Welcome to TSTA

Written Testimony on Proposed State Board for Educator Certification Disciplinary Sanction Policy, June 18, 2009:
TSTA has several concerns regarding the proposed Disciplinary Sanction Policy. While TSTA recognizes that one of the Board’s priorities should be to ensure the safety and welfare of Texas school children, this priority should not diminish the substantive rights of educators to contest allegations of misconduct.

Limiting Public Testimony to Five Minutes

The SBEC Ad Hoc Committee recommends that public testimony on disciplinary cases be limited to five minutes. As it stands, the public testimony in these cases is limited to a scant fifteen minutes. The Committee’s justification for the reduction in time is that it will keep speakers from testifying about matters beyond the Findings of Fact. Limiting the amount of time for testimony does not address the problem the Committee seeks to address. It simply limits the length of the problem. If the Committee believes there is a problem with the content of the testimony going beyond the scope of the Findings, the Committee should recommend procedures to address speakers who run afoul of these rules, not shorten the time allotted.

When considering that an educator’s career and livelihood are at stake, the Board should be able to spare at least fifteen minutes for public comment. The Board serves the public. It should not marginalize the public’s voice to address the issues the Board considers.

Developing an SBEC Policy Statement

The Ad Hoc Committee suggests that the judges of the State Office of Administrative Hearings need to be educated about SBEC rules when hearing disciplinary cases. The Committee insinuates that the administrative law judges do not fully appreciate SBEC rules, and need some sort of guidance from the board “to rule accordingly.”

The contested case hearing process is an adversarial process wherein the SBEC and the accused educator are opposing parties. The SBEC has the burden to prove why an educator should be sanctioned or denied a certificate. If the Committee believes the administrative law judges are not making appropriate findings in these cases, it is because the SBEC is not meeting its burden of proof, not because the judges need to be educated about SBEC rules. Such a statement is condescending and insulting to the judges who hear these cases.

The proposed Policy Guidelines state six general policies. The first states that the “SBEC’s primary duty is to safeguard the interests of Texas students…”. While partially accurate, this general policy neglects to recognize that the SBEC has a responsibility to educators. Section 249.5 of the Texas Administrative Code states the primary purpose of the SBEC is to protect school children and school personnel. Another primary purpose for SBEC’s existence is to fairly resolve educator disciplinary issues. Clearly, the SBEC has an equal responsibility to students and educators.

TSTA would agree with the policy statement that sanctions imposed on an educator should further the purpose of the SBEC. Accordingly, whether sanctions are imposed, and the severity of such sanctions, should be tied to whether the sanction protects the safety and welfare of Texas schoolchildren. As such, TSTA disagrees with the blanket assumption that all indiscretions in an educator’s personal life automatically threaten the safety and welfare of the educator’s students. In many cases, educators have personal situations that are less than desired, but have no bearing on their performance as educators or the safety of their students. Educators’ personal lives should not be on trial for SBEC to examine and judge unless there is a clear connection between the behavior and the wellbeing of the educators’ students.

TSTA believes in great public schools for every child. TSTA understands that some educators commit acts that should result in sanctions to their certificates, or even revocation of their certificates. However, the SBEC should not compromise the substantive rights of the majority of good educators in order to penalize the bad actors. The SBEC has the responsibility both to punish those whose actions demand punishment and to protect the innocent from wrongful punishment. TSTA urges the SBEC not to abandon that balanced responsibility by unfairly trampling on the rights of those who are innocent in pursuit of those who are guilty. --Joey Moore, General Counsel

Written testimony on school finance reform presented to the Texas House Committee on Public Education, April 14, 2009:
Over the past decade, Texas has dropped from 25th in the nation in per pupil expenditure for instruction to 45th. In Texas, 50,000 classroom do not have appropriately certified teachers. And Texas today ranks 34th among the states in average teacher pay, $6,129 below the national average.

The greatest need our Texas public schools, their students and their employees today face is the need for a school finance system that is sufficient and flexible to meet the growing, ever-changing needs of public education. The welcome infusion of federal stimulus dollars under President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is only a short-term Band-Aid, not a long-term fix. Without a long-term fix, the state simply cannot retain and recruit the very best teachers in the nation to teach our students.

We need a new system of funding public schools that is sufficient to meet the needs of the 21st century and flexible enough to keep pace with the many changes our state is experiencing. House Bill 1, which the 79th Legislature passed in special session in 2006, was more about cutting property taxes and re-electing a governor than it was about meeting the long-term needs of Texas public schools and their students.

HB 1 freezes state funding at 2006 levels, with very few exceptions. As a result, 241 of the state’s 1,031 school districts have sought voter approval for increased tax rates to pay for higher expenses for supplies and operations and to fund employee salary hikes. Taxpayers in 176 of those 241 districts approved higher tax rates for their schools, for a success rate of 73 percent since the passage of House Bill 1.

And securing voter approval of higher tax rates for schools is getting harder. In 2008, voters in barely 60 percent of the districts – only 70 of 116 – holding tax rate elections approved the higher rates.

Many of the districts that have won voter approval of higher tax rates have maxed out at the state-imposed cap of $1.17 per $100 assessed valuation for maintenance and operations. They cannot later go back to voters for more money to fund ever-increasing operating expenses.

The districts seeking voter approval that have not won it are worse off, resulting in layoffs and cutbacks in programs. Many other districts across the state have temporarily staved off what are surely inevitable tax rate elections by draining reserve funds to risky low levels.

This convoluted, inadequate system is not an appropriate way to fund the most important responsibility the Texas Constitution assigns state government.

“Election rules are complex and vague, timelines are impossible, election dates (in some cases are up to five months after budgets are adopted) are cumbersome, the financial concepts involved are extremely difficult to communicate to the stakeholders, and with the current economy, this election is the most formidable administrative assignment I have witnessed,” Joe Smith, the founder and editor of TexasISD.com, wrote in January. As a retired superintendent, Joe knows a little about formidable administrative assignments.

Times may be tough in Texas. But an overwhelming majority of Texas voters knows just how important investing more resources in public education is to the future of the nation’s second-largest state. This is the primary finding of a statewide poll the Texas State Teachers Association commissioned earlier this year.

The Tarrance Group, a national Republican polling firm, and Harstad Strategic Research, a national Democratic polling firm, surveyed 815 Texas voters from across the state Jan. 26-29. Sixty-three percent of respondents say the state needs to increase funding for Texas public schools.

Texans from both major political parties and political independents all know that in today’s increasingly globalized economy, education is an essential investment that will not crash. Texas voters know that investing in our public schools and their students is the foundation for the Lone Star State’s economic future and the engine of its prosperity. This is true even in the current economic downturn.

Texas voters know that state government does not properly fund our public schools. Only 20 percent of respondents say the Legislature has sufficiently addressed the issue of public school funding. An overwhelming supermajority of 71 percent says the Legislature still has more work to do on school funding. This result comes almost three years after the Legislature “reformed” how Texas pays for its public schools. But lawmakers froze state funding at 2006 levels, with no allowance for rising costs or increasing salaries.

Texans also know just how important teachers are to the success of our public schools and their students. When asked what makes for a good public school, 61 percent of survey respondents identify teachers. And respondents believe teachers should be paid as the professionals they are. Sixty-six percent say teacher pay falls short of what it ought to be.

The Texas Legislature today has the opportunity to correct the shortcomings in how the state funds its most important constitutional responsibility. Texas needs a new system of school finance that is sufficient and flexible for the long term and that pays teachers as the professionals they are.

Testimony to the Senate Education Committee, April 7, 2009, Opposing Senate Bill 183, by Sen. Tommy Williams:
This bill creates a voucher program that will send taxpayer dollars to private schools that are not accountable to the public.

Over the past 30 years, federal and state laws have evolved to ensure that students with disabilities receive a free, appropriate public education. Private schools are not required to provide the legal procedures federal and state laws mandate to protect the rights and interests of students with disabilities, which unnecessarily puts those students at significant risk.

This bill would disproportionately benefit students with disabilities is urban areas. Students in rural areas would not have equal access to private schools that serve students with disabilities because few appropriate private schools exist in rural areas.

School districts are required by federal law to provide transportation to students with disabilities; private schools are not required to provide transportation to students with disabilities. Economically disadvantaged students are disproportionately hurt by this bill because they typically do not have a mode of transportation available that would allow them to attend a qualifying private school.

Vouchers provide choice for private schools, not students. Private schools have a profit motive to admit students who have the fewest educational challenges; therefore, private schools generally will not admit students with pervasive disabilities. This bill aims to help those students with disabilities who are higher functioning, wealthier and already attending private schools. This bill intends to siphon money out of our public schools that would go to special education areas, while leaving those public schools with the most demanding special education students.

This bill makes it more difficult for our school districts to operate properly and makes harder the jobs of all school district employees who work in special education.

Public schools must provide a quality education to all students. Senate Bills 100 (by Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr.), 451 (by Sen. Leticia Van de Putte), 987 (by Sen. Florence Shapiro), and 1125 (by Sen. Judith Zaffirini) would ensure that special education students in public schools receive a quality education, and that is the reason TSTA supports those bills.

Finally, if the voucher program is implemented incorrectly, this bill has the potential to open up the state to costly liability on constitutional grounds.
For all of these reasons of fairness, equity, constitutionality and, most important, student well-being, TSTA opposes this voucher bill.

Testimony to the House Public Education Committee, April 7, 2009, Opposing House Bill 3703, by Rep. Jim Jackson:
House Bill 3703 repeals the limit of 215 charter schools allowed under current law and allows a charter holder to establish new school campuses without applying for authorization if: (1) 75 percent or more of the open-enrollment charter school campuses operating under the charter are rated as academically acceptable or higher; (2) either no campus operating under the charter has been rated as academically unacceptable for any two of the three preceding school years or such a campus has been closed; and (3) the charter holder provides the required written notice.

Is this the standard we want – saying that if 25% of your campuses are academically unacceptable you should be able to open more campuses? Further, we need proper oversight for these schools to function properly and accomplish their task of preparing children for college or the workforce. The Texas Education Agency is constrained by a budget that will not be able to keep up with expanding charter schools if those charter schools are allowed to expand at will. This is a potential disaster in many areas. And regarding the portion of the bill that says a student will not be computed in the dropout rate unless the student has attended 85 days or more, if that is a valid standard, why isn’t that the standard for all Texas students?

To continue to allow lesser accountability and open season for expanding the number of charters and charter campuses is not sound public policy. TSTA encourages the committee members to not support breaking the charter cap allowing for an infinite number of charters to be granted in Texas.

Testimony to the House Public Education Committee, April 7, 2009, Opposing House Bill 2541, by Chair Rob Eissler::
TSTA has always supported charter schools and the charter school movement in Texas. However, TSTA opposes any new laws that would allow charters to have facilities funding due to the nature of charters currently being deregulated in many different aspects. Therefore, TSTA opposes the provisions in the bill that allow for Instructional Facilities Allotment for Open Enrollment Charter Schools.

TSTA does agree with the measures included in HB 2541 that require reporting to the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) and reporting appropriate fiscal and financial records to the commissioner of education, as well as the requirement that the charter receive an unqualified opinion in the most recent independent auditor’s report of the school’s finances. TSTA also supports the suspension of funds if the charter holder fails to comply and revocation of a charter if the school is insolvent. In fact, TSTA believes that TEA needs more avenues to shut down charters in Texas if they are failing or mismanaging money, or for any other conduct for which a school district would be held accountable.

TSTA opposes HB 2541 as it adds section 46.014 to provide for instructional facilities allotment for open enrollment charter schools. As long as public schools are inadequately funded, facilities funding should not be made available to charters as it depletes the funds available to adequately fund public education.

The state needs to be able to maintain some level of control in this area, and therefore, TSTA opposes Instructional Facilities Allotments for charter schools. Certainly, the reporting requirements and controls in Section One and Section Two in the bill should be in place, and charters should have a well-established record with TEA before even the Legislature even considers giving facilities funding to these campuses. Further, the school districts in Texas should be adequately funded before the Legislature considers providing facilities funding to open enrollment charter schools.

Testimony before the Committee of the Full State Board of Education
Item 10—Consideration of Options for Graduation Credit for Athletics
March 26, 2009

In March of 2008, the Committee on Instruction was approached by a father. He was nervous, but determined. He stood before the committee and did a fine job making his case. He wanted, and still wants, Texas to give students more options. He is asking athletics to qualify for four years of credit instead of two. The Committee on Instruction has sent this to the full board for consideration. TSTA feels it is time to move forward with this action.

This action gives students more options, and education is about options if nothing else. It affects more than graduation requirements, though. It speaks to the voice of the Texan. Texas offers neither referendum nor initiative opportunities. All rule decisions are made by elected and appointed officials. In other words, a Texan must come before an elected or appointed body to make any change to Texas law.

We are coming on a year discussing this item. There are five options in front of you. Unfortunately, one simply delays the process even further. Perhaps that’s the point. The goal may be to kill this idea through attrition.

It shouldn’t be that way.

I remember that first day, as I’m sure the committee members do. His voice shook. He had to drive to Austin to attend what he thought would be the right meeting. He came prepared, and he spoke quickly to keep within his time limits. The Committee on Instruction was very kind in their discussions with him. He really was doing the right thing in his mind, and it took courage to do this.

Please honor his courage, his efforts, and the best interests of high school students. Vote to move forward on one of the three active proposals. Make a decision to give kids more opportunities and more options. Make a decision to show that one Texan really can make a difference. Thank you for your time.--Dr. Paul Henley

Senate Bill 3: Fixing a Badly Flawed System
Written Testimony of the Texas State Teachers Association
March 17, 2009

TSTA believes that SB 3 can be the framework for creating a new and better accountability system. TSTA is testifying neutrally on the bill because we believe it is a good start but needs additional changes before we can give it our full support. The bill makes several positive changes at the elementary and middle school/junior high grade levels by moving toward creating a system that provides more local control over the role testing plays in our accountability system.

The changes at grades 3, 5 and 8 make the test one of several components that will determine if a student will advance a grade. This is in keeping with our long-held position that no major educational decision should be based on a single standardized test score. We do believe that the proposed change to allow only one opportunity to retest should be changed back to the current language that allows for two additional opportunities to take the test. We also think that expanding the system to include grades 4, 6 and 7 in the grade placement process is a positive development.

SB 3 requires schools to provide additional instruction in a smaller classroom setting for students who fail the test, and the bill requires student participation in that smaller classroom setting before they can advance to the next grade. These requirements are appropriate ways to try to get students caught up as quickly as possible. However, we believe this kind of accelerated instruction should be provided for any student who doesn’t meet any of the standards the district establishes for promotion. We also believe due process safeguards need to be put in place to protect any teacher from retaliation due to a recommendation that a student not be promoted to the next grade.

At the secondary level, we still have serious concerns about the direction taken by SB 3 as filed. While the bill shifts toward a growth measure in determining the rating of districts and campuses, it is still essentially a high-stakes testing system. In place of the TAKS, SB 3 proposes end of course exams in English III and in either Algebra II or Algebra I. It appears that other end of course exams may eventually be considered as well. In any case, students will have to pass at least eight out of 12 end of course exams to graduate. While the district’s accreditation status is based on a three-year average, the fact that the standard is supposed to increase every year for the first 10 years of the program seems almost impossible to calculate. Furthermore, the performance of one small subgroup can result in a district or campus not being accredited.

The bill stipulates that dropout and completion rates are factors that must be used in the accountability system. While TSTA has serious concerns about the high dropout rate, particularly of minority youth in the state, making the dropout rate one of the key factors in determining the accountability ratings of campuses and districts has always been a concern for us. We believe a precise definition of these rates that works in the real world is hard to find. Moreover, not being in school for those under 17 years old is a violation of the law. It is an area that should be primarily the purview of parents and law enforcement, not of the public schools.

TSTA also urges you to consider a hard cap on how much time can actually be spent testing, practicing for tests and benchmarking tests. We recommend that no more than 10 days a year can be used for all such test-related activities.

Finally, and very importantly, the current system of punitive sanctions is seriously flawed because it does more to ensure school failure than it does to improve schools that have problems. TSTA considers SB 3’s failure to address the current system of sanctions to be a tragic flaw in the bill.

As filed, SB 3 is all sticks and no carrots with regard to campuses that may not perform up to standards. The bill provides nothing real in the way of assistance to campuses and districts that need help. The proposed language creates negative incentives regarding the staffing of those campuses but fails to recognize those who have proven an ability to contribute to improvement. This section of the current law was a disaster when originally passed, and it remains so in this proposed revision of the accountability system. In fact, about the only good language in this section was deleted in the filed version of SB 3. Further, it adds a new provision that would allow campuses to be turned over to for-profit companies in spite of the awful track record they have in Texas and the absence of any reliable research that would support this approach.

Finally, while the bill lays out a framework that could create a better accountability system, TSTA believes it is critical to point out the distinction between what an accountability system does and what really needs to occur to improve instruction. Tests don’t make students smarter. In order for this ambitious plan to succeed, districts are going to need additional resources and teachers are going to need additional training. To believe that all we have to do is say “more rigor” and “higher standards” to make everything better is absurd. If these proposed changes are to work and produce the desired results, our schools and the socioeconomically disadvantaged communities many of them serve must have additional resources. And if SB 3 imposes new financial requirements on school districts, the state must fully fund those mandates.

Senate State Affairs Committee
November 20, 2008

I am Jack Kelly with the Texas State Teachers Association. I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you about committee interim charge 10, regarding the advantages/disadvantages of a defined contribution (DC) vs. a defined benefit (DB) retirement plan.

I doubt anyone ran for re-election a couple weeks ago promising to reduce benefits for retirees. So if the legislature’s goal is to provide comparable or even improved benefits for retirees, I would argue that a DB plan is a more cost efficient way to do that. The value of DB plan to the employee is clear: it provides a secure, predictable retirement income that cannot be outlived.

There is value in a DB plan to the employer as well:

Longevity: There are over 600K active employees and about 200K retirees/dependents in the education community. With that large a number, the state can fund a system that meets actuarial expectations: men will die at 80-81 and women about 83-84. Some will live to 75, 85, 95 etc. but the average will be about what is expected. With a DC plan you have no idea which of the 600K actives will live to 75, 85 or 95 so if you are not going to reduce benefits you have to put more money into each DC account-in case that is the person who lives to 95.
Investment Strategy: In a DB plan TRS gets state and employee contributions to pay most of the cost of current annuities and the investment portfolio is used to generate money for pensions that will be paid 5, 10 years down the road. With a DC plan every one is on their own. Most financial advisors suggest as you approach retirement and are living in retirement your investment portfolio needs to include a higher percentage of bonds and lower risk investments which traditionally generate less return. So again unless you are going to reduce benefits you will have to put more money into the DC plan to generate the same benefits with less risky investments getting lower returns.
Investment Quality: With a DC plan at retirement the employer says Good Bye, Good Luck and God Bless! You are now asking 60/70/80/90 year old people to be responsible for managing their portfolios to make sure it lasts as long as the people do. With 600K actives and 200K retirees, law of averages, there are going to be a handful of Warren Buffets who will become millionaires. There will probably be a lot like me who struggle to balance their check book each month. Not all 800K will make the same quality decisions and get the same caliber results as the TRS investment staff of 100 + experts who do this for a living and make up to $500,000 per year to insure the best possible returns for the current TRS system. So again if you are not going to reduce benefits you will need to put more money into the system because many of the participants will not earn the same rate of return that TRS does.
Impact of Market Fluctuations: With a DC plan it is every one for themselves. When the economy is good-great. But the last eight years are good example of why you do not want your primary retirement fund to be a DC plan. From 2000-02 the market plummeted and most 401(k)’s looked more like 201 (k)’s. Then most of them rebounded and by 2007 were back to or better than the 2000 level and then they were hit by the current bear market. Britt Harris, TRS staff, told the TRS board that this was the worst October in history of stock market. TRS uses a five year smoothing strategy to cushion against peaks and valleys in the market. As an individual a retiree cannot easily absorb that kind of fluctuation in their level of income. If half their retirement fund goes away in a couple years they may not have another five years for it to recover.

If the goal is to provide a quality retirement plan, then the defined benefit system is the more cost efficient way to invest limited resources to make that happen. It is good for the employee and the employer.

Written Testimony for the State Board for Educator Certification
Item 13: Legislative Agenda
Administrative Subpoena Power
October 10, 2008

In Schade v. Texas Workers' Compensation Com'n, 150 S.W.3d 542 (Tex.App.-Austin Apr 08, 2004) (NO. 03-03-00379-CV), review denied (Nov 05, 2004), the requirements for administrative subpoenas were identified as follows: “(1) the agency must conduct its investigation pursuant to an authorized purpose, and the subpoena must be relevant to that purpose; (2) the agency must follow the necessary statutory procedures; (3) the subpoena must describe the documents sought with adequate particularity, meaning that the scope of its demand for documents must be adequate, but not excessive, for the purposes of the inquiry; (4) the subpoena must not unnecessarily or excessively seek information that the agency already possesses; and (5) the respondent may show that the subpoena is unnecessarily burdensome.” Citing Sinclair v. Savings & Loan Comm'r, 696 S.W.2d 142, 145, 151-52 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

SBEC already has the ability to request documents from school districts not only through the Texas Open Records Act, but also through the process afforded by the State Office of Administrative Hearings. The ability for TEA staff to subpoena documents on behalf of SBEC even before a complaint is filed or notice is provided that a crime has been committed circumvents the due process rights of the individual certified educator. It also is feared that this power, if allowed, could be abused in its application. There is also concern that confidential documents would be released under a subpoena power without the right to seek protection.

TSTA cautions the SBEC in requesting this authority. As SBEC has no staff of its own and relies on another agency to fulfill its statutory obligations, there is also absolutely no oversight by the board over this subpoena power, if granted. TSTA urges the SBEC to rely on the existing procedures in place for conducting investigations and pursuing revocation of educator certification to protect the teaching profession from abuse and afford every certified educator his or her due process rights.

School District Reporting Process

Before SBEC considers broadening the reporting requirements, the question should be asked as to why it’s necessary? The current statute requires reporting for the most serious offenses, for which SBEC should be rightly involved. If, however, lesser offenses are resolved at the district level, why should those more minor offenses require mandatory reporting?

Pursuant to Rule §249.14, “Complaint, Required Reporting, and Investigation; Investigative Notice; Filing of Petition” districts are already required to report. Section 249.14 requires the following:

“(a) The Texas Education Agency (TEA) staff may obtain and investigate information concerning alleged improper conduct by an educator, applicant, examinee, or other person subject to this chapter that would warrant the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) denying relief to or taking disciplinary action against the person or certificate.

(b) Complaints against an educator, applicant, or examinee must be filed in writing.

(c) The TEA staff may also obtain and act on other information providing grounds for investigation and possible action under this chapter.

(d) A person who serves as the superintendent of a school district or the director of an open- enrollment charter school, private school, regional education service center, or shared services arrangement shall promptly notify in writing the SBEC by filing a report with the TEA staff within seven calendar days of the date the person first obtains or has knowledge of information indicating any of the following circumstances:

(1) that an applicant for or a holder of a certificate has a reported criminal history;

(2) that a certificate holder was terminated from employment based on a determination that he or she committed any of the following acts:

(A) sexually or physically abused a student or minor or engaged in any other illegal conduct with a student or minor;

(B) possessed, transferred, sold, or distributed a controlled substance;

(C) illegally transferred, appropriated, or expended school property or funds;

(D) attempted by fraudulent or unauthorized means to obtain or to alter any certificate or permit that would entitle the individual to be employed in a position requiring such certificate or permit or to receive additional compensation associated with a position;

(E) committed a crime, any part of such crime having occurred on school property or at a school-sponsored event; or

(F) solicited or engaged in sexual conduct or a romantic relationship with a student or minor; or

(3) that a certificate holder resigned and reasonable evidence supported a recommendation by the person to terminate a certificate holder because he or she committed one of the acts specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection.

(A) Before accepting an employee's resignation that, under this paragraph, requires a person to notify the SBEC by filing a report with the TEA staff, the person shall inform the certificate holder in writing that such a report will be filed and sanctions against his or her certificate may result as a consequence.

(B) A person required to comply with paragraph (3) of this subsection shall notify the governing body of the employing school district before filing the report with the TEA staff.

(e) A report filed under subsection (d) of this section shall, at a minimum, summarize the factual circumstances requiring the report and identify the subject of the report by providing the following available information: name and any aliases; certificate number, if any, or social security number; and last known mailing address and home and daytime phone numbers. A person who is required to file a report under subsection (d) of this section but fails to do so timely is subject to sanctions under this chapter.”

TSTA believes that this rule is exhaustive and that no additional mandates or regulation is necessary. Districts are already under an obligation to report certain incidents and conduct by a certified educator, and anything more, is abusive. --Portia Bosse, Government Relations Specialist.

Testimony for Select Joint Committee on Public Education Accountability
August 20, 2008

Good afternoon committee members. I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony this afternoon on the issue of the public school accountability system. My name is Clinton Gill and I am the President of the Lubbock Educators Association as well as a 5^th grade teacher in the Lubbock Independent School District.

Since public education is funded by tax dollars, I suppose it will always be a political football that will be kicked back and forth. Many people running for public office have always said they were going to “improve” public education. I think listening to good educators rather than to those who might have a special agenda might be helpful in fulfilling political promises. What concerns me most as a teacher is the possibility that our children are sometimes forgotten about while we are making yearly improvements. While the current accountability system has done much to improve instruction in our public schools, it has also had some negative side effects.

Children are complex organisms and can demonstrate what they know in many different ways. For us to have such limited thinking that one single test can tell us what a child knows and has learned is unforgivable in a time where we have many options. If our desire is to know that a child is getting a well rounded education that will result in their being a life-long learner capable of critical thinking and good decision making, then I believe, we must evaluate our children with multiple tools. Too much of what is needed in the development of a child is lost today to the focus of a single test, whether that test be during the year or at the end of a course.

In my six years of teaching, I have seen student after student get so stressed about the TAKS test that they literally make themselves sick. They know that if they do not pass the test, they face many consequences, including retention. Take a moment to think about how you would feel if it was your child that had such high test anxiety that they could not perform well on the test. I have always been someone that knows the information, but am not a good test taker. I can assure you that classrooms all across this state are filled with very intelligent students that have high test anxiety. Should this test be the sole determining factor of a student being able to move to the next grade level? I hope you will take some time to reflect on that question and come up with an accountability system that is fair, but without such a high-stakes test. Fair does not mean doing the same thing for all students. It means striving to meet the individual needs of each student. I also believe if students and schools are making progress from year to year, they should not be labeled as “Unacceptable” just because they don’t meet the standard set by someone in Austin.

If the agenda of the state is to move from public schools to privatization of public schools, I believe the current test system has that agenda on target. However, if the agenda is to improve instruction in schools, then we must have a system that does not penalize a good school that does well in every area but has a low score in one area. It seems that test results are used more to highlight a fault in the school than to recognize the efforts of their success. One area of instruction that is not successful for one particular group of students does not mean the entire instruction on that campus is failing to educate students. I believe we can make better decisions for our students, for our schools, and we can stop trying to convince the public that some of their schools are failing.

Many times I’ve heard the phrase that money is not the problem. Well, to a large extent it is. The legislature will increase the budget of any agency when costs go up except education. I hope each of you understand that the costs go up every year in public schools. They make the same purchases as any other business. The numbers of students go up every year as well and that is an expense. I think we need to bite the bullet a little bit in Texas and acknowledge that what many states are doing by putting more money into their children’s future would go a long way in “fulfilling some political promises.”

Thank you again for your time. I know the task before each of you is a very complex one, but I truly hope you will come up with an accountability system that will be a tool teachers can use to help children rather than a tool that merely tries to find out what a child knows on one specific day.

Respectfully submitted by: Clinton Gill, President, Lubbock Educators Association/TSTA/NEA, 5^th Grade Teacher, Lubbock ISD

State Board of Education Committee of the Full Board, July 17, 2008
Good morning. My name is Paul Henley, and I represent the Texas State Teachers Association. I am here to speak regarding Item 4, the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Spanish Language Arts and English Language Learners.

The process the board uses to adopt TEKS involves other entities. The legislature determines statutes the board must follow. Vertical teams create the initial version of each set of TEKS. The Texas Education Agency facilitates the work of the vertical teams and publicizes the document they produce.

That didn’t happen this time. It certainly didn’t happen in a timely manner.

I wrote this testimony yesterday. I was still waiting to see what the new TEKS would look like. They hadn’t been posted on the website. I’m not sure that we would have any issues with the TEKS, themselves. But we can’t put these TEKS to our members unless they are public documents.

So I’m here today to talk about process. Again. Sometime between today and the beginning of the next cycle, another discussion needs to take place. Asking the right questions will be paramount, and a good starting question remains: “How do we make sure this never happens again?”

We’re not sure if the first discussion ever took place. From the looks of May 23, only four people talked to each other. The board may be acting as a cohesive unit regarding these TEKS, but it doesn’t matter. Unless TEA staff do their part, the process breaks down.

It has broken down. Again.

When the ELAR TEKS were adopted, everything seemed to take forever, yet it all went very quickly at the end. The temptation here is to pass these TEKS on first reading and leave just the last reading to actually cast a critical eye on them. You’ve already fallen behind because of the ELAR situation. Another delay would just make things worse.

On the other hand, when does process take key consideration? There is a protocol for adopting TEKS. You may be tempted to overlook it again.

These TEKS are very important to a state that is trending more and more Hispanic. Ten years is a very long time to be wrong. What do your constituents think of these TEKS? How would you know? How could you represent them at this point? They may have no opinion, whatsoever, but it says something awful when you don’t take the time to determine how your constituents feel about them.

We at TSTA ask that you do that. Listen. Wait. Make sure you have everything in order for a legitimate first reading. Make sure the second reading an extension off the first reading. Give yourselves time to make the changes you deem necessary.

This is especially true because you are coming upon a set of TEKS that people will have opinions on. Please don’t demonstrate that you’re not going to listen.

State Board of Education Committee on School Initiatives, July 17, 2008
Good Afternoon. My name is Paul Henley, and I am here to testify on Item 3. This is the item that speaks to the Temporary Teaching Certificate.

In 19 TAC 232.5, you have a rule that makes the 1034 school districts in Texas eligible to become certifying agents. People can just walk in and teach. Period.

Research strongly indicates that certification effects are substantial—substantial to the point that policy decisions should consider the effects. Studies by Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor use over 10 years of data from North Carolina. They conclude that, “teacher credentials affect student achievement in systematic ways and that the magnitudes are large enough to be policy relevant.”[1]

Laczko-Kerr and Berliner found that certified teachers taught students a full two months worth of material more than under-certified teachers.[2]

Currently, over 50,000 classrooms in our state are staffed by under-certified or completely uncertified people calling themselves, “teachers.” TSTA reminds the committee that Texas does not have a teacher shortage; Texas has a dearth of certified residents unwilling to teach.

The growth in alternatively certified teachers is spurred on by both exigency and ideology, but whatever the motivation of those who push for the TTC, the licensure threatens to de-skill the profession of teaching and even to devalue public education.[3]

TSTA has always advocated for rigor in teacher preparation. It’s hard to be a teacher. We need to prepare teachers as rigorously as possible. October is a bad time to realize that a gamble like this was a mistake. At that point, one quarter of a child’s instructional time for the year is gone.

The State Board for Educator Certification has given up process control. If you allow this rule, you also acquiesce.

But you have control. Here. Now. Please assert your authority. Send this rule back and admonish SBEC to reassert its charge, which is ensuring quality teacher preparation in Texas.

[1] Charles T. Clotfelter, Helen F. Ladd, Jacob L. Vigdor. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. “How and Why Do Teacher Credentials Matter for Student Achievement?” See also, “Teacher Credentials and Student Achievement in High School: A Cross-Subject Analysis with Student Fixed Effects” by the same authors.

[2] David Berliner and Ildiko Laczko-Kerr, Education Policy Analysis Archives 10(37).” The Effectiveness of "Teach for America" and Other Under-certified Teachers on Student Academic Achievement: A Case of Harmful Public Policy.” September 6, 2002.

[3] Gene V. Glass. “Alternative Certification of Teachers.” Education and the Public Interest Center, May 12, 2008.

State Board of Education Committee of the Full Board
May 21, 2008

Good afternoon. I am Dr. Paul Henley, and I am the Teaching and Learning Specialist for the Texas State Teachers Association.

Our members have not given us any significant feedback on the content of the English Language Arts and Reading standards. We do hear remarks regarding the process being used.

To illustrate the situation, consider the past week or so. As the public comment period for one document was closing, we received word that a new document was posted May 16. The deadline for public comment on the first document was May 18. May 19 was the last day to register for public testimony for today, and now you will spend yet another afternoon hearing ELAR testimony.

So I’m here today to talk about process. Sometime between today and the beginning of the next cycle, a discussion needs to take place. Asking the right questions will be paramount, and a good starting question would be, “How do we make sure this never happens again?” We offer a few suggestions.

To start, the vertical team needs greater direct contact with the Board. Each team meeting should end with a report on what was accomplished, what needs to be accomplished, and the general direction of the team. That way, you are aware of problems while they are small, and the approach is proactive.

It’s important to stick with the original process. January’s last-minute substitution document proved problematic. At that point, there were two obstacles to a final document. Concerned teachers became angry teachers, and that led to hour upon hour of testimony, parsed in three minute increments.

Finally, any agreement or compromise from this board needs to be fully executed by TEA staff. That didn’t happen. More input was demanded. Specific experts were named. The words from the Board did not equate to the activities that followed. The interim committees did not represent the overall Texas population, and those committees were given little, if any, authority to make a real difference in the process, anyway.

To quote Albert Einstein, “Insanity is the belief that one can get different results by doing the same thing.” While little can be done to address the current situation, the Board would do well to put proactive measures in place to avert issues like these in the future.

State Board for Educator Certification
May 9, 2008

Good morning. I’ve provided some research that I ask you to consider during my testimony.

Please turn to this research that speaks to teacher qualification and its relation to student scores on high-stakes achievement tests. While the Texas State Teachers Association stands firmly against these scores as a sole measure of achievement, the literature does indicate a strong correlation between teacher credentials and these scores.

Since the year began, the State Board for Educator Certification has renewed the “jump in and wing it” option to school districts and those who would teach without preparing. I have even heard Mr. Barbic comment that any knowledge of student learning styles, any understanding of classroom management approaches, or any other qualities of actually teaching students can be, “learned on the fly.”

Now, you are considering adopting rules to further lower the bar. These new rules drop teacher preparation by a full two weeks. They call for less frequent re-accreditation procedures. These new rules do not change the burden that teachers will face in their first classroom; rather, it lowers the duty and responsibility that alternative certification programs have to teachers and to children. Most disturbing is the push from for-profit certification programs. They want you to adopt this rule. It increases the profit margin.

There is a pattern, here. It is a pattern of consistently lowering the bar, lowering what it means to be a teacher. A pattern of cutting the teaching profession to a jump-in job that anybody can choose as a fallback to their current career. If you want to improve education, you have to raise standards for teachers. But right now, Texas is lowering those standards.

Not only that, it seems the agenda for this meeting is in direct conflict with the core beliefs of SBEC. On the second page of your agenda, those seven beliefs are listed.

1. We believe well-prepared educators are essential.

2. We believe high certification standards measured by rigorous and reliable assessments are essential.

3. We believe stakeholder input is valuable and student success is primary.

4. We believe flexible and accessible certification programs, held to the same standards of accountability, are essential.

Recently, TSTA held its House of Delegates in Plano. Over 650 school employees met to decide the association’s upcoming course. I was fortunate and honored to give a ride to Paul Cain, the current Texas Teacher of the Year. As we drove on the Dallas Tollway, I read a billboard that disturbed me. It simply read, “Want to teach in Texas? When can you start?” The website was listed on the bottom.--Dr. Paul Henley

House Committee on Pensions and Investments
February 15, 2008
Good afternoon. I am Jack Kelly with the Texas State Teachers Association and I would like to talk with you about committee charge number five: the make up and election procedures for the Teacher Retirement System board of directors.

TSTA believes that a majority of the TRS Board ought to be made up of the employees and retirees who are directly affected by the policies and decisions of the board. These are the people who contribute to the program and have to use the pension and insurance programs developed and administered by TRS.

TSTA recommends that one non-educational position be changed to add an additional active employee representative to the TRS board. There are over 600,000 public school employees, plus the higher education employees and well over 100,000 retirees. Texas has a selection pool of over three quarters of a million people, some of the most educated people in the state. We can easily find five people who are competent to review, amend and adopt policies for the pension program and the active and retiree insurance programs that the TRS Board is responsible for.

Second TSTA recommends a change in the selection process for the education representatives on the TRS Board. The current process provides for an election for each of the four education positions (one retiree, one higher education and two active public school employees). The names of the three people getting the most votes for each position are submitted to the governor and he may pick any one of the three. TSTA believes the educational employees of the state deserve the right to directly elect their own representatives to the TRS Board. The person who gets the most votes in each category ought to be elected to the board.

The direct election process serves an additional purpose. In recent months the governor has suggested to the TRS board members he appointed that they consider investing part of the TRS portfolio in certain companies and later, that they divest themselves of investments in certain companies. The TRS board’s primary fiduciary responsibility is to grow the pension portfolio and pay benefits to retirees. It should not be constrained by the political agenda of the governor, whoever that governor might be. The independent election of a majority of the board would eliminate even the appearance of undue political influence.

[1] Neeley v. West Orange-Cove C.I.S.D., 176 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. 2005).

TSTA Asks for More Process in Rules for Fingerprinting Educators
September 7, 2007: The State Board for Educator Certification met today to discuss and take action on the new rules proposed by Texas Education Agency (TEA) staff on the implementation of SB 9 or the Fingerprinting Bill past last session. SB 9 requires that all active certified personnel and other staff be fingerprinted for criminal history background checks by 2011.

Teacher Turnover in Texas: 1995-2006

Ed Fuller, PhD