Tag Archives: turnaround

SBOE hears from commissioner on NAEP scores, STAAR study

The Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) met Wednesday, Nov. 13, 2019, in Austin for day one of its final meeting of the year. It is also the first SBOE meeting led by new board Chairman Keven Ellis (R-Lufkin). The meeting began with an update from Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath.

Commissioner Morath started with a review of Texas students’ most recent scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). While fourth grade math scores have held constant at slightly above the national average, eighth grade math scores have been trending downward since 2011 and dipped below the national average in 2019. Fourth grade reading has seen a minute overall decline since 2005. Eighth grade reading scores showed the only statistically significant change since 2017, indicating a precipitous decline since 2013 to the lowest level since at least 2003. According to Morath, the main takeaways from the 2019 NAEP scores are that while Texas continues to outperform the nation in math, it lags behind in reading.

Moving on to a discussion of House Bill (HB) 3906 passed earlier this year, Morath indicated that changes are coming to the STAAR test. Under HB 3906, no more than 75 percent of STAAR questions can be multiple choice. The commissioner said meeting this requirement will take a couple of years to field test. The bill also required a study of STAAR readability after studies found STAAR test questions written at reading levels well above the grade level being tested. The study has been assigned to the University of Texas and is in process. The first round of results are expected to be delivered in early December, and another round will be delivered in early February.

SBOE Member Marisa Perez-Diaz (D-San Antonio) inquired how educators could have more impact on STAAR questions while minimizing their time away from the classroom. Morath suggested the agency attempts to schedule educator advisory committee meetings in a way to minimize disruption, and has worked with districts to provide substitutes. Perez-Diaz requested a link to the application and a copy of the screening process for educator involvement.

Included among the requirements of HB 3 is a directive that teachers attend reading academies. SBOE Member Barbara Cargill (R-The Woodlands) voiced concern over teachers attending reading academies online instead of in person. The commissioner suggested that teachers who complete the online course would be required to demonstrate proficiency, as opposed to lesser threshold of completion under the in-person reading academy model.

Commissioner Morath briefly addressed the recently announced Texas Education Agency (TEA) takeover of Houston ISD by summarizing the agency sanctions process. Perez-Diaz questioned Morath regarding the process for transitioning from an agency-run board of managers back to a locally elected body, and the commissioner indicated it would take multiple years. SBOE Member Lawrence Allen (D-Houston) also pressed the commissioner to explain the TEA’s process for selecting a superintendent and members of the board of managers. The commissioner replied a committee is reviewing applications from prospective managers and he had made no decision yet who will be superintendent.

Packed house to testify in support of proposed African-American Studies course at SBOE meeting November 13, 2019.

Additionally, SBOE Member Ruben Cortez (D-Brownsville) questioned Morath over whether the agency takeover would include a partnership under SB 1882 (passed in 2017 by the 85th Texas Legislature), which incentivizes districts to contract with charter schools that take over operation of one or more campuses in the district. The commissioner did not directly address whether that would be considered, and suggested that the managers would consider a wide array of options. Cortez also pressed Morath for details regarding what would happen if a campus is closed, to which the commissioner said that campus would simply cease to exist.

The board spent much of the day hearing testimony regarding a proposed new African-American Studies course. State Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas) was among dozens of witnesses who testified in support of the course. Chairman Ellis stated his goal is to have the course ready for students in 2020. The board will break into committees tomorrow and conclude its November meeting Friday.

New School Year, New Laws: Curriculum and Instruction

When the 86th Texas Legislature convened for its 2019 regular session, members of the state Senate and House of Representatives focused much of their attention on school finance and school safety. Issues that once held center-stage in a legislative session, like accountability, vouchers, and payroll deduction took a backseat (or weren’t even in the car). However, there were several bills passed this year that will impact teachers’ bread and butter – teaching and learning. In this week’s “New School Year, New Laws” post, we will fill you in on legislative changes impacting curriculum and instruction.

House Bill (HB) 391 by Rep. César Blanco (D-El Paso): Printed instructional materials

By law, parents are entitled to request that their child be allowed to take home instructional materials. Districts and charter schools must honor this request. However, in some cases, those instructional materials are online and the parents do not have the appropriate technology at home to access them. In this event, HB 391 dictates that the district or charter school provide the materials in print, which could be printouts of the relevant electronic materials. This law became effective immediately upon its passage.

HB 2984 by Rep. Steve Allison (R-San Antonio): Technology applications TEKS

Technology applications is part of the “enrichment curriculum” offered by school districts. HB 2984 directs the State Board of Education (SBOE) to revise the grades K-8 Texas essential knowledge and skills (TEKS) for technology applications, specifically by adding in curriculum standards for coding, computer programming, computational thinking, and cybersecurity. The SBOE must complete this task by Dec. 31, 2020, so be on the lookout for information from ATPE about opportunities to participate in the process and provide public comment.

HB 3012 by Rep. James Talarico (D-Round Rock): Providing instruction to students who are suspended

Most teachers have probably experienced what happens when a student is placed in either in-school or out-of-school suspension (ISS/OSS). The student often comes back to the classroom having missed days or weeks of instruction that can be hard to make up. HB 3012 requires districts to provide suspended students with an alternative means of accessing all “foundation curriculum” or core coursework (math, science, English language arts, and social studies). The district must also provide at least one option for receiving the coursework that doesn’t require access to the Internet. Whether or not this requirement for providing coursework will trickle down to the individual teacher level is still unclear. This bill became effective immediately.

HB 4310 by Rep. Harold Dutton (D- Houston): Time for scope and sequence

HB 4310 applies to the scope and sequence created by districts for foundation curricula. Under the new law, a district must ensure sufficient time for teachers to teach and students to learn the TEKS in a given scope and sequence. Additionally, a district cannot penalize a teacher who determines that their students need more or less time and thus doesn’t follow the scope and sequence. However, the law does say that a district can take action with respect to teachers who don’t follow the scope and sequence if there is documented evidence of a deficiency in their classroom instruction. This law became effective immediately.

HB 3 by Rep. Dan Huberty (R-Kingwood): G/T programming and funding

The gifted and talented (G/T) allotment was eliminated in this year’s big school finance bill, HB 3, but the requirement that school districts provide G/T programming did not go away. When HB 3 was heard by the House Public Education and Senate Education committees, many parents and students testified on the importance of keeping gifted and talented programming and urged lawmakers to maintain the allotment. In response, Chairman Huberty and other lawmakers explained that funding for G/T through the allotment has been capped at 5% of average daily attendance, even though a district may actually enroll more than 5% of its students in G/T programs. As a result, every district essentially received the maximum amount possible. HB 3 rolls this amount into the new basic allotment as the mechanism for funding G/T, rather than having a stand-alone allotment.

To quell fears that G/T programs might disappear along with the allotment, HB 3 states that districts must provide a G/T program consistent with the state plan for G/T and must annually certify to the commissioner of education their compliance with the law. If a district does not comply, the state will revoke its funding in an amount calculated using the same formula for the old G/T allotment. The bill also requires districts to comply with the use of G/T funds as outlined in State Board of Education (SBOE) rule.

These changes to how G/T programs are funded took effect immediately upon the passage of HB 3. Learn more about the new G/T requirements and funding expectations in this “HB 3 in 30” video provided by the Texas Education Agency (TEA).

HB 4205 by Rep. Tom Craddick (R-Midland): Teacher effectiveness and value-added modeling in turnaround schools

HB 4205 was originally introduced as a bill to allow a campus in Midland ISD to be repurposed by a nonprofit entity while maintaining the same student population. As the bill made its way through the legislative process, it was expanded beyond Midland ISD and amended to include language from Senate Bill (SB) 1412 by Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock) regarding accelerated campus excellence (ACE) plans. ACE is a campus turnaround option that prescribes personnel, compensation, and programming decisions meant to improve student performance. A last-stage amendment also added a requirement that personnel decisions under a school’s ACE turnaround plan must be made using a value-added model (VAM) for determining instructional effectiveness. After this change was made, which ATPE opposed, the House unfortunately voted to concur in the Senate amendments and the bill was signed by the Governor.

Under the final version of HB 4205 as passed, at least 60 percent of teachers assigned to the campus must have demonstrated instructional effectiveness during the previous school year. For teachers who taught in the same district in the prior year, this effectiveness standard is to be determined by classroom observation and assessing the teacher’s impact on student growth using VAM based on at least one student assessment instrument selected by the district. For teachers who did not teach in the district the previous year, instructional effectiveness will be determined by data and other evidence indicating that if the teacher had taught in the district, they would have been ranked among the top half of teachers there. Teacher pay under this type of plan must include a three-year commitment to provide “significant incentives” to compensate high-performing principals and teachers.

In the 2019-20 school year, the ACE provisions in HB 4205 will only apply to one district that received an unacceptable rating for 2017-18, as chosen by the commissioner of education. In 2020-21, the ACE option under HB 4205 will open up to all districts that have been required to complete a campus turnaround plan.

There are many aspects of this new law that ATPE opposes, which we expressed to lawmakers through oral testimony and written input on SB 1412 and HB 4205 as they were moving through the legislative process earlier this year. Our opposition was based on the following formal positions that have been adopted by ATPE members:

  • ATPE opposes the use of student performance, including test scores, as the primary measure of a teacher’s effectiveness, as the determining factor for a teacher’s compensation, or as the primary rationale for an adverse employment action.
  • ATPE believes students’ state-level standardized test scores should not be a component of teacher evaluations until such time as they can be validated through a consensus of independent research and peer review for that purpose.
  • ATPE opposes the use of value-added modeling or measurement (VAM) at the individual teacher level for teacher evaluation purposes or decisions about continued employment of teachers. (Learn more about our VAM concerns here.)
  • ATPE supports incorporating measures of student growth at the campus level or higher into evaluations of educators as long as the measures are developed with educator input, piloted, and deemed statistically reliable.
  • ATPE opposes incentive or performance pay programs unless they are designed in an equitable and fair manner as determined by educators on a campus basis.

Your ATPE Governmental Relations team will be monitoring these pieces of legislation as they are implemented.


Next Monday, we will continue ATPE’s “New School Year, New Laws” series here on Teach the Vote with a post on assessment-related bills passed during the 2019 legislative session.

Teach the Vote’s Week in Review: Aug. 30, 2019

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


On Wednesday, Gov. Greg Abbott issued a new report lauding efforts aimed at “Improving School Safety in Texas.” The school safety update details recent legislative and administrative actions taken, including the approval of 17 new laws and $339 million in state funding. Additionally, the report highlights a 37% increase in the number of teachers and school resource officers (SROs) being trained in mental health first aid; improvements to communications between various state agencies that deal with school safety issues; and new authority for charter schools to hire security personnel. Read more about the new report in this blog post from ATPE Senior Lobbyist Monty Exter.

Also this week, ATPE’s lobbyists posted the second installment of our “New School Year, New Laws” blog series here on Teach the Vote with a look at school safety legislation. Check out Monday’s blog post by ATPE Lobbyist Andrea Chevalier to learn more about bills that were passed during the 2019 legislative session to address safety issues such as student mental health, school marshals, and school preparedness for emergencies and traumas. Next week we’ll be posting an update on new laws pertaining to curriculum and instruction.


A product of the 85th Texas Legislature, Senate Bill 1882 that was passed in 2017 allows public schools that are at risk of being shut down to partner with charter schools for turnaround initiatives. In the recently released “A-F” accountability grades for school districts and campuses, seven of the 12 public school campuses that have partnered with charters or nonprofits received an “F” rating.

While it may be too soon to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the partnerships, and there are serious questions about the utility of the A-F system, the accountability ratings offer an early glimpse at how the partnership program is working. Our friend Aliyya Swaby at the Texas Tribune wrote about the findings in this article republished on our Teach the Vote blog this week.


We’ve reached that point in the year when campaign announcements are coming out practically every day. Find out which legislators have announced their re-election bids in our latest election update from ATPE Lobbyist Mark Wiggins. This week Mark offers insights on the districts where contested races are shaping up and highlights new resources available from the Texas Educators Vote coalition. Read the newest election news roundup here.


The Texas Education Agency (TEA) continues its “HB 3 in 30” video series with two new video presentations uploaded this week. The latest entries in the series highlight funding changes under this year’s major school finance and reform bill for charter schools and Gifted and Talented programs. View the HB 3 video resources here.


 

House Public Education Committee kicks off its session work

House Committee on Public Education, 86th Texas Legislature

This week, the Texas House Public Education Committee met for the first time this session. State representatives serving on the committee this session are as follows:

Chairman Huberty, who is returning for his third session as chair of the committee, opened the first hearing by welcoming new and returning members and emphasizing the non-/bi-partisan nature of the committee’s work. He shared a story about the glass apple he keeps in front of him on the dais during each hearing. The apple was given to him by a supporter, friend, recently retired teacher, and long-time ATPE member, Gayle Sampley.

After the chairman’s opening remarks, the committee heard a series of presentations from various high-level staff at the Texas Education Agency (TEA) meant to update the committee on a range of education issues. Links to the individual presentations can be found below:

It is worth noting that during Franklin’s presentation on educator certification, the chair questioned whether the State Board of Education (SBOE) should continue to have oversight and veto authority over rulemaking by the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC). Under state law, the elected SBOE has the ability to review and reject rules that have been adopted by SBEC board, whose members are appointed by the governor. The SBOE cannot change SBEC rules, however, and any veto of an SBEC rule, which is extremely rare, essentially requires the certification board to start its rulemaking process over to correct perceived flaws in the rule. ATPE has supported and often relied on SBOE’s oversight of SBEC rules to help prevent the enactment of policies that would be detrimental to teachers or overall teacher quality,.

During the hearing, Chairman Huberty also laid out the committee’s schedule for the next two weeks. First, the committee will meet twice next week on Feb. 5 and 6 to hear from selected members of the Texas Commission on Public School Finance regarding the current condition of Texas’s school finance system and the commission’s recommendations for changes to tit. During the following week, on Feb. 11 and 12, the committee plans to hear invited testimony from a broad range of experts and stakeholders who have comments and concerns with the commission’s plan, or who may want to offer solutions of their own for the committee to consider as it begins its work moving forward a bill to overhaul the state’s school finance system.

Senate Education Committee ramps up work

ThinkstockPhotos-144283240The Texas Senate Education Committee met twice this week for the first time this session, signaling things are picking up in the Texas Legislature. ATPE weighed in on two measures the committee took up this week: a measure termed the “Tim Tebow bill” and a bill pertaining to district partnerships with charters.

Senate Bill (SB) 1882 by Sen. Jose Menendez relates to a school district partnering with a public charter school to operate a district campus and share teachers, facilities, and other educational resources. ATPE shared several concerns with the bill, which included lack of clarity on which entity would serve as the educators’ employer and the fact that a law is not needed to enable districts to form this type of partnership. Another concern was addressed by Senator Menendez in a newer version of the original bill; under the proposed committee substitute, neighborhood schools would still have first access to their neighborhood school regardless of the fact that a charter operator took it over.

Senator Menendez’s comments included his intent to continue working to address the issues expressed by stakeholders, calling for “a community solution.” That includes ATPE’s concern regarding the ambiguity with regard to who would employ educators. ATPE shared that if a district teacher becomes an employee of the charter, it would affect their rights and benefits, as charter employees don’t have the same rights and benefits as traditional public school employees.

The broader issue ATPE has with this bill does not have to do with opposition to locally developed partnerships between high-quality charters and districts, but with the fact that the bill only serves to incentivize this means of focusing attention on a school while not doing the same with others. Many innovative approaches or effective turnaround models, including this one, can be adopted by a board currently and has been done in various districts. This bill, however, would offer an accountability pause when this is used as a turnaround model in unacceptably rated schools and financial incentives when this sort of partnership is developed on any campus. Ultimately, this could serve to lessen the value and utilization of other models or innovative options that might be very well-suited for a particular school or community.

ATPE-Input-on-SB-640-imageThe committee also heard testimony on SB 640 by Sen. Van Taylor, a bill that would allow home-school students to participate in UIL activities, a bill termed the “Tim Tebow bill.” ATPE opposed the legislation, pointing to a number of positions in the ATPE Legislative Program that contrast with the idea of home school students selectively choosing aspects of the public school system in which they want to participate. Home-school parents and students were present to testify in both support and opposition. ATPE’s full testimony can be read here.

The Texas Legislature is picking up speed rapidly. Stay tuned for more from the Senate Education Committee next week!

From The Texas Tribune: Eleven Texas school boards ordered to the classroom

 
Tribune_TEA-Response_jpg_800x1000_q100

Houston ISD trustees admonish TEA for delaying campus turnaround plan implementation. Graphic by Todd Wiseman / The Texas Tribune

The superintendents and elected school boards of 11 Texas districts — including Dallas, Houston and Fort Worth — have been ordered by the state education agency to attend two-day training programs to learn how to fix their failing schools.

Deputy Commissioner of Education A.J. Crabill sent letters to the 11 school boards Oct. 10 saying they need additional governance training because their districts submitted unsatisfactory plans for turning around floundering campuses. All 11 superintendents and boards have agreed to the training, with several members expressing frustration about what they saw as an unfair and vague request.

The letters were sent about two months after TEA released 2016 accountability ratings showing that 467 campuses statewide — including 42 in the targeted districts — were labeled “improvement required,” a decrease from 603 campuses last year. The notices were sent to Brazosport, Corpus Christi, Dallas, Fort Worth, Hearne, Houston, Lubbock, Midland, Nacogdoches, Tyler and Waco.

Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath has promised to crack down on low-performing schools and to halve the number of failing schools over the next five years.

State law requires districts to submit detailed plans in the spring to fix problems at schools labeled “improvement required” for two or more consecutive years. The districts are supposed to include parents and the community in drafting the proposed fixes.

Morath has the final say on approving the plans — by mid-to -late June, according to a TEA timeline — so districts can start implementing them the following school year.

But for the 11 school districts, that implementation will have to wait until board trustees and superintendents attend a two-day, 24-hour governance training session.

In the letters, Crabill said he wasn’t sure the plans the districts submitted would address problems — including low test scores, low graduation rates, high dropout rates, and poor college readiness — within two years. The training sessions will help trustees identify and fix weaknesses in their plans, the letter said.

 

If Morath decides not to approve a plan, he can replace the board of trustees, replace the principal of a school or shut the school down completely, Crabill wrote.

Houston Independent School District’s board of trustees told Crabill it will likely vote to attend the training. But it also admonished the agency for leaving little time to actually turn around its schools. The commissioner said he would respond to the plans in June, and now may not approve them until trainings are completed in December.

“Our ability to make significant changes to the plans for these seven schools at this date may be somewhat limited,” the Houston board wrote Oct. 25. “Since TEA has missed its own published deadline for responding to the turnaround plans by four months, we ask that you provide us with specific concerns that TEA may have with the plans for these seven schools, so that we may begin considering how to make any appropriate adjustments in a way that will cause the least disruption during the school year.”

At an Oct. 27 Dallas Independent School District board meeting, a few trustees said the request for training was too vague.

“While I don’t have a problem with training, I do have a problem with a demand that I implement what it is we are going to be trained on, when I don’t even know what it is,” said trustee Joyce Foreman. “We need to know the specifics of what is wrong. We need to know specifics about the training. We need to know specifics of why these eight schools.”

The commissioner did approve campus turnaround plans in other districts around the state, TEA spokesperson Lauren Callahan said. She could not say what the difference was between those plans and the ones the commissioner flagged.

After receiving a flood of questions from district officials across the state, Crabill included a few key explanations in a follow up email to all 11 superintendents. He slashed the training from four days to two, after trustees said it was too hard for them to fit into their schedules. He presented six different dates and locations for the training, in Kilgore, Waco, Fort Worth, Midland, El Paso and Houston, on weekdays and weekends between Nov. 9 and Dec. 17.

All trustees and superintendents from all 11 boards must attend the entire workshop, Crabill said.

“This is a team event so just like in other team events, the whole team has to win together. Completion means that all trustees and the superintendent were present at the same workshop for the entirety of the workshop,” Crabill wrote.

Though all 11 boards have agreed to attend the training, it is not clear whether all trustees will show up.

A veteran Lubbock board trustee said he voted yes to the resolution agreeing to training – but now he’s not sure whether he will actually attend. He called the demand for governance training “unprecedented” in his 14 years on the board.

He said he is not sure whether he can get away from his day job for two 12-hour days. Districts have to cover the cost of any travel required for board members to attend the training session.

TEA does not have a plan in place in case board members don’t show up, Callahan said. “So far, TEA is receiving confirmation that board members will attend and complete the training. As a result, discussions on failure to participate have not been necessary,” she wrote in a statement Tuesday. “Any talk of penalties is premature.”

Read related Tribune coverage here:

  • Education Commissioner Mike Morath on Tuesday outlined plans to crack down harder on chronically low-performing schools, saying he wants to cut in half the number of them that end up on the state’s failing list over the next five years.
  • More Texas school districts and charter schools are failing in 2016, though the number of individual campuses that received that label decreased.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/02/tea-demands-district-training-delays-turnarounds/.

Guest post: I’m Wondering Why—The Rhetoric about Public Schools Doesn’t Add Up

I’m Wondering Why
The Rhetoric about Public Schools Doesn’t Add Up

Andra Self

           Andra Self

by Andra Self

Lately, much of what is said by some state leaders about schools just doesn’t add up. Inconsistencies and conundrums in their statements are leading many Texans to ask questions. Here are a few examples.

Why Not Brag? 

We all know that Texas is a state that loves to brag. We brag about everything being bigger and better in Texas. We brag about how we compare to other states. But somehow, when it comes to schools, some state leaders don’t take the opportunity to brag, and I wonder why. Recently, U.S. News & World Report released its list of the best high schools in the nation. Of the top 10 high schools, four are public high schools in Texas. That is certainly brag-worthy!

For the past few years, Texas has been ranking in the top handful of states on graduation rates. In fact, Texas African American students rank first when compared to their peers in other states. Graduation rates for Hispanic students are also best in the nation. White students’ graduation rates are outdone by only one state. Texas graduation rates are something to brag about, and it seems odd that some state leaders aren’t bragging.

Why the Stance on Tests?

At the same time that state lawmakers are passing laws that allow a student to graduate without passing all the tests (Senate Bill 149), those same leaders are embracing test results to rate schools A through F (Senate Bill 6).

On one hand, the tests have lost support, while at the same time the tests are considered a reliable tool for ranking schools. It seems strange that the tests are suspect in one context, yet valid measures in another.

Why a New Bureaucracy? 

Some lawmakers are focused on what to do about “failing schools” and are creating a new statewide bureaucracy to take troubled schools away from their local districts. However, years of data from the Texas Education Agency show that local districts have a laudable track record on turning around schools that receive the lowest ranking.

In fact, districts move 80 percent of schools out of that category in the first year after receiving substandard rankings. A new bureaucracy is not needed.

Why Not Tell the Truth About Choice?

Some politicians push for “school choice”—but in truth, parents already have many choices and are exercising those choices: In addition to Texas public schools, parents can consider private schools, public charter schools, virtual schools, and homeschooling.

Furthermore, there are often many choices within the public school system: magnet schools, transfers within districts, and transfers to other districts. School choice already exists.

Why No Adequate Funding? 

The number of students in Texas is growing by approximately 80,000 each year. We topped 5 million students recently. Schools are caught in a squeeze between rising student numbers, increased daily costs (e.g., electricity, transportation, food, supplies), and unfunded mandates from state government.

However, the Legislature cut school funding by $5.4 billion in the session before last and now appears unresponsive to the judge’s ruling that public school funding should be improved. The state has plenty of dollars to fund schools, but some lawmakers seem inclined to withhold those much needed dollars.

Why Vouchers?

Vouchers are designed to allow students to attend private schools using public tax dollars, and some lawmakers are going through all sorts of gyrations to find ways to divert funding from public schools to private schools. They want to take dollars away from the many students who attend public schools (almost 94 percent) to pay for the few (about 7 percent) who attend private schools—schools that will have no accountability for tax dollars or academic achievement.

Why Not Support Public Schools?

As you see, much of the rhetoric simply does not add up. Texas public schools are doing better than ever before. They deserve our applause and support.

Some lawmakers are working hard to support public schools, and we deeply appreciate that. Others, however, are denigrating this state’s public schools with statements not based on facts or needs. As we move forward in the future, it’s critical that all Texas lawmakers work together to Stand Up for Texas Public Schools.

Andra Self, a Lufkin ISD trustee, is 2014-15 president of TASB.

Views and opinions expressed in guest posts are those of the guest author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of ATPE. Reprinted with permission from the July 2015 Texas Lone Star magazine, published by the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB). Copyright 2015 TASB. All rights reserved.

Full agenda today for House Public Education Committee with votes anticipated on bad bills

The House Public Education Committee is meeting now to hear several bills, including Senate Bill (SB) 6 by Sen. Larry Taylor (R) calling for public school campuses to be rated with “A through F” accountability grades. While the bill contains improved language supplied in a Senate floor amendment by Sen. Jose Menendez (D), many educators remain opposed to SB 6 and giving letter grades to campuses. Read more about SB 6 here.

Below are the other bills slated to be heard by the House committee today:

  • HB 233 by Rep. Jessica Farrar (D) relating to school social work services in public schools.
  • HB 1231 by Rep. Allen Fletcher (R) relating to the membership of school district and open-enrollment charter school concussion oversight teams.
  • HB 1783 by Rep. Joe Moody (D) relating to the right of a school employee to report a crime and persons subject to the prohibition on coercing another into suppressing or failing to report information to a law enforcement agency; creating a criminal offense.
  • HB 1935 by Rep. Ken King (R) relating to additional state aid for tax reduction provided to certain school districts.
  • HB 2017 Rep. Rick Miller (R) relating to permissible locations of open-enrollment charter schools created by institutions of higher education.
  • HB 2151 by Rep. Tracy King (D) relating to consideration by the board of trustees of a school district of parental complaints concerning student participation in extracurricular activities.
  • HB 2156 by Rep. Gary VanDeaver (R) relating to requirements for providers of certain technology services in public schools.
  • HB 2218 by Rep. Garnet Coleman (D) relating to instruction regarding mental health, substance abuse, and youth suicide in educator training programs.
  • HB 2593 by Rep. Four Price (R) relating to the method of determining the average daily attendance in certain school districts.
  • HB 2928 by Rep. Ryan Guillen (D) relating to enrollment in public schools by a child without a parent, guardian, or other person with legal control of the child under a court order.
  • HB 3260 by Rep. Abel Herrero (D) relating to a study and report regarding the use of open-source instructional materials at public schools.
  • HB 3281 by Rep. James Frank (R) relating to public school accountability.
  • HB 3282 by Rep. Ron Simmons (R) relating to the establishment by the commissioner of education of an autism program to provide applied behavior analysis services to students with autism spectrum disorder and to the coordination of autism services in this state.
  • HB 3417 by Rep. Diego Bernal (D) relating to providing for endorsements for public high school students enrolled in special education programs.
  • HB 3546 by Rep. Morgan Meyer (R) relating to the provision of credit by examination for public school students.
  • HB 3815 by Rep. Dwayne Bohac (R) relating to instruction in positive character traits in public schools.
  • HB 3896 by Rep. Sylvester Turner (D) relating to access to school textbooks.
  • HB 4047 by Rep. Alma Allen (D) relating to the extension to open-enrollment charter school employees of certain rights granted to school district employees. This bill was filed at the request of ATPE.

Later today, the committee is also slated to vote on a number of pending bills that have already been heard. These include two bills of great concern to the education community. First, House Bill (HB) 1798 by Rep. Joe Deshotel (D) deals with the ability to convert public school districts to home rule charter districts that are exempt from many of the laws applicable to other public school districts. Deshotel’s bill changes the name of the privatization mechanism under existing law to “local control school districts” and does away with the requirement in current law for at least 25 percent voter turnout in an election to convert a school district to a “local control school district.” Also scheduled to be voted out today is HB 1536 by Rep. Harold Dutton (D) calling for creation of a statewide Opportunity School District for certain low-performing schools.

Both of these bills, HB 1536 and HB 1798, would facilitate alternative management of public schools by private entities, and they are being pushed forward by the wealthy lobbying group, Texans for Education Reform (TER). The bills promote ineffective school turnaround strategies and eliminate important quality control measures that exist for most other public schools, such as elementary school class-size limits and requirements to hire certified teachers. The alternative management structure envisioned by both HB 1536 and HB 1798 would remove the governing authority of locally elected school board members, which serves to diminish true local control in the long run. Also, neither bill would provide for increased resources or even encourage a reallocation of resources to ensure that the campuses that are struggling the most will receive the most support, which is essential to any successful turnaround effort. For these reasons, ATPE urges members to ask their state representatives and especially members of the House Public Education committee, to vote against HB 1798 and 1536 today.

Fortunately, another TER-backed bill, HB 2543, is not expected to be voted upon by the House committee today. HB 2543 is Rep. Marsha Farney’s (R) bill to do away with the minimum salary schedule for teachers. We appreciate all the ATPE members who’ve been calling their state representatives to oppose this bill.

House committee to discuss school turnaround tomorrow

The House Public Education Committee has an interim hearing scheduled for 10 a.m. tomorrow, April 22, at the Texas State Capitol.

The committee will review strategies for improving student achievement at “chronically underperforming schools.” In addition to looking at school turnaround methods, committee members will discuss issues surrounding “alternative governance of underperforming schools.” ATPE Lobbyist Monty Exter will be testifying at the hearing.

Tomorrow’s meeting is in response to an interim charge issued by Lt. Gov. Dewhurst directing the committee to review certain issues in anticipation of the 84th legislative session next year. Watch live or archived video of the hearing here.