intentionally or unintentionally, to choose to put other things ahead of them on our daily list of priorities. Getting involved in politics may not be your jam, but voting is important. You owe it to yourself, your students, and your fellow citizens to exercise the right and responsibility that others literally died to establish and protect so that you might have it.

Consistency

Informed voting is a habit. Like any habit, the more you do it, the easier it becomes. Conversely, the more often you skip doing it, the dramatically easier it becomes to skip in the future. That’s one reason why it’s important to vote not just every four years, or every other year in November, but in every election.

The other reason to make a habit of voting in every election is because a LOT of important things get decided in “off year” elections, May elections, primaries, and runoffs. In the upcoming election you get to decide how to redraft the Texas Constitution! May elections often decide who will serve on your local school board (the people who get to approve your hiring and firing) and enable voters will approve bonds and tax rates that will determine how much money your school district has to spend. In Texas, 85 to 90 percent of all state legislators are chosen in a primary election, while only 10 to 15 percent have competitive races in the November general election. So again, voting in every election absolutely counts.

Hopefully many of you who read this blog regularly already have a personal culture of voting. I encourage you to do just a little bit more – help spread the culture of voting! Its easier than you think. Often all it takes is a willingness to be open to talking about your own commitment to voting and to encourage others on their own journey.

If you haven’t voted yet, set a goal, make a plan, prioritize it, and make this election the first of every election you will vote in from now through November 2020. If you have already voted, thank you. Please share your story, proudly show off your “I voted” sticker, and encourage a friend.

House Public Education Committee gets an update on accountability, school finance bills

House Public Education Committee interim hearing, Oct. 28, 2019.

The House Public Education Committee met on Monday, Oct. 28, to hear an update on legislation from the 85th and 86th legislative sessions and testimony from panels of invited witnesses.

The interim hearing began with an overview from Texas Commissioner of Education Mike Morath on public school accountability. Specifically, the committee heard about House Bill (HB) 22 by Rep. Dan Huberty (R-Kingwood) passed by the 85th Texas Legislature in 2017. That bill shrank the accountability system from five to three domains. HB 22 also created a distinction between campus and district accountability “grades” of “D” and “F,” such that a rating of “D” would represent a “needs improvement” condition rather than a “failing” status. As the Texas Education Agency (TEA) has implemented HB 22, several problematic scenarios have emerged due to multiple interpretations of the law.

One such scenario pertaining to the timeline for accountability sanctions and interventions has left districts wondering where they stand and waiting for guidance in the form of commissioner’s rules or clarifying legislation next session. Specially, does a “D” rating break up a series of “F” ratings in a manner that would restart the clock for purposes of determining required interventions? Since HB 22 is slated to take full effect in the 2020-21 school year, legislators and TEA officials are facing pressure to find a solution, such as delaying the adoption of rules, for districts grappling with questions like these. Commissioner Morath told the committee on Monday that he will be reaching out to affected districts to try to provide guidance.

Due to issues like these, we can probably expect another accountability clean-up bill to be filed in the 2021 legislative session. The commissioner suggested two statutory changes that may help alleviate the problems. The first is to eliminate required interventions for failure in a domain grade, leaving mandatory interventions in place based on a district’s or campus’s overall grade. The second suggestion is to change the “D” rating so that it continues to advance the intervention clock but would not require school closure or the appointment of a Board of Managers unless performance falls to an “F” and no less than six years have elapsed.

Texas Commissioner of Education Mike Morath

Commissioner Morath also gave the committee an update on the local accountability system pilot, which allows school districts to use additional indicators that their communities find important. Nineteen districts participated in the 2017-18 pilot year and submitted pilot data. The commissioner identified three big challenges that districts faced when creating their systems: would the local accountability system produce 1) reliable results over time, 2) results that accurately measure a desired result, and 3) a reasonable accountability score that was “calibrated” with the state accountability system. The commissioner stated that these challenges were used as the criteria against which districts were rated in determining whether to approve their local accountability system.

Ultimately, only two districts, Dallas ISD and Snyder ISD, had their local accountability systems approved by the commissioner, which prompted committee members to raise concerns during Monday’s hearing. One superintendent who testified during the hearing stated that his district’s application was denied because, according to the TEA, the district had focused too much on “adult behavior” inputs that were not directly measured using student achievement data. The superintendent gave the example of using incentives to increase the use of AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination) as part of its local accountability system proposal. ATPE has long advocated for including inputs in the accountability system, such as ensuring that students are taught by educators who are certified in the subjects and grade levels they are teaching. We believe that such measures are more directly controllable by districts and individual educators than other factors and typically lead to better student outcomes. During Monday’s committee meeting, a panel of school superintendents and other public education advocates also gave feedback on implementation of the state’s accountability system, similarly expressing a desire for the inclusion of inputs related to such “adult behaviors.” They also recommended enabling the state accountability system to be more nuanced to account for the correlation between poverty and student tests scores, and they advocated for delaying the adoption of commissioner’s rules until the HB 22 implementation issues can be cleared up with legislation in 2021.

The committee also received an update from the commissioner on the implementation of HB 3, the school finance overhaul bill passed during the 86th session of 2019. Commissioner Morath stated that there was a $635 average increase in per pupil funding as a result of the bill, and he plugged TEA’s “HB 3 in 30” video series, which offers in-depth explanations of various aspects of HB 3. Other updates were given to the committee on the following:

  • The STAAR readability study required by HB 3 is being conducted by the University of Texas at Austin. An initial report is due to the legislature by Dec. 1, 2019, and a second portion of the report is expected by Feb. 1, 2020. The commissioner told the committee that if the study concludes that changes to the test are needed, then those will be made.
  • The commissioner shared that TEA plans to collect data on pay raises resulting from HB 3 starting sometime near January 2020. A report to the legislature would then be expected by March 2020.
  • There has been a 56% growth in students receiving special education services over the past three years, which could reflect more students being identified as having dyslexia.
  • The committee discussed unintended funding consequences for fast-growth school districts and career and technical education (CTE) funding in small/mid-sized districts as a result of HB 3’s changes.

Another panel of public education advocates and practitioners gave feedback on the implementation of HB 3, telling the committee members that more clarity is needed on aspects of the legislation, such as its incentive pay program and related merit designations for teachers. Some panelists expressed concern about the sustainability and mechanisms of funding under the bill, such as outcomes-based funding in which money for one group of students is based on the performance of a previous group of students. As the rulemaking process for implementing HB 3 continues, ATPE will monitor TEA’s interpretation of these concerns.

At the end of Monday’s hearing, Chairman Huberty stated that he did not anticipate any more House Public Education Committee hearings this year. Stay tuned into our blog and keep up-to-date with legislative developments by following ATPE’s lobby team on Twitter via @TeachtheVote, @ATPE_JenniferM, @ATPE_MontyE, @ATPE_AndreaC, and @MarkWigginsTX.

Teach the Vote’s Week in Review: Oct. 25, 2019

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


ELECTION UPDATE: Early voting began this week for the Nov. 5 constitutional election. Voters statewide will be deciding whether or not to approve 10 proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution, as well as other local ballot measures. Voters in three House districts will also be electing a new state representative in a special election on the same day.

Early voting continues through Nov. 1. We at ATPE encourage all educators to vote in every election and take advantage of the convenience of early voting at any polling place in your area. Make a voting plan! Use the weekend to learn about what’s on your ballot, and then build and print a sample ballot to take with you to the polls. (Remember that cell phones aren’t allowed to be used in the voting booth!) For additional voting resources, visit TexasEducatorsVote.com.

In other election news, Texas House Speaker Dennis Bonnen (R-Angleton) announced this week that he will not seek re-election in 2020, paving the way for the election of a new speaker in 2021. ATPE Lobbyist Mark Wiggins reported on the announcement, which comes on the heels of a scandal involving a secret recording and allegations of bribery. Read more in this week’s election roundup post on Teach the Vote.


This week we wrapped up our blog series, “New School Year, New Laws,” in which ATPE Lobbyist Andrea Chevalier shared weekly highlights of many education bills passed by the Texas Legislature earlier this year. In the final installment this week, we’re looking at how school districts around the state are implementing the requirements under House Bill (HB) 3 to increase teacher compensation. Check out the compensation-related post here.

Next week, the House Public Education Committee will hold an interim hearing to examine the implementation of HB 3. The meeting on Monday, Oct. 28, 2019, will feature invited testimony only. Stay tuned to Teach the Vote next week and follow us on Twitter for dispatches from the hearing.


 

 

New School Year, New Laws: Compensation Update

Welcome to our final blog post in ATPE’s “New School Year, New Laws” blog series for Teach the Vote. In last week’s post, we summarized new laws that will impact charter schools. This week, we will investigate how the changes to funding and compensation in House Bill (HB) 3 are being implemented in several school districts across the state.

HB 3 by Rep. Dan Huberty (R-Kingwood), the major school finance bill passed earlier this year, included some important provisions aimed at increasing compensation for many educators. More specifically, lawmakers required that school districts use 30% of their increase in funding under the bill to increase compensation for full-time district employees, excluding administrators. Of that dollar amount, 75% must be spent on compensation for full-time, certified teachers, librarians, nurses, and counselors. The other 25% can be used to improve compensation for other full-time employees. HB 3 also specifies that there should be a prioritization for teachers, librarians, nurses, and counselors with more than five years of experience, but the bill largely leaves this open for interpretation at the local level.

The combination of differences in how much additional funding each district gets and the flexibility districts have to create unique compensation packages makes it very important for us to gain a “lay of the land” in our current post-HB 3 environment. In this post we have summarized what some districts are doing by gathering news articles and information from district websites. The charts below break down some of dollar figures and percentages by which the districts shown are increasing educator compensation as a result of HB 3.


Lubbock-Cooper ISD, Region 17:

Up to 5 yrs. of exp. (teachers) 5.68%, avg.
6-25 yrs. of exp. (teachers) 8.71%, avg.
All other employees 3%
Beginning teacher salary Increased to $40,000

With a 2018-19 average teaching salary of just over $45,000, we estimate that the LCISD’s average pay raise of 8.08% is about $3,640.


Klein ISD, Region 4:

Up to 5 yrs. of exp. (teachers, counselors, librarians, and nurses) 5.25% ($4,950)
6+ yrs. of exp. (teachers, counselors, librarians, and nurses) 5.5% ($5,050)
All other employees 4%
Beginning teacher salary Increased from $52,600 to $55,500
Healthcare $300 one-time payment for eligible, full-time employees who are returning

Klein ISD will also provide a retention incentive to teachers, counselors, librarians, and nurses who were employed in the district on May 31 of the previous year and are returning. This incentive is in the form of a one-time payment of $1,500. All other previously employed full-time employees who are returning to the district will receive $1,000. The district has built in similar retention and healthcare payments at reduced rates for those who work less than full-time.


Clear Creek ISD, Region 4:

Up to 4 yrs. of exp. (teachers, counselors, librarians, and nurses) 4%
5+ yrs. of exp. (teachers, counselors, librarians and nurses) 4.25%
All other employees 3.50%
Beginning teacher salary Increased from $53,600 to $55,750
Healthcare (TRS-Active) Increase district contribution by $10/month
Bus drivers Increase wage from $16.83/hr to $19/hr

Clear Creek is also implementing an “honors teacher experience” program, in which teachers who reach milestones such as 5, 10, 15, etc. years of experience can receive additional compensation of up to $2,800. This could result in a total pay raise of 9.49% for some teachers. The district is also adding staff, especially in special education and is implementing safety and security upgrades.


San Marcos CISD, Region 13:

Up to 5 yrs. of exp. (teachers, counselors, librarians and nurses) 3% ($1,562)
6+ yrs. of exp. (teachers, counselors, librarians and nurses) 4% ($2,113)
All other employees 6%
Administrators 3% ($2,113)
Beginning teacher salary Increased to $49,662

Fort Worth ISD, Region 11: 

Up to 5 yrs. of exp. (teachers) 5.8%, avg.
6-15 yrs. of exp. (teachers) 6.9%, avg.
15+ yrs. of exp. (teachers) 6.1%, avg
Counselors, nurses, librarians 5%
All other full-time 3%
Administrators Greater of 3% or 3% of midpoint
Beginning teacher salary Increased from $53,000 to $54,000

What does it all mean?

There are over 1,000 school districts in Texas, each with varied funding under HB 3. In some cases, the bill may have even provided districts with the same or less funding if not for a hold harmless provision in the bill (which expires after the 2023-24 school year). Considering this and the fact that each district also has different needs and economic factors affecting compensation, the implementation of raises is going to be varied all over Texas. Among the districts we read about, teacher salaries were raised from 3% to 9.5%. To keep up with inflation, basic yearly pay raises in other professions typically hover around 3%. We know from district salary schedules, such as this one from Leander ISD, that typical step increases are closer to 1%. With this in mind, the impact of HB 3 in some districts may have been that teachers simply got the standard raise necessary to keep up with the cost of living.

What’s next? Stay engaged!

It is important to note that there have been reports of districts that have under-calculated what they would receive in HB 3 funding, which impacts the amount they are required to spend on compensation. Additionally, some districts have relied almost exclusively on one-time stipends, which are less stable and do not necessarily count toward compensation for purposes of TRS or the amount an educator will receive for their retirement pension. ATPE is working with state officials to solve these issues so that districts comply with HB 3’s efforts to increase educator compensation.

Across the sources we gathered, it seems that district leaders are happy to have the raise but still think that there are further improvements to be made. Clear Creek ISD Deputy Superintendent Paul McLarty wants to see more from the state, like getting closer to a 50-50 split between local and state funding. Klein ISD Superintendent Dr. Jenny McGown remarks that the state is still ranked 41st in the nation in spending. Lubbock-Cooper ISD Superintendent Keith Bryant says that he would like to eventually be able to provide teachers with a competitive wage.

ATPE agrees with these sentiments and urges educators to return to the polls during the 2020 primary and general elections when voters will have a chance to decide who will represent them in the next legislative session. The raises for educators and public education funding increases that resulted from the 2019 legislative session are a direct result of educators’ votes in the 2018 elections. Stay connected and engaged by following Teach the Vote, ATPE, and ATPE lobbyists on Twitter using the handles @OfficialATPE, @TeachTheVote, @ATPE_JenniferM, @ATPE_AndreaC, @MarkWigginsTX, and @ATPE_MontyE.


Thank you for joining us on Teach the Vote to learn about how new laws enacted in the 86th Texas legislative session will impact you. ATPE created this series because we believe it is vitally important for educators to make sure they know and understand the laws that govern their profession and affect their classrooms. For more information on new laws impacting public education in Texas, be sure to check out ATPE’s comprehensive report, “Know the Law: An Educator’s Guide to Changes Enacted by the 86th Texas Legislature,” created by the experienced staff of ATPE’s Member Legal Services department.

Learn what’s on the ballot for the Nov. 2019 election 

What’s this constitutional election buzz all about anyway?

You’ve probably been hearing about the importance of voting in the upcoming constitutional amendment election on Nov. 5, 2019. After all, it’s not every day that Texas voters have an opportunity to revise the Texas Constitution. This year, the 86th Texas Legislature passed 10 joint resolutions that propose amendments to the constitution and require voter approval. Every Texan who is registered to vote has the right to decide whether those 10 amendments become part of the state’s constitution. But only those who actually exercise that right to vote will get to determine whether the amendments become the law of the land or simply fade away.

Before you head to the polls with family and friends, do your homework and take a minute to learn about all 10 proposed amendments. We will cover two of the proposed amendments with direct correlation to public education here. Proposition 4 (HJR 38) impacts the potential for future establishment of a state income tax, and Proposition 7 (HJR 151) increases the amount the General Land Office can distribute from the Permanent School Fund to the Available School Fund each year from $300 million to $600 million.

Proposition 4 (HJR 38) as it will appear on the ballot reads as follows: “The constitutional amendment prohibiting the imposition of an individual income tax, including a tax on an individual’s share of partnership and unincorporated association income.”

Here’s what that really means:

Texas Proposition 4 modifies the current constitutional restrictions against legislative imposition of a state income tax. The state of Texas is widely known for not imposing a state income tax. The current state constitution in Article Vlll, sections 1(c) and 24, prohibits legislators from creating an income tax unless there is a statewide vote to approve such a tax. While polling suggests that it is unlikely that Texas voters would agree to an income tax, should that change, the current constitution also mandates how the revenue from any such income tax would have to be spent: two-thirds of the income tax revenue would go toward property tax reduction, while one-third of the income tax revenue would be spent on public education. This year’s Proposition 4 is designed to make it even less likely that Texans would ever pay a state income tax by repealing the current constitutional language referring to the statewide referendum and replacing it with language that simply prohibits the imposition of an “individual income tax” at the state level. The functional effect of this change is not to make it absolutely impossible for there to be an income tax in Texas in the future, but rather to increase the legislative votes necessary to overturn such a prohibition. Two-thirds of the legislature would have to agree to letting voters decide whether or not to add a state income tax in the future if this proposition passes in November.

A vote “for” Proposition 4 would mean that you agree with the proposition to change the current language in the constitution restricting a state income tax. A vote “against” Proposition 4 means that you prefer the current language in the constitution that prohibits a state income tax unless legislators vote to allow statewide voters to reject or approve the proposed tax, which would be used to fund property tax reduction and public education.

Proposition 7 (HJR 151) as it will appear on the ballot states as follows: “The constitutional amendment allowing increased distributions to the available school fund.”

Here’s what that really means:

Proposition 7 would potentially affect the source, but not necessarily the amount, of state education spending by allowing for larger distributions from the Permanent School Fund (PSF). The PSF is an endowment established under Section 2, Article Vll, of the Texas Constitution for the financial support of public schools in Texas. Management of the fund is divided between the State Board of Education (SBOE), which oversees managing the fund’s financial investment portfolio, and the General Land Office, which through the School Land Board manages the fund’s land or real estate investments. Currently a portion of the PSF is transferred to the Available School Fund (ASF) each year to be used to purchase instructional materials for students and provide additional funding for public education. The remainder of the PSF is held for future use. Proposition 7 seeks to increase the amount of state funding for public schools being paid out of the ASF by increasing the permissible amount of the annual distribution from the PSF to the ASF from $300 million to $600 million.

This increase alone would not result in an increase in overall public education funding. Without additional statutory changes, Proposition 7 would simply reduce the amount of funding the legislature would be required to spend from other funding sources to meet the state’s obligation to fund public education. However, as we reported here on Teach the Vote over the summer, it is not clear how significantly Proposition 7, if approved by voters, might reduce the state’s need to tap into general revenue to support public schools in future legislative sessions.

Does ATPE have a position on these two proposed constitutional amendments?

No. As stated in the ATPE Legislative Program approved each year by our House of Delegates, ATPE supports a public education funding system that is equitable and adequate to provide every student an equal opportunity to receive an exemplary public education. ATPE also supports any form of state revenue enhancement and tax restructuring that accomplishes this goal. However, ATPE does not have an official legislative position specifically on banning/supporting an income tax; nor do we have an official legislative position relating to the percentage of public education funding that comes from the PSF or ASF.

What else is on the ballot?

Proposed constitutional amendments for the Nov. 2019 election in Texas

Click here to view the ballot language for all 10 of the proposed constitutional amendments along with analysis from the Texas Legislative Council. Also, our friends at the nonpartisan League of Women Voters of Texas (LWVTX) have put together a Constitutional Amendment Election Voters Guide that explains all the amendments and shares pro and con arguments along with a short video for each proposed amendment at the bottom of the page. It’s an easy-to-understand resource that ATPE encourages you to check out before you vote.

Special elections:

If you happen to live in one of three Texas House districts, you’ll also have a chance during the Nov. 2019 election to choose a new state representative. Three state representatives have resigned from their seats, necessitating special elections in those districts. The winner of each special election will serve out the remainder of the current term until Jan. 2021. Barring a special session being called by the governor, it is unlikely that those elected through November’s special election will have a chance to vote on any bills, but the winners of those special elections will be able to claim incumbent status next year, often deemed an advantage for anyone who decides to run for the same office in the regular election cycle that will take place in 2020.

These special elections for legislative seats will be taking place in House districts 28,100, and 148. In what the Texas Tribune has described as “the most closely watched race” this fall, ATPE’s lobby team has profiled the candidates seeking the House seat in district 28, which you can read here.

Other local ballot measures will vary throughout the state depending where you live. Voters can visit Vote411.org to view and print out a sample ballot showing exactly what will you will be voting on in your area.

Early voting runs from Oct. 21 through Nov. 1, and election day is Nov. 5, 2019.

Teach the Vote’s Week in Review: Oct. 11, 2019

Happy Friday! Here’s a look at this week’s education news from the ATPE Governmental Relations team:


ELECTION UPDATE: ATPE Lobbyist Mark Wiggins has been tracking the latest election-related announcements and news for Teach the Vote. This week, read about recent news of planned departures from the State Board of Education next year, plus a look at the election coming up on Nov. 5. Check out our latest election roundup here. Also, be sure to follow our Teach the Vote blog next week when we’ll posting everything you need to know about voting in the constitutional amendment election.


We have been reporting on the special committees formed this year to examine issues related to school safety and preventing mass violence. A series of meetings are planned around the state during the interim to hear testimony from experts and the public and generate recommendations for the Texas Legislature to address in 2021. One such committee, the Texas House Select Committee on Mass Violence Prevention and Community Safety met Thursday, Oct. 12, 2019, in Farmer’s Branch.

The 13-member committee was formed earlier this year after the deadly mass shootings in El Paso and Odessa. The committee levied criticism at several major tech companies Thursday for failing to work with law enforcement in a timely and efficient manner in order to stop potential threats of mass violence. Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon, and Microsoft were invited to testify, but only Facebook sent a representative. Lawmakers pressed Facebook over how quickly it is able to respond to requests for information from law enforcement, and were frustrated by the company’s inability to give a specific response. You can read a full report on Thursday’s meeting courtesy of the Dallas Morning News. The House committee is scheduled to meet again next Thursday in Odessa.


FEDERAL UPDATE: ATPE is continuing its work in Washington, DC, spearheaded by our longtime federal lobbyist, David Pore, to advocate for Social Security reform that will help Texas educators earn fair and predictable retirement benefits. In this Congress, two bills have been filed to repeal and replace the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), which reduces the Social Security benefits earned by many ATPE members and other public employees. Pore spoke about the bills earlier this week during a panel presentation on advocacy moderated by ATPE Governmental Relations Director Jennifer Mitchell as part of the annual meeting of the national Coalition of Independent Educator Associations.

As we first reported on Teach the Vote back in July, Rep. Kevin Brady (R–The Woodlands, Texas) has filed H.R. 3934, the “Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act” (ETPSA), which is an updated version of similar legislation he previously filed in an attempt to fix the WEP. Rep. Richard Neal (D–Springfield, Mass.) followed suit at the end of September, filing H.R. 4540, the “Public Servants Protection and Fairness Act” (PSPFA). Both bills would replace the WEP with a more predictable, proportional formula for calculating Social Security benefit payments of future retirees, and provide a monthly stipend for those workers over the age of 60 who are already retired and eligible for Social Security.

This week, ATPE issued a press release in support of both bills and urged Congress to take action on the issue. It is unclear if or when the WEP legislation might be heard this year, particularly in light of the congressional focus having shifted recently and almost exclusively toward the prospect of impeachment proceedings. Still, ATPE is thankful for the bipartisan effort being made to address the WEP. We especially appreciate the longtime work of both Congressmen Neal and Brady on this front, and their willingness to involve stakeholders like ATPE in the development of the bills. Congressman Neal chairs the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means in which the bills would be heard, while Congressman Brady is the ranking member on the committee and its former chair.

Stay tuned to Teach the Vote for updates on our federal lobbying efforts. As a reminder, ATPE members can also use our communication tools on Advocacy Central to call or write to their representatives in Washington asking for their support of the ETPSA and PSPFA. (ATPE member login is required to access Advocacy Central.)


This week, the ATPE lobby team continued its “New School Year, New Laws” blog series with a report on how the laws enacted during the 86th Texas legislative session will impact educators’ pension and benefits. Chief among the changes enacted this year was Senate Bill 12, which will make the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) actuarially sound and allowed for the issuance of a 13th check to retirees last month. Check out the latest blog post in the series by ATPE Lobbyist Andrea Chevalier and watch for another installment on Monday.

Today, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) released a new “HB 3 in 30” video on the Blended Learning Grant Program. TEA’s ongoing video series is intended to make this year’s omnibus school finance bill, House Bill (HB) 3, more digestible by breaking out key provisions and explaining them in 30 minutes or less. Visit TEA’s HB 3 in 30 video website to watch the newest video and access others in the series.

Also related to HB 3, the commissioner of education has proposed new administrative rules to implement the new “Do Not Hire Registry” required by the bill. Public comments on the proposed rule are being accepted now through Oct. 21. Learn more about the rule and how to submit your comments here.


In case you missed it earlier this week, ATPE Lobbyist Andrea Chevalier provided a comprehensive summary of the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) meeting held Oct. 4, 2019. One of the most interesting discussions at the meeting was about what should constitute “good cause” for educators to abandon their contracts. The board opted to defer taking any action last week to change the criteria for SBEC sanctions in those instances, but you can expect the board members to have continuing discussions on this topic in the coming months. Read more about this and all the other matters discussed by SBEC last week in this blog post.