a guide to texas public education

Transcription

Texas Association of School Boards
A GUIDE TO TEXAS
PUBLIC EDUCATION
Advocacy.
Leadership.
Excellence.
A Guide to Texas Public Education
Texas lawmakers file hundreds of bills pertaining to public education each legislative session—legislation
ranging from school funding to student discipline, from school choice to school district governance. In an
effort to provide school board trustees, legislators, legislative staff, and the media with easily accessible
information about issues affecting our public schools, the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB) has
developed A Guide to Texas Public Education.
This Guide is structured to serve as a primer on education issues likely to surface during the 83rd
Legislative Session and provide basic information about how Texas’s 1,031 public school districts
function. There are three main components of the Guide:
•
•
•
Issue briefs
Facts and figures about Texas public schools
A glossary of education-related terms.
TASB will update and supplement the content of this Guide as new issues arise.
Please do not hesitate to contact TASB Governmental Relations with any questions or comments at
512.478.4044 or 800.580.4885.
Assessments Background Beginning in spring of 2012, the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) system replaced the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) system as the state’s assessment program. The STAAR program includes tests in grades 3–8 and high school end‐of‐course (EOC) exams. In spring of 2012, students in grades 3–8 took the STAAR tests and ninth graders took the EOC exams for the first time. High school sophomores, juniors, and seniors took the TAKS tests and will continue to do so until they graduate. A new state accountability system based on the STAAR exams and other performance indicators will be implemented beginning with campus and district ratings for the 2012–13 school year. The goal of the new assessment and accountability systems is to ensure that Texas public school students are prepared for college or the workforce and are nationally and internationally competitive when they graduate from high school. STAAR versus TAKS: The STAAR tests differ from the TAKS tests most significantly in the following ways:  STAAR tests are more rigorous, assessing skills in greater depth and level of cognitive complexity, and will measure a greater range of achievement.  Performance standards on the STAAR tests are linked from grade to grade and also to college and workforce readiness standards.  STAAR tests generally have more questions and must be completed within four hours.  Each EOC exam covers only the content from that particular course, rather than content from multiple courses.1 EOC Subjects Tested: EOC exams are administered in the following four foundation subject areas:  English (English I, II, and III, each of which is broken into two exams: writing and reading);  Mathematics (Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II);  Science (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics); and  Social Studies (World Geography, World History, and United States History).2 As explained in further detail below, the number of EOC tests a student is required take depends on the graduation plan the student is pursuing.3 Performance Levels: There are three performance levels on the STAAR and EOC exams, and the Texas Education Agency (TEA) will annually establish scores that equate to each performance level:  Level I: Unsatisfactory Performance  Level II: Satisfactory Performance (“passing”)  Level III: Advanced Performance (“college ready” or ready for an advanced course) 1
Texas Education Agency, “STAAR Resources,” October 2012. Texas Education Code (TEC) § 39.023(c). 3
TEC § 39.025(a).
2
© 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. Additionally, for the EOC exams, TEA has established a minimum score, which is below but within a reasonable range of the Level II (“passing”) score (see dashed line in graphic below), and a cumulative score for each subject, which is the number of EOC exams administered in that subject multiplied by the passing score on each. A student must achieve at least the minimum score on an EOC test in order for that EOC exam to count toward the cumulative score in that subject.4 The number of questions students must answer correctly to achieve each performance level will increase incrementally until 2016. But the initial STAAR passing standards are higher than the passing standards for the TAKS and require students to demonstrate more in‐depth knowledge, critical thinking, and application skills than did the TAKS tests. The EOC exam passing standards a student must achieve depend on when that student takes his or her first EOC assessment. If a student took his or her first EOC test in 2012, he or she will be held to the first set of performance standards for every EOC assessment in that content area.5 Graduation Requirements: To graduate on the Recommended or Distinguished High School programs, students must (1) take all 15 EOC tests, (2) earn at least the minimum score on each EOC test, and (3) earn a cumulative score on the EOC tests in each subject area. However, a student who earns only the minimum score on each EOC test in a subject area will not achieve the cumulative score for that subject area, as required for graduation. Students on the Recommended program also must pass the Algebra II and English III EOC exams. To graduate on the Distinguished program, students must earn the higher “college‐ready” level on those two EOC tests. Students graduating on the Minimum High School Program must take the EOC exams only for the courses in which they are enrolled and for which there are EOC exams.6 15 Percent Rule: State law mandates that school districts adopt a local policy requiring a student’s score on the EOC exam to count toward 15 percent of the student’s final course grade. Commissioner of Education Robert Scott delayed implementation of the 15 percent provision during the 2011–12 school year as part of the transition to the new STAAR testing system. However, starting with the 2012–13 school year, districts will have to implement the 15 percent rule. This is the first time that a student’s performance on a state assessment is not only a prerequisite for graduation but will also count toward the student’s grade point average (GPA). The GPA, in turn, affects course‐credit determinations and class‐rank calculations, which traditionally have been based on local district policy.7 Accelerated Instruction and Retests: Students who fail the fifth‐ or eighth‐grade STAAR must retake that exam. If a student does not meet the minimum score on an EOC assessment, the student must retake the assessment. In addition, students may retake an EOC exam for any reason, and districts are required to provide accelerated instruction to any student who fails a STAAR exam.8 4
TEC § 39.025. Texas Education Agency, “House Bill 3 Transition Plan,” October 2010. 6
TEC § 39.025(a). 7
TEC § 28.014(c). 8
TEC § 39.025(b), (b‐1).
5
© 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. Testing Calendar: During the 2012–13 school year:9 Month Day Test December 2012 January 2013 1 3–6 3–14 15 16 28– March April 8 9 1–5 19 23–25 May Scores released SAT (and all subject tests)*
English I, II, and III EOC exams (Reading and Writing)
by January 16, 2013
All other EOC exams
by January 16, 2013
Last day student could opt in to IB exam**
SAT (and most subject tests)
NAEP Reading and Math (random sample of students in grades 4 and 7) SAT STAAR Writing (grades 4 and 7), Reading (grades 5 and 8), Math (grades 5 and 8), English I, II, and III EOC exams (Reading and Writing) Last deadline for ordering AP exams
STAAR Math and Reading (grades 3–5 and 6–7), Science (grades 5 and 8), and Social Studies (grade 8) International Baccalaureate (IB)
SAT (and many subject tests)
Advanced Placement (AP)***
by May 22, 2013;
by April 22, 2013; by April 22, 2013; and by June 7, 2013 by May 22, 2013
2‐22 4 6‐ 10, 13‐17 6–17 EOC exams in Math, Science, and Social Studies
by June 7, 2013 14–17 Retests for Math and Reading (grades 5 and 8) by June 3, 2013 June 25–26 Retests for Math and Reading (grades 5 and 8)
by July 12, 2013
July 8–11 English I, II, and III EOC exams (Reading and Writing) by August 16, 2013
8–19 EOC exams in Math, Science, and Social Studies
by August 16, 2013
* Students may take up to three SAT subject tests on a single test date. ** Students must be in their junior or senior year of high school in order to take IB courses. Very few IB tests align with the end‐of‐course assessed subjects.10 Further, although April 15 is the final date for schools to order IB exams, January 15 is the deadline for a student to register to take an IB exam in May. *** Relatively few AP tested subjects align with the end‐of‐course assessed subjects.11 83rd Legislative Session Some parents and educators are expressing their belief that, while they support a rigorous accountability system, the STAAR assessment system is too onerous and complex. They argue that the system impedes the instructional process and imposes too many hurdles to high school graduation. Some members of the business community disagree. They believe that any changes will “water down” the system and leave high school graduates ill‐prepared for post‐secondary success. During the 83rd legislative session, legislators will be called upon to re‐examine several aspects of the current assessment system, including: the 15 percent rule, the cumulative score requirement, the feasibility of allowing certain tests and the successful completion of a dual‐credit course to substitute for the EOC exams in the same subject, and reducing the number of EOC exams required for graduation. 9
Texas Education Agency, “Testing Calendars,” September 2012. The College Board, “US SAT Registration: Dates and Deadlines,” 2012. The College Board, “2013 AP Exam Schedule,” 2012. International Baccalaureate, “IB Diploma Programme: Examination Schedule,” 2012. 10
International Baccalaureate, “IB Diploma Programme: subject Choices,” 2012.
11
The College Board, “AP Courses & Exams,” 2012. © 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. The Impact of a High School Diploma Background Texans have long recognized the central role education plays in prosperity, economic development, and personal fulfillment. Education’s importance has only grown as our economy transitions from manufacturing to services. Additionally, the competitive environment is no longer regional but international in scope. Public education expenditures are easy to identify, but the cost of achieving the state’s desired performance outcomes is not easy to determine. In light of recent cuts to education, this information is particularly important. Below is summarized research of the personal, governmental, and economic impact of education. Income Potential According to the 2011 American Community Survey, for the adult population over the age of 25, the median earnings of a high school graduate were $26,699, which is a substantial increase over the $18,794 median earnings of those who did not complete high school. This gap widens when compared to one who completes some college or obtains an associate’s degree ($32,321), completes college ($48,309), or completes post‐graduate studies ($64,322).1 Other Quality‐of‐Life Measures Significantly Impacted by High School Graduation The lifetime‐earnings (ages 25–64) gap between those with only a high school diploma and those who dropped out is $331,000.2 The gap between a high school dropout and someone who obtains a professional degree increases to $2.7 million. Clearly, such gaps will impact options, choices, and even an individual’s lifestyle. For instance:  2011 unemployment rate: 14 percent for high school dropout versus 9.4 percent for high school graduate.3  Pension plan participation: 30 percent for high school dropout versus 55 percent for high school graduate.4  Poverty: 26 percent of high school dropouts live in households at or below the poverty level while only 12 percent of high school graduates live in similar households.5  Life expectancy: High school graduates live about 9.2 years longer than high school dropouts.6 Other positive relationships associated with earning a high school diploma include reduced tobacco usage rates, increased exercise rates, increased job satisfaction, and increased chances of raising children ready for school. Benefits Accruing to Government Increased individual earnings generate increased government revenue through income, sales, and other tax revenues. The government also spends less on social services for individuals who attain a high school diploma. Numerous studies exist detailing tax benefits, reduction in Medicaid eligibility, reduction in incarceration 1
U.S. Census Bureau, “American Community Survey,” 2011. Anthony P. Carnevale, et al., “The College Payoff: Education, Occupations, Lifetime Earnings,” Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, August 2011. 3
Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Current Population Survey,” March 2012. 4
College Board, “Education Pays, 2010: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society,” 2010. 5
Ibid. 6
Mitchell D. Wong, et al., “Contribution of Major Diseases to Disparities in Mortality,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 347, No. 20 (November 2002): 1585. 2
© 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. rates, and reductions in other government programs with increasing education.7 In 2009, a Rand Corporation study quantified the net government benefit of individuals receiving a high school diploma.8 Benefits to Taxpayers from Increasing Educational Attainment from High School Dropout to High School Graduate, US‐Born Men and Women (2002 dollars, figures in thousands) Whites Men Women Asians Men Women Blacks Men Women Hispanics Men Women Increased Tax Payments Reduced Social Program Spending Reduced Incarceration Spending Total Benefit (Sum of 1st three columns) Cost of Providing Additional Education Net Benefit $54 $50 $22 $41 $13 $2
$89 $93
($15) ($15) $74 $78
$50 $52 $37 $49 $1
$0
$88
$101
($15) ($15) $73
$86
$40 $38 $38 $64 $123
$10
$201
$112
($15) ($15) $186
$97
$46 $44 $26 $50 $35
$4
$107
$98
($15) ($15) $92
$83
High School Dropouts: A Lost Opportunity for the Texas Economy In Texas, the longitudinal dropout rate from grade 9 through grade 12 has declined from 8.8 percent (2006 graduating class) to 7.3 percent for the 2010 graduating class. Still, a 7.3 percent dropout rate means that 135,100 students left before receiving their diploma. Half the number of 2010 Texas dropouts would yield:  $593 million in increased earnings,  $470 million in increased spending,  $786 million in increased home sales,  $61 million in increased auto sales,  3,950 new jobs,  $715 million in increased gross state product, and  $43 million in increased state tax revenue.9 83rd Legislative Session Recognizing the connection between high school graduation and economic development, past legislatures invested in programs to reduce the number of high school dropouts. In 2006, the state created the high school allotment that provided $335 million annually for dropout prevention and college readiness. During the 2010–11 biennium, Texas allocated approximately $500 million in state and federal funding for dropout prevention and recovery initiatives. Since then, however, the state has eliminated nearly all grants related to dropout prevention in addition to cutting $4 billion in general school funding. The school finance litigation has highlighted the connection between spending on public education and academic outcomes. The task before the 83rd Legislature will be to determine how to allocate limited state resources for public education in a way that keeps students in school and prepares them for post‐secondary success. 7
Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Education and Correctional Populations,” January 2003. Stephen Carroll and Emre Erkut, “The Benefits to Taxpayers from Students Educational Attainment,” Rand Corporation, 2009. 9
Alliance for Excellent Education, “The Economic Benefits of Helping High School Dropouts Earn Both High School Diplomas and College Degrees (Texas),” December 2011. 8
© 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. Career and Technical Education
Background
In 2005, Texas began reorganizing the state’s Career and Technical Education (CTE) program to align with the
national model of 16 career clusters. 1 All school districts with at least one high school must offer a minimum
of one CTE coherent sequence2 from at least three of the 16 career clusters. 3 School districts recognize that
offering CTE courses is crucial for keeping many students engaged in high school and preparing them for
success when they graduate. However, the state’s graduation requirements, districts’ lack of access to
technology and properly equipped facilities, and scarcity of CTE teachers with the necessary academic
degrees are impeding districts from offering and students from completing more CTE courses.
Graduation Requirements: Substituting CTE Courses for Math or Science Credits
Since 2006, Texas law has required students participating in the Recommended or Distinguished High
School Graduation programs to complete four years each of math, science, English, and social studies in
order to graduate from high school, commonly referred to as the “4x4.” The 4x4 curricular requirements
restricted the number of elective credits available within the Recommended and Distinguished
programs. Because CTE courses only qualified for elective credit, the 4x4 requirements created a
significant challenge for students attempting to complete a CTE course sequence in high school.
To address that problem, in 2009, the Legislature expanded (from 24 to 26) the number of credits
available in the Recommended and Distinguished graduation programs. 4 Students also were permitted
to substitute a CTE course for math or science credit if certain conditions were met. 5 However, few CTE
courses could substitute for math or science credit under those criteria.
In 2011, the Texas Legislature addressed the problem again, this time allowing applied science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses offered as part of a district’s CTE curriculum
to be substituted for math credit under the 4x4 if the student (1) has completed Algebra I and geometry
and (2) takes the applied course concurrently with Algebra II. Similarly, applied STEM courses offered as
part of a district’s CTE curriculum can qualify for science credit if the student (1) has completed biology
and chemistry and (2) takes the applied course at least concurrently with physics. To ensure that CTE
courses are rigorous, the Legislature mandated that applied STEM courses must also (a) qualify as dualcredit courses or count toward college credit and (b) must cover the Texas Essential Knowledge and
Skills (TEKS) of the course being substituted. Using these new criteria, the State Board of Education
determines which applied STEM courses qualify for math or science credit under the 4x4.
The state’s default graduation plan is the Recommended Plan, depicted below. As the table shows, the
statutory prerequisites to substituting a CTE course for academic credit effectively mean that students
may only substitute CTE courses for 4x4 math or science credit during their junior or, more likely, senior
1
The career clusters encompass all careers organized around common elements.
Texas Administrative Code (TAC) § 74.3(b)(2)(G).
3
A sequence of two or more CTE courses for three or more credits.
4
Texas Education Code (TEC) § 28.025.
5
The student must have completed Algebra II or Physics; the CTE course had to be a college-credit course or a prerequisite to a
college-credit course; and the CTE course had to cover all TEKS required for the advanced math/science course it replaces.
2
© 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved.
years of high school. This precludes many students from completing a CTE course sequence prior to high
school graduation.
English 1
Algebra 1
Biology
World History
Foreign Language 1
Speech
Elective
Elective
English 2
Geometry
Chemistry
World Geography
Foreign Language 2
Elective
Elective
English 3
Algebra 2
Physics
US History
Physical Education
Elective
English 4
4th year math
4th year science
Government/Economics
Fine Art
Elective
Theoretically, students may take five and one-half elective courses within the Recommended Plan.
However, many school districts maintain a health course as a local graduation requirement, 6 thus
displacing one-half of the available elective credits. Participation in athletics, band, cheerleading, and/or
drill team also consumes elective credits. Moreover, the Distinguished Graduation Plan requires three
(instead of two) years of foreign language, which displaces one of the elective credits shown above.
Teacher Certification
State and federal teacher certification requirements often make it difficult for districts, especially small,
rural districts, to find qualified teachers to teach CTE courses. Any secondary CTE teacher who teaches a
CTE course that satisfies a core academic graduation requirement must be “highly qualified” as defined
by federal law. To be “highly qualified,” a teacher must pass a state test in the subject, have a bachelor’s
degree or coursework equivalent to an undergraduate major in the academic subject being taught, or
have teaching experience in the academic subject or in a closely related field. For example, a registered
nurse (RN) is eligible to teach health occupations courses or licensed vocational nursing (LVN) courses at
a community college. However, in order to teach those courses on a high school campus, the RN must
have a bachelor’s degree in health science technology, which requires having an associate certification
in a medical field and two years of experience in that field. Relatively few CTE teachers possess the
academic credentials required to teach a CTE course for academic credit.
Funding
The availability of technology and properly equipped facilities are two more challenges that impede
school districts from offering more CTE courses. In recognition of the fact that CTE courses are more
expensive than traditional courses to provide, school districts receive increased funding for students in
grades nine–12 who are enrolled in an approved CTE course and for students with disabilities enrolled in
a CTE program beginning in seventh grade. 7 Districts are entitled to an additional $50 for each CTE
student enrolled in (1) two or more advanced CTE courses for a total of three or more credits or (2) an
advanced tech-prep program. 8 However, these additional funds are often insufficient to cover the cost
of equipment and special facilities required for CTE courses.
83rd Legislative Session
Given the business and education community’s shared interest in making CTE courses accessible to
more students, it is likely that the issues of CTE course substitution, regional collaborative efforts, and
funding for CTE courses will resurface during the 83rd Legislative Session.
6
The Texas Legislature removed a one-half credit health course from the state graduation requirements in 2009.
The amount of the CTE funding allotment is determined by multiplying the district’s adjusted basic allotment by a funding
weight of 1.35 times the number of full-time-equivalent students in average daily attendance enrolled in an eligible CTE course
(TEC § 42.154).
8
TEC § 42.154.
7
School‐Based Law Enforcement Background Texas school districts are committed to protecting the safety of students, staff, and visitors on district property and may choose from a variety of security options. Those options typically include establishing a school district police department, entering into an agreement with local law enforcement for the use of school resource officers, or relying on local law enforcement to respond just as they would in any other situation that may arise in the community. District Police Departments Texas law authorizes a school district’s board of trustees to employ security personnel and commission peace officers to serve its schools and carry out the provisions set in Texas law. In establishing a school district police department, school boards must adopt policies and procedures governing the department.1 According to the Texas School District Police Chiefs’ Association, as of the 2011–12 school year, approximately 175 school boards had adopted local policies authorizing a district police department. When establishing a school district police department, a school board must determine the jurisdiction of its commissioned peace officers. The Texas Education Code allows such jurisdiction to include all territory in the boundaries of a district and all property outside of the boundaries of a district that is owned, leased, rented by, or otherwise under the control of the district. Within this jurisdiction, a peace officer has the powers, privileges, and immunities of peace officers; may enforce all laws, including municipal ordinances, county ordinances, and state laws; and may take a juvenile into custody in accordance with Chapter 52 of the Texas Family Code.2 The duties of school district police officers typically include:  investigating offenses;  educating, mentoring, and counseling students;  providing assistance to school district administrators on safety and security issues; and  training district students, staff, and parents on crime‐prevention issues. If a district allows officers to perform off‐duty law enforcement activities, it must be authorized in writing.3 School districts choose to establish police departments for a variety of reasons. Districts located in multiple jurisdictions report quicker response times because law enforcement agencies are clear on which agency should be the first responder. Hence, they cite safety as the primary motive for creating a district police department. School district police are specially trained to respond to incidents involving students while other law enforcement officers are not. Districts report that having their own specially trained police departments has resulted in fewer disciplinary alternative education program (DAEP) 1
Texas Education Code (TEC) § 37.081. TEC § 37.081. 3
TEC § 37.081(e).
2
© 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. placements. Some districts report cost savings as their main reason for establishing a police department, as district police— not contract security services— serve as security for after‐hours events. School Resource Officers As an alternative to establishing a district police department to meet safety and security needs, school districts have the option to contract with a local police or sheriff’s department to have school resource officers (SRO) assigned to the district.4 The federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 defines “school resource officer” as a career law enforcement officer, with sworn authority, deployed in community‐
oriented policing and assigned by the employing police department to a local educational agency (i.e., a school district) to work in collaboration with schools and community‐based organizations to: (1) educate students in crime and illegal drug use prevention and safety; (2) develop or expand community justice initiatives for students; and (3) train students in conflict resolution, restorative justice, and crime and illegal drug use awareness.5 The National Association of School Resource Officers similarly defines the role of an SRO as a law enforcement officer, educator, and counselor. An agreement or memoranda of understanding between a school district and law enforcement agency governs assignments of SROs to districts, including the terms of payment by the district to the law enforcement agency and duties of SROs. While SROs are based in schools and work directly with students and school administrators, they remain employees of the commissioning city or county. School districts typically decide to contract with the police department or sheriff’s office for school resource officers because these officers are specially trained to respond to incidents involving students. Districts also report that having specially trained resource officers helps reduce the number of DAEP placements and provides time and cost efficiencies. Local Law Enforcement Response School districts also have the option of relying on local law enforcement personnel with or without a formal arrangement. School districts tend to prefer this model if local law enforcement is promptly available in emergency situations and is located in close proximity to district property. It is generally the least expensive model. However, responding officers are not specially trained to deal with situations involving students. Conclusion There is no single best solution to ensuring law and order in public schools. Texas law recognizes that each school district is unique in geographic size, resources, student population, and needs. Hence, school boards are vested with the authority to design policy that meets the law enforcement needs of district students and staff and the local community.
4
5
Tex. Occupational Code § 1701.601. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 7161(11) (2008). See also Tex. Occupational Code § 1701.601.
© 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. School Start Date For more than two decades, the Texas Legislature and school districts have been wrestling over the authority to set the school year calendar. School districts want to start early in August in order to maximize the number of instructional days available before the state assessments are administered in December, March, and May. The tourism industry wants to postpone the start of school until after Labor Day in order to maximize summer tourism and the availability of a high school labor force during the summer months. Passed in 2006, current law prohibits school districts from starting school before the fourth Monday in August, unless they operate on a year‐round basis. In 2011, the Legislature created a narrow exception, allowing certain campuses in Houston ISD that are undergoing comprehensive reform and serve a majority of economically disadvantaged students to start on or after the first Monday in August.1 Background In 1984, House Bill 72 prohibited Texas schools from starting before September 1. Six years later, the Legislature repealed the uniform school start date and allowed school boards to establish a local school start date as long as the required number of instructional days were preserved.2 In 1995, the Legislature substantially revised the laws governing public education but preserved school board control over the school start date. In 1997 and again in 1999, legislation to establish a September 1 uniform school start was filed but did not pass. In short, between 1990 and 2001, school districts determined when school would start and end. Most schools started in early to mid‐August. The tourism industry continued to argue for a uniform, post–Labor Day school start date. In 2001, the Legislature prohibited schools from starting earlier than the third week of August but allowed districts to apply to the commissioner of education for a waiver upon meeting certain public notice and hearing requirements. Contending that the waiver provision had rendered the uniform start date meaningless, in 2006, the Legislature prohibited Texas schools from starting before the fourth Monday in August, unless the district operates a year‐round school system, and eliminated waivers. Challenges Posed by the Uniform School Start Date Texas school districts must provide 180 instructional days per school year. Staff development and holidays (not including winter break) account for 20 school days during a typical school year. School boards must juggle those legal requirements along with the state’s instructional mandates and local communities’ demands to develop a school calendar that maximizes the amount of instructional time available for students. 1
Texas Education Code (TEC) § 25.0811. TEC § 25.081 requires districts to provide at least 180 instructional days per school year, except under certain prescribed circumstances, such as a year‐round school year or when the education commissioner reduces the number of required instructional days due to a disaster that causes schools to close. 2
© 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. Starting school in late August makes it difficult to achieve fall and spring semesters of roughly equal length, which is academically optimal. To achieve this, school boards typically are forced to shorten the Thanksgiving and/or Christmas break or end the fall semester in January, after the winter break. None of those choices increase the amount of meaningful instructional time for the following reasons:  Reducing or eliminating Thanksgiving or Christmas break interrupts family vacations and are thus not acceptable choices to many parents. .  Alternatively, ending the fall semester in January reduces the number of instructional days available during the spring semester. This disadvantages students who take a one‐semester course in spring, as they have fewer days of instruction before their end‐of‐course test. It also disadvantages students enrolled in a two‐semester course, as the more rigorous part of the course is presented during the spring semester. Postponing the state testing dates until later in May to provide more instructional days is not a viable alternative. The Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate exam schedules are set nationally. Further, the Texas Education Agency has little flexibility in the state assessment testing dates because of subsequent statutory deadlines that are dependent upon students’ results on those tests. State law requires districts to provide remedial instruction and multiple retesting opportunities for students who do not pass the state assessments. Accommodating those mandates within a school year that begins in late August is generally not possible, thus forcing districts to provide summer school. Districts receive no state funding for summer school. The current uniform school start date creates a misalignment between school district calendars and the calendars of the local community colleges and universities where students and teachers enroll in summer and dual‐credit courses. 83rd Legislative Session Whether school boards or the tourism industry should control when school starts is a perennial debate. However, the new state assessment and accountability laws will make it necessary once again for the Legislature to consider the positive and negative effects of the late August uniform school start date. © 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. Instructional Materials and Technology Purchasing Background For years, policymakers attempted to revise the state’s instructional materials purchasing system to introduce greater price competition among publishers and incent districts to purchase materials more cost effectively. Those efforts culminated with the passage of Senate Bill 6 (SB 6)1 in 2011. Funding SB 6 requires the State Board of Education (SBOE) to set aside 50 percent of the annual distribution from the Permanent School Fund to fund the new state Instructional Materials Fund, subject to the Texas Legislature appropriating the funds for that purpose. From the state Instructional Materials Fund, the education commissioner must annually allocate to each school district, open‐enrollment charter school, and juvenile justice alternative education center (JJAEP) (collectively referred to as “districts” for purposes of this paper) an Instructional Materials Allotment (IMA). The size of a district’s IMA is based on its prior year student enrollment. Districts received a total of $158 per student in IMA funds for the 2011–12 and 2012–13 school years. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) maintains an IMA account for each district, charter school, and JJAEP. The district’s IMA account is reduced by the cost of each purchase. Unspent funds in a district’s IMA account roll forward from year to year. Permissible Uses Districts may use their IMA to purchase instructional materials, technology that directly supports classroom instruction, and certain types of technology services. “Instructional materials” is defined broadly to include both textbooks and online content. Since districts can use the IMA to purchase both content and technology, SB 6 eliminated the stand‐alone $30 per‐student technology allotment. Districts may use the IMA to purchase either state‐adopted instructional materials or materials that have not gone through the state adoption process, commonly referred to as “nonadopted” materials. The SBOE must adopt a list of instructional materials for each grade and subject. The “state‐adopted list” includes instructional materials that publishers submit for state adoption that (1) meet the SBOE’s physical specifications for printed materials; (2) are free of factual errors; and (3) cover at least 50 percent of the state’s learning standards, the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), for the applicable grade and subject. In addition to the SBOE’s list, the commissioner must maintain a list of electronic instructional materials. Districts also may use the IMA to purchase technology necessary to support the use of instructional materials and technology services related to student learning, including training for educators in the appropriate use of instructional materials and salaries of employees who provide IT support. However, SB 6 specifies that for the 2011–12 and 2012–13 school years, districts must use the IMA first to purchase instructional materials that prepare students to pass the new State of Texas Assessments of 1
Texas Education Code, Chapter 31. © 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. Academic Readiness (STAAR) tests and, in subsequent years, must prioritize purchases of instructional materials that cover the TEKS for all required courses. Annual Certification The flexibility afforded by SB 6 is accompanied by additional accountability. Each school board president and superintendent is required to certify annually to the education commissioner and the SBOE that the district has provided each student with instructional materials that cover 100 percent of the TEKS for each grade and subject in the required curriculum (except physical education). In fact, a district may not purchase instructional materials for the next school year until the commissioner of education has received this annual certification. Selling Surplus One of the most significant changes brought about by SB 6 is that this new law gives districts property rights in or ownership of the district’s instructional materials and technology. As a result, districts may sell surplus instructional materials and technology, though licensing agreements may limit a district’s ability to sell online instructional materials. Districts also now bear responsibility for insuring or replacing lost, damaged, or “worn out” instructional materials and technology. Competitive Procurement Laws SB 6 decentralized the purchasing of instructional materials and technology. In the past, the state’s competitive procurement provisions, which apply to most local government purchasing, did not apply to the purchase of textbooks because the state purchased the books on behalf of school districts. Under SB 6, the state still purchases state‐adopted instructional materials on behalf of a district, but districts themselves purchase nonadopted materials directly from the vendor. For those reasons, the state’s competitive procurement provisions do not apply to newly state‐adopted instructional materials or technology on the commissioner’s list. However, nonadopted instructional materials and technology are subject to the state competitive procurement laws. This means that if a district intends to purchase nonadopted instructional materials or technology valued at $50,000 or more in the aggregate for a 12‐month period, those purchases must be made using one of the seven competitive procurement methods listed in the Texas Education Code § 44.031, unless the products are covered by the “sole‐source” exception. A product is covered by the sole‐source exception for only as long as it is available from one vendor. With districts now able to sell their surplus materials, the sole‐
source exception provides very time‐limited protection (essentially, only for the first year of an instructional material’s availability) against the requirement to competitively purchase instructional materials, which is a significant change. 83rd Legislative Session SB 6 changed the way Texas school districts purchase instructional materials and technology in many important respects. The new law provides districts with far more flexibility in using state funds for these purchases but also imposes greater accountability. Each biennium, the Legislature has to appropriate funding for the Instructional Materials Fund. In so doing, it is likely that the Legislature may review implementation challenges that may have arisen over this first biennium since SB 6 was passed. © 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. Public School Choice
Background
“School Choice” is a term used to describe a wide array of programs aimed at giving parents the option
to choose the schools their children will attend at taxpayer expense. State and federal laws already give
Texas students choices among public schools. Students in Texas may choose to attend a public school
outside of their attendance zone by: exercising inter- and intradistrict transfer options, attending a
magnet school or program, or enrolling in a charter school.
School Choice Options Currently Available in Texas
Intradistrict Transfers: Texas school boards may adopt intradistrict transfer policies that allow students
to transfer between schools within the same district. 1 Nearly all of the approximately 475 multicampus
districts in Texas have adopted intradistrict transfer policies. Many multicampus districts by policy or
practice also provide an “open-enrollment” period during the school year when students may enroll in
any school within their resident district on a “space-available” basis.
Interdistrict Transfers: Additionally, approximately 1,000 districts have adopted interdistrict transfer
policies, allowing a student to transfer to another school district.
Special Circumstance Inter- and Intradistrict Transfers:
• A student who was the victim of “bullying,” 2 a violent crime, 3 or a sexual assault by another
student 4 has the right to transfer to another class or school in the same or in another district.
• A student who resides in the same household as a student with disabilities who has been assigned
to a campus other than the student’s resident campus for special education services has the right
to transfer to the same campus as the special education student. 5
• Parents may request the transfer of multiple birth siblings to the same or separate classrooms on
the same campus. 6
• Students attending a “low-performing” school are eligible to attend a higher performing school in
the same district or in another district under the Public Education Grant (PEG) program. A district
is not required to accept a PEG transfer student but may not discriminate against PEG applicants
for impermissible reasons. 7
• Similarly, the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) provides that a student in a school that does
not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for two consecutive years is eligible to transfer to a
higher-performing school in the same district or in another district. The school district of origin
must provide or pay for transportation for the NCLB transfer students. 8
• Students who attend a “persistently dangerous” school also are entitled to transfer under NCLB. 9
1
Texas Education Code (TEC) § 25.031.
TEC § 25.0341.
3
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 7912.
4
TEC § 25.0341.
5
TEC § 25.0343.
6
TEC § 25.043.
7
TEC § 29.201–.203.
8
NCLB, Title I, § 1116(b)(E).
9
NCLB, Title IX, § 9532.
2
Magnet Schools: Magnet schools and magnet programs are another school-choice option available in
Texas. School boards may approve the creation of a magnet school/program in the district. 10 Magnet
schools generally have a particular pedagogical focus, like art or technology, or follow a different
structural organization, such as a Montessori magnet school. Magnet schools enroll students from
throughout a school district through an application process.
Charter Schools: Charter schools are publicly funded schools that are subject to fewer state regulations
than traditional public and magnet schools. In 1995, the Texas Legislature authorized the formation of
campus and program charters, open-enrollment charters, and home-rule school districts. Each is
described below.
• Home-Rule School District Charter: Texas’s charter school law includes provisions that permit an
entire school district to convert to a home-rule school district via a charter. A home-rule school
district charter may be adopted if approved by a majority vote in an election in which at least 25
percent of the district’s registered voters participate. 11 No Texas district has sought home-rule
conversion. (See also “Home-Rule School Districts,” Issue Brief.)
• Campus Charter Schools and Charter Programs: School districts or home-rule school districts may
operate their own charter schools or charter programs by converting an existing campus or by
creating an entirely new charter campus.
o Governance: In the case of campus or program charters, the charter is a contract
between the school board and the charter applicants specifying, among other things, the
campus’s educational program, governing structure, and conditions under which the
charter may be revoked. 12 Campus charter schools and programs are exempt from many
state regulations, including state teacher certification and contract laws, instructional
time mandates, and academic program requirements. 13 Additionally, the school board
may exempt a campus or program charter from board policies and district regulations.
However, campus charter schools and programs remain the legal responsibility of the
school board and are funded like traditional school district campuses. 14
o Conversion Process: In order for a district to convert an existing campus into a charter
campus, a majority of the school’s teachers and the parents of a majority of students
attending the school must sign a petition requesting conversion. Notably, the petition
does not require the principal’s signature, nor does conversion require the principal’s
approval. The petition must be presented to the school board, which may not arbitrarily
deny the request. 15
o Staffing: If a district chooses to open an entirely new charter campus within the district’s
boundaries, the school may be operated by district staff or by an external entity that
provides educational services. The campus charter may be housed in district facilities or at
another facility located within the district. However, teachers and students must
expressly agree to be assigned to the charter school. 16
o Program Charters: Program charters are independent educational programs that operate
within a larger school (i.e., a school within a school). The school board creates its own
charter application requirements and oversees the authorization process. During the
10
19 TAC 74.27.
TEC § 12.021–.022.
12
TEC § 12.059.
13
TEC § 12.056–.057.
14
TEC § 12.057–.059.
15
TEC § 12.051–.065.
16
TEC § 12.0521.
11
2012–13 school year, 74 campus charter schools operated in 15 Texas districts; however,
45 percent of them were located in the Houston Independent School District.
•
Open-Enrollment Charter Schools: Open-enrollment charter schools are new public schools
created by “eligible entities,” such as nonprofit organizations, institutions of higher learning, and
local government groups. 17 Open-enrollment charters are authorized by the State Board of
Education (SBOE) and are valid for the amount of time specified in the charter approved by the
SBOE. 18
o Governance: Open-enrollment charter schools are governed by a board of directors or
board of trustees in accordance with the governance structure specified in the charter. 19
The governing board retains legal responsibility for the management, operation, and
accountability of the school 20 and is permitted to contract for school management and
instructional services from for-profit educational vendors. 21 Charter holders may operate
multiple charter campuses under the same charter if the expansion is approved by the
commissioner of education. 22 Some Texas charter schools operate multiple campuses in a
particular city or region of the state, while others operate statewide networks of charter
campuses. Initially, the number of open-enrollment charter schools was limited to 20, but
the Texas Legislature increased the cap to 100 in 1997 and to 215 in 2001. 23 University
and community college charter schools do not count against the cap on the number of
open-enrollment charters. 24 During the 2012–13 school year, 207 open-enrollment
charter holders operated 561 open-enrollment charter campuses in the state.
o Management: Open-enrollment charter schools may enroll students from an area defined
in the contract as approved by the SBOE. Operators must provide transportation to the
same extent as school districts and cannot charge tuition, but they may charge fees. 25
Over time, the Texas Legislature and the Texas Education Agency have increased state
regulation of open-enrollment charter schools, 26 which now are subject to the same
academic and financial accountability provisions applicable to school districts, though
fewer indicators typically apply to charter schools because of their smaller size.
o Funding: Open-enrollment charter schools do not have the authority to impose taxes. 27
They receive maintenance and operations funding from the state based on the statewide
average maintenance and operations expenditure for school districts. Charter schools are
eligible for state facilities funding through the New Instructional Facilities Allotment,
Foundation School Credit Enhancement, and Permanent School Fund Bond Guarantee
programs. They also are eligible for federal funding, including federal start-up grants,
special education funding, and Title 1 funding for disadvantaged students.
17
TEC § 12.101.
TEC § 12.111.
19
TEC § 12.101–.102.
20
TEC § 12.121.
21
TEC § 12.125.
22
19 TAC Chapter 100.
23
TEC § 12.101.
24
TEC § 12.156.
25
TEC § 12.108–.1101.
26
From 1996 to August 31, 2012, 47 charters were voluntarily surrendered, 21 surrendered after enforcement, and 27 were
revoked or nonrenewed.
27
TEC § 12.102.
18
•
College or University Charter Schools: In 2001, the Texas Legislature authorized the creation of
university charter schools. A university charter school is an open-enrollment charter school
operating on a university campus or in the same county in which a university campus is located. 28
In 2009, the Legislature similarly authorized community colleges to operate open-enrollment
charter schools. College or university charters are largely subject to the same laws as openenrollment charter schools but must be supervised by a university/college faculty member with
expertise in educational matters. Additionally, the charter school’s financial operations must be
overseen by the college or university business office. 29 Like open-enrollment charters, college and
university charter schools are able to operate multiple campuses. Three universities operated 19
charter school campuses during the 2012–13 school year.
As in recent sessions, the 83rd Legislature will likely consider legislation regarding the expansion,
accountability, and funding for facilities of open-enrollment charter schools.
28
29
TEC § 12.152.
TEC § 12.154.
Vouchers and Taxpayer Savings Grants Publicly funded vouchers that would allow students to attend private schools at taxpayer expense are currently not available in Texas, though legislation attempting to create a voucher program in Texas has been introduced and defeated during the past several legislative sessions. Background Throughout the last decade, Texas legislators filed bills proposing to create myriad voucher programs. Some bills would have made any Texas student eligible for a voucher; others proposed a “pilot” program of limited duration for targeted districts or a targeted group of students, such as for students receiving special education services. None of these bills passed. In 2011, legislation to create a “Taxpayer Savings Grant” program was filed in Texas, as it has been in many other states. This legislation would have reimbursed parents or legal guardians for the lesser of the cost of their children’s private school tuition or 60 percent of the state average per‐pupil expenditure in public schools. That bill did not pass. Types of Vouchers Voucher programs may take many forms.  Traditional Vouchers: Traditional voucher programs require the state to send funds directly to the private school in which a voucher‐eligible student is enrolled. Publicly funded vouchers are not currently available in Texas, though legislation attempting to create a voucher program in Texas has been introduced during most legislative sessions since 1995.  Tax Credits: Voucher programs also can take the form of tax credits, including (1) personal‐use tax credits, which reimburse parents for their children’s private school tuition, or (2) donation tax credits, which provide a tax credit to individuals or corporations who donate to an education scholarship fund. Such tax credits are often called “back‐door vouchers.” Legislation attempting to create tax credits for private school tuition in Texas failed to pass during several previous legislative sessions. Arizona, Iowa, Minnesota, and Puerto Rico, for example, provide tax‐credit vouchers. Each of these has a state income tax against which the tax credit is applied. Private Scholarships Voucher advocates often refer to privately funded scholarships to send students to private schools as vouchers. These scholarships are distinct from vouchers because they are privately funded rather than funded with tax dollars. In 1998, a pro‐voucher organization, the Children’s Educational Opportunity (CEO) Foundation, initiated a scholarship program to allow students enrolled in the Edgewood Independent School District to attend private schools. Differences between Public Schools and Private Schools Because private schools do not accept public funds, they do not have to comply with many of the laws that accompany state and federal funds. For instance:  Private schools do not have to follow the state’s curriculum. © 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. 






Private schools do not have to administer state accountability exams in grades 3–8 or end‐of‐
course assessments. Private schools do not receive state or federal accountability ratings. Private schools are not subject to the state’s financial accountability laws. Private schools are not subject to the data reporting and other transparency mandates imposed by state law. Private schools do not have to provide breakfast or lunch to economically disadvantaged students. Private schools do not have to provide transportation to students. Private schools may deny enrollment to students for various reasons, including educational performance, disciplinary problems, or special needs. 83rd Legislative Session Vouchers, tax credits, and other school choice legislation will likely reappear during the 83rd Legislature for several reasons. The governor, lieutenant governor, and many legislators have publicly expressed their support for vouchers, and the American Legislative Exchange Council is aggressively promoting “Taxpayer Savings Grant” legislation among state legislators across the nation. © 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. Home‐Rule School Districts Background Home‐rule school districts (HRDs) were authorized by the Texas Legislature in 1995 as a way to allow local voters to free their own district from many state mandates. To date, there have been no attempts to create an HRD in Texas. Some people point to the high voter turnout requirement as the reason.1 Others point to the wholesale change in district governance under the HRD statute, away from an elected school board, as the reason no HRDs have been created. Creating a Home‐Rule School District Step 1: Trigger. A Board of trustees must create a charter commission to frame a home‐rule charter if (1) the board receives a petition signed by at least 5 percent of registered voters or (2) at least two‐thirds of the board adopts a resolution ordering the appointment of a charter commission.2 Step 2: Charter Commission. The board must appoint a charter commission composed of 15 district residents within 30 days of the board’s receipt of the petition/board resolution. The commission must reflect the demographic diversity of the district, and a majority of the members must be parents of school‐age children in the public schools. At least 25 percent of the membership must be teachers selected by professional district staff. The commission is a governmental body subject to the Open Meetings and Open Records acts.3 Step 3: Charter Content. The charter commission has one year to draft a charter that describes the educational program to be offered by the HRD; that the continuation of the charter is contingent upon acceptable student performance and compliance with the state’s accountability provisions; the governing structure; the basis for probation or revocation; the district’s health and safety procedures; the budgeting process, including the use of special program funds; and annual financial and programmatic audit procedures, including the manner in which the district will provide Public Education Information Management System data to the Texas Education Agency and any other information the commission considers necessary.4 Step 4: Charter Review. The charter commission must submit the proposed charter to the secretary of state (SOS), who must determine if the charter contains a change to the governance of the district. If it does, the SOS must notify the school board. The board must then submit the proposed change to the US Department of Justice or the US District Court for Washington, DC, for preclearance under the Voting Rights Act. The commission also must submit the proposed charter to the commissioner of education, who, within 30 days, must ensure that the charter complies with any applicable laws and recommend any modifications necessary.5 1
The current requirement was established to ensure “sufficient” community support for the conversion of the entire district to a HRD, since many communities have only one school district and parents may have no other options. 2
Texas Education Code (TEC) § 12.014. 3
TEC § 12.014. 4
TEC § 12.016. 5
TEC § 12.017–.018. © 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. Step 5: Election. As soon as practicable after the commissioner approves the charter, the board must order an election to be held on the first uniform election date that occurs at least 45 days after the date the election is ordered. The charter must be approved by majority vote in an election where at least 25 percent of registered voters in the district vote. An amendment to an existing charter must be adopted by majority vote in an election where at least 20 percent of registered voters in the district vote.6 Step 6: Adoption. Within 10 days of canvassing the election results, the governing body of the HRD must enter an order declaring the charter adopted and, as soon as practicable, shall notify the commissioner of education and the SOS of the outcome of the election. The SOS must file and record the certification.7 Governance Structure An HRD may adopt and operate under any governing structure. The HRD may create offices, determine the time/method for selecting officers, and prescribe the qualifications and duties of officers. Any officer term (three or four years) is determined through the procedure applicable to all school districts.8 Legal Status An HRD has the powers and entitlements granted to independent school districts and school boards under the Texas Education Code, including taxing authority.9 General Waiver of Laws An HRD is subject to federal and state laws and rules governing school districts, except an HRD is only subject to the Education Code where specifically provided (see below). HRDs also are only subject to the rules of the State Board of Education and commissioner of education if the statute authorizing the rule specifically applies to HRDs. An employee of an HRD who qualifies for membership in the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS) is covered by TRS to the same extent that school district employees are covered.10 Education Code Provisions Applicable to HRDs 









Criminal offenses PEIMS reporting requirements, as determined applicable to HRDs by the education commissioner Limitations on liability Criminal history background checks Teacher certification, associational rights, and dues checkoff Extracurricular activities (No pass, no play) TRS laws and rules Admissions, compulsory attendance/exemptions, and excused absences Interdistrict and intercounty transfers Health and safety provisions: immunizations, coordinated school health program, administration of prescription drugs, automated external defibrillators, and FitnessGram 6
TEC § 12.019. TEC § 12.021. 8
TEC § 12.025. 9
TEC § 12.013. 10
TEC § 12.012. 7
© 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. Education Code Provisions NOT Applicable to HRDs 









Campus and class assignment and transfer mandates Governance laws (including terms, office, and joint elections) State‐minimum salary schedule Counseling program and ratios Teacher contracts (including hearing and notice requirements for terminations and nonrenewals) Appraisal requirements Minimum days of service, planning, and preparation time; duty‐free lunch Leaves of absence Professional development requirements Uniform school start date, minimum length of school year (180 instructional days), minimum length of school day (7 hours), and minimum attendance for class credit (90% of class days) 







Elementary class‐size limits (22:1) (only if any 
campus in the district is rated academically unacceptable) High school graduation requirements (e.g., 4x4) 
State laws applicable to special and bilingual education and prekindergarten Bus safety standards and 15‐passenger van requirements (Note: Transportation Code provisions 
on school buses, including three‐point seat belts, also apply) Accountability laws, including: assessment, accreditation, financial accountability, intervention and sanctions, and parent/student reports District and campus distinctions, excellence exemptions, and successful schools awards School finance laws (Foundation School Program, facilities programs, bond guarantee programs, equalized wealth level, and school depositories) Purchasing laws Curriculum requirements, creation of a local school health advisory council (SHAC), health instruction, dual‐credit requirements, and district grading policy requirements State compensatory education, career and technical education, gifted and talented programs, Public Education Grant (PEG) Program, driver education, and military education Student discipline (except criminal offenses), multihazard operations plan, and placement of registered sex offenders 83rd Legislative Session HRD proponents claim that HRDs will be more cost efficient and better able than traditional public school districts to implement virtual schooling and other education reforms. Given the state’s budget constraints, it is likely that the 83rd Legislature will consider bills that would make it less onerous to charter an HRD. © 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. Virtual Schools and Online Courses
Background
Policymakers across the country are looking at online courses as a way to personalize student instruction and
reduce the cost of public education. Over the last decade, the Texas Legislature has taken the following
actions to expand online learning opportunities for public school students:
• In 2001, the Legislature authorized the Electronic Course Pilot (eCP) program that brought about
three full-time online schools (OLS) operated by: Houston ISD, ResponsiveEd, and Southwest
Schools. 1 Students were served through the eCP for the first time in 2006. 2
• In 2007, the Texas Legislature created the Texas Virtual School Network (TxVSN) to provide a
statewide catalog of supplemental online courses for credit toward high school graduation for
students enrolled in grades 8–12. The TxVSN began offering online courses in 2009. 3
• In 2009, the Legislature merged the eCP into the TxVSN. Consequently, the TxVSN now has two
components: online schools and a catalog of online high school courses.
The Texas Education Agency (TEA), in collaboration with Region 10 Education Service Center and the Harris County
Department of Education, administers the TxVSN, sets standards for and approves courses to be offered through
the TXVSN, approves professional development for online teachers, and is fiscally responsible for the network. 4
TxVSN Online Schools
The three TxVSN OLSs offer students in grades 3–12 full-time enrollment in online courses provided by
approved public school districts and open-enrollment charter schools. Thus, a student may graduate with a
high school diploma in Texas having been enrolled in an online school since third grade. Students are not
required to be physically present on a campus during the online instruction. Online schools are subject to the
same accountability laws and regulations as traditional schools. 5
A student is eligible to enroll in a TxVSN OLS if the student (1) was enrolled in a Texas public school during the
preceding school year; (2) has been placed in foster or another form of custodial care in Texas, regardless of
whether the student was enrolled in a public school in this state during the preceding school year; or (3) is a
dependent of a member of the United States military, does not currently reside in Texas due to military
deployment or transfer, and was previously enrolled in a Texas high school. 6 Students who, during the prior
school year, attended a private school or were homeschooled are not eligible to enroll in a TxVSN OLS.
TxVSN Virtual Courses
The TxVSN course catalog is a network of providers of online supplemental courses for credit toward high school
graduation; it is not a degree-granting program. The course catalog provides all courses required for graduation on
the Recommended High School Program, as well as dual-credit and Advanced Placement (AP) courses. The
student’s home district or charter school awards credit for the online courses and remains accountable for the
student’s academic progress. During the 2012 fall semester, 3,514 students enrolled in TxVSN courses.7
1
Southwest Schools has since withdrawn from the TxVSN, but Texarkana ISD began operating a TxVSN OLS during the 2011–12
school year.
2
The Electronic Course Pilot became the Electronic Course Program during the 2008–09 school year.
3
Texas Virtual School Network Web Site, txvsn.org.
4
Texas Education Code (TEC) §§ 30A.051– .053, 30A.105.
5
TEC § 30A.110.
6
TEC § 30A.002(b) and (c).
7
Texas Virtual School Network Web Site, txvsn.org.
All online courses offered through the TxVSN are subject to the following legislatively mandated quality
control measures. All TxVSN courses must be aligned with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for the
subject and grade level, meet the National Standards of Quality for Online Courses established by the
International Association for K–12 Online Learning, be taught by a Texas-certified instructor trained in online
instruction, and must be approved by TEA. Students enrolled in TxVSN courses are subject to the same
assessment and accountability provisions applicable to students enrolled in traditional classrooms, and
testing of students enrolled in TxVSN courses must be supervised by a proctor. 8 School districts must report
assessment results for students taking TxVSN courses to TEA through the Public Education Information
Management System separately from other student assessment results. 9
Districts or open-enrollment charter schools may register their students in one or more TxVSN high school
courses, but high school students may not enroll in more than two TxVSN dual-credit courses per semester. A
school district or charter school may not force a student to enroll in a TxVSN course or unreasonably deny a
student’s request to enroll in a TxVSN course but may deny enrollment in a TxVSN course under certain
circumstances. Private school or homeschool students not currently enrolled in a Texas school district or
open-enrollment charter school as a full-time student may only enroll in two TxVSN courses per semester. 10
Funding for Virtual Courses
In 2011, the Texas Legislature changed the funding mechanism for TxVSN courses. Previously, the provider of
a TxVSN course received from the state an allotment of $400 per student per course for each student who
completed the course. The school district or charter school in which the student was physically enrolled was
allotted $80 per student per course to cover administrative expenses.
Beginning with the 2011–12 school year, students who are enrolled in a TxVSN OLS or online course are
funded by the state in the same way school districts/charter schools receive funding for students enrolled in
a traditional class, provided the student successfully completes the online course or OLS program. “Successful
completion” for purposes of an OLS means demonstrating academic proficiency sufficient for promotion to
the next grade level. For an online course, successful completion is defined as earning credit for a high school
course. 11
For TxVSN online courses, the enrolling district must verify the regular attendance of each student enrolled in
the course, 12 and it is up to the enrolling and the provider districts to agree on how to split the state funding
for the course. Additionally, in 2011, the State Legislature created a limited number of state-funded virtual
learning scholarships available to districts and charters that enroll students through the TxVSN course
catalog. Districts also may use applicable state and federal program funds, grants, and local funds to pay for
TxVSN courses.
Texas legislators, like policymakers nationally, are looking at virtual education as a way to decrease the cost
and increase the individualization of public education. Virtual education advocates want to eliminate the
“prior enrollment” requirement to make online instruction accessible to more students. In 2011, the
Legislature considered creating “virtual charter schools,” which would have been publicly funded but could
have been privately run. None of those bills passed, but the high level of interest in online education is likely
to make the TxVSN a topic of legislation during the next session.
8
TEC §§ 30A.103–.105, 30A.110–.111.
TEC § 30A.110(c).
10
TEC §§ 26.0031, 30A.107.
11
TEC § 30A.153.
12
TEC § 30A.109.
9
A Comparison of TEA Data: Open‐Enrollment Charter Schools vs. Traditional School Districts Comparing TEA’s 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 Snapshot data for open‐enrollment charter schools and traditional public schools in Texas: Student Demographics  Special Populations: Charter schools educate a higher percentage of minority students and economically disadvantaged students, but they serve a lower percentage of limited English proficient students and students with disabilities than traditional public schools.i Student Performance  Attendance/Dropout Rates: Charter schools have lower attendance rates and higher dropout rates than traditional public schools. The difference in the longitudinal dropout rates (the percentage of ninth graders who graduate with their class) is especially significant.ii  TAKS Passing Rates: Over the five school years analyzed, fewer charter school students passed each of the TAKS tests, especially the math and science TAKS, than students in traditional public schools. Not a single subgroup of students in charter schools performed better than their public school peers on the TAKS tests. iii  College Readiness: Fewer students in charter schools met the state’s standards for college readiness, as measured by the percentage of students who took the SAT and ACT exams and the average scores on each of those exams.iv School Staff  Administrators: Charter schools employ more central office and school administrators and spend a greater percentage of their operating budget on district and school administration than school districts.v  Teacher Salaries: Charter schools pay teachers less, have greater than twice the percentage of less experienced (0–5 years) teachers, and have fewer teachers with advanced degrees than school districts.vi  Teacher Turnover: Charter schools have a significantly higher teacher turnover rate, almost triple the turnover rate of traditional public schools.vii Revenue and Expenditures  Cost to the State: Charter schools cannot levy a local tax rate. Therefore, the state pays a larger percentage of the cost of educating each student in a charter school than it does for a traditional public school.  Per‐Student Funding: Students in charter schools are provided state funding based on the statewide average funding per weighted student (including the enrichment tier). Consequently, per‐pupil funding for students in charter schools is higher than per‐pupil funding for 50 percent of the students in traditional Texas public schools.viii  Total Revenue Per Pupil: Charter schools get less total revenue per student than traditional school districts, but “total revenue” includes local tax revenue for facilities, and only school © 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. 


districts can levy a facilities (I&S) tax rate.ix Though not allowed to levy a facilities tax rate, charter schools have access to state and federal facilities funding, including the state’s New Instructional Facilities Allotment, Permanent School Fund Bond Guarantee Program, Foundation School Program Credit Enhancement Program, and the federal qualified school construction bond program. Expenditures on Instruction: In each of the five school years analyzed, charter schools also spent a lower percentage of their operating budgets on instruction than school districts did.x Expenditures on Administration: Over the five school years analyzed, charter schools spent on average more than twice what school districts spent per student on central administration and 38 percent more on campus administration, though in 2011, charter schools spent 60 percent more on campus administration than traditional schools did.xi Fund Balance: Charter schools dedicate a larger percentage of their budget to fund balance than do school districts.xii i
Summary Level 2007 Charter Schools 2008 Charter Schools 2009 Charter Schools 2010
Charter Schools 2011
Charter Schools 2007 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 2008 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 80,629 33 48 17 3 69.6 14 10 13 14 2 89,829 30 49 17 3 69.9 14 9 13 13 2 102,491
28
51
17
4
69.5
15
8
14
12
2
119,137
26
53
17
4
70.6
16
8
15
10
2
133,697
24
53
17
6
70.7
16
7
16
8
2
4,496,304
14
46
36
4
55.3
16
11
15
21
8
4,561,687 14 47 35 4 55 17 10 16 21 8 2009 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 4,625,713
14 48 34 4 56.4 17 9 16 22 8 Summary Level 2007 Charter Schools 2008 Charter Schools 2009 Charter Schools 2010
Charter Schools 14. Attendance Rate 15. Annual Dropout Rate Gr. 7–8 16. Longitudinal Dropout Rate Gr. 9–12 17. Annual Graduate Count 92.9 1.8 23.8 92.9 1.6 30.1 94
1.3
31.6
94.3
1.1
29.7
94.4
0.5
26.2
2007 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 95.6
0.4
8.3
2008 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 95.5 0.3 10.6 2009 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 95.5 0.2 9.4 2010 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 95.6
0.2
8.3
0.2
6.3
4,600 5,147 5,100
6,024
6,640
235,314
236,022 246,944 258,233
273,840
18. Longitudinal Graduation Rate 33.5 32.7 33.3
36.2
43.5
82.1
79.9 81 82.6
86.1
Students 3. Total Students 4. % African American 5. % Hispanic 6. % White 7. % Other 8. % Economically Disadvantaged 9. % LEP 10. % Special Education 11. % Bilingual/ESL Education 12. % Career & Technology Ed. 13. % Gifted & Talented Ed. ii
2011 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 4,705,641
14
48
34
4
58.7
17
9
16
22
8
4,778,688
13
50
32
6
58.9
17
9
16
21
8
© 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. 2010 Public Schools (excl. Charters) iii
TAKS % Students Passing ‐ Summed Across All Grades 2007 Charter Schools 2008 Charter Schools 2009 Charter Schools 2010
Charter Schools 19. All Tests Taken 56 62 65
71
20. Reading/ELA 21. Writing 22. Mathematics 23. Science 24. Social Studies 25. African American 26. Hispanic 27. White 28. Other 29. Economically Disadvantaged 82 89 64 51 78 48 56 66 85 52 86 90 71 61 83 53 62 70 88 58 87
92
74
67
87
58
64
73
90
61
College Admissions 2007 Charter Schools 2008 Charter Schools 31. Percent Tested 32. Percent At or Above Criterion 33. SAT—Mean Total Score 34. ACT—Mean Composite Score 18.2 19.5 927 19.1 19.9 17.8 924 18.5 iv
v
73
2007 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 70
2008 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 72 2009 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 75 2010 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 77
88
92
79
77
92
63
70
77
92
68
88
92
81
79
94
67
72
77
88
70
89
92
77
72
89
56
62
82
87
60
91 93 81 74 92 59 65 84 89 63 91 93 82 78 93 62 68 86 90 66 90
94
84
83
96
66
71
87
91
69
90
92
84
83
95
65
71
86
88
68
2009 Charter Schools 2010
Charter Schools 21.8
18.6
925
18.7
19.3
20.6
955
19.6
23.8
22.6
959
19.8
27.1
992
20.1
2008 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 69.3 27 992 20.3 2009 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 66 27.2 988 20.5 2010 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 62.6
26.9
985
20.5
26.9
985
20.5
Administration and Administrative Expenditures 37. Staff—% Central Administrative 38. Staff—% School Administrative 77. % Total Operating Expenditures per pupil—
Central Administrative 78. % Total Operating Expenditures per pupil—
School Leadership vi
2007 Charter Schools 2008 Charter Schools 2009 Charter Schools 2010
Charter Schools 3
3 3 3
3
5 5 6
6
6
3
3 3 3
3
14 14 14
14
14
6
6 6 6
6
8 8 8
8
8
6
6 6 6
5
Charter Schools 36,423
37,957 39,624
40,529
41,175
2007 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 45,033
50. % With 5 or Fewer Years of Experience 51. Average Years of Experience 70.8 69.7 72.1
73.2
74.1
36.6
37.1 37 36.2
35.0
4.9 5 4.8
4.6
4.5
11.4
11.4 11.3 11.5
11.6
52. % With Advanced Degrees 15.4 16 15.9
16.6
16.2
21.7
21.6 21.5 22.0
22.5
Teachers 46. Average Teacher Salary © 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. 2008 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 46,325 2009 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 47,313 2010 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 48,440
vii
Teacher Turnover 53. Teacher Turnover Rate 2007 Charter Schools 2008 Charter Schools 2009 Charter Schools 2010
Charter Schools 42.5 41.1 37.2
32.3
30.3
2008 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 14.8 2009 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 14.3 2010 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 11.4
viii
Texas Education Agency, “To the Administrator Addressed: 2010–11 Preliminary Summary of Finances for Charter Schools,” July 2010. Texas Education Agency, “Background Information on Charter School Funding,” January 2011. Texas Education Code § 12.106. 19. Texas Administrative Code § 100.1041. 2011 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 11.5
ix Taxes and Actual Revenues 67. Total Revenue Per Pupil x 2007 Charter Schools 2008 Charter Schools 2009 Charter Schools 2010
Charter Schools 7,578 8,485 8,879
9,657
10,161
Charter Schools 7,459 7,597 8,138
8,715
8,952
2008 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 9,403 2009 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 9,755 2010 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 9,970
2008 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 7,830 2009 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 8,346 2010 Public Schools (excl. Charters) 8,568
Actual Expenditures 75. Total Operating Expenditures Per Pupil 76. % Instructional 82. Total Instructional Expenditures Per Pupil 52 52 51
52
52
58
58 58 58
59
3,846 3,936 4,191
4,530
4,679
4,300
4,510 4,831 4,985
5,153
Charter Schools 14 14 14
14
14
8 8 8
8
8
6
6 6 6
5
Charter Schools 19 21 20
20
20
xi Actual Expenditures 77. Total Operating Expenditures—% Central Administrative 78. Total Operating Expenditures—% School Leadership xii Fund Balances 72. % Fund Balance district’s budget © 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. Public School Funding: Sources, Shares, and Events Background During most legislative sessions, conversations tend to concentrate around educational policy, such as reducing dropouts, increasing test scores, and integrating technology with learning to better prepare students for college and the workforce. The 82nd Legislative Session, however, served as a stark reminder that revenue and its effect on the state budget drives policy—not the other way around. Thus, it is important for anyone seeking to understand public education to have a basic understanding of revenue sources, revenue shares, and recent notable events in school funding. Funding Sources Broadly speaking, school funding can be sorted into three categories depending on the revenue source. While decisions related to the level and purpose of federal funds are made in Washington, DC, decisions about state and local funding are primarily concentrated in Austin. Although school districts set local tax rates, the state regulates local revenue sources. State law grants school districts taxing authority; dictates the type of non‐tax revenue schools may receive, such as payments in lieu of taxes and athletic events receipts; determines the maximum that a district may tax; sets a “soft” floor on school tax rates; and mandates when elections must be held to raise taxes. The Texas Education Agency uses the following categories for accounting purposes:  Local and Intermediate Sources—The vast majority of local funding for school districts comes from local property taxes. School districts also receive funds from other local sources, including payments from other school districts for the provision of services, interest on bank deposits, and payments in lieu of taxes related to economic development agreements.  State Funds—The primary source of state funding for schools is the Foundation School Fund, which is state general revenue, primarily from sales taxes. Another significant source of state funding is the Available School Fund, made up of Permanent School Fund earnings and one‐quarter of fuel tax receipts. Finally, the Texas Lottery generates approximately $1 billion each year for the support of public education.  Federal Funds—The majority of federal funds to Texas public schools are allocated through three federal programs: Title I (services to low‐income children), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and the National School Lunch program to provide free and reduced‐price meals to low‐income students. In fiscal years 2010 and 2011, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“Stimulus”) provided substantial funding for schools, while federal Education Jobs Act funds were a significant source of school funding in fiscal year 2012.1 Funding “Share” With regard to public education, funding “share” may mean one of two things: (1) the percentages that each source of revenue contributes to the total amount of school funding or (2) the share of state general revenue allocated to support public education over a biennium. a) Historically, Texas public schools have been funded primarily by local tax revenue. The local share of funding tends to rise as property values rise. From time to time, the state will reverse this trend by increasing state investment in schools as they did in 2009 when $1.8 billion in new state funds was largely responsible for dropping the local share from 48.2 percent of funding to 45.7 percent. 1
Texas Education Agency, “Financial Accountability System Resource Guide: Module 1, Financial Accounting and Reporting,” January 2010, p. 152. © 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. Table 1: Local and Intermediate Funding Share of All Funding Sources for Texas Public Schools 2007–08 Percent 2008–09 Percent 2009–10 Percent
2010–11 Percent
Per Share of Per Share of Per Share of Per Share of Student Funding Student Funding Student Funding Student Funding Local and $4,449 45.7 $4,697 48.2 $4,719 45.7 $4,617 44.7 Intermediate b) Over the past several biennia, public schools have received slightly more than one‐third of the state’s general revenue. During the 2006–07 biennium, public education’s share of state general revenue spiked as a result of local property taxes being replaced in part by state funds but has declined since the 2008–09 biennium as local property value growth reduced the demand on state general revenue. Table 2: Public Education as a Percentage of State General Revenue by Biennium Biennium 2002–03 2004–05 2006–07 2008–09 2010–11 2012–13 Percentage 36.4 35.9 38.40 39.7 37.5 37.1 Important Events in School Funding Over the past decade three significant events occurred that greatly impacted the way public education is funded in Texas:  Revenue Swap—Between 2001 and 2006, the state share of funding for the Foundation School Program (FSP) dropped from 43 percent (FY 2001) to 34 percent (FY 2006).2 In 2006, the state passed House Bill 1 (HB 1) in response to a school finance lawsuit. HB 1 forced school districts to compress their local school property tax rate by one‐third over two years and used revenue from a restructured state franchise tax to replace the forgone property tax revenue. This swap increased the state’s share of FSP funding to 40 percent in fiscal year 2007 and 48.5 percent in fiscal year 2008. The resulting increase in state funding was not a net increase in school funding but rather a state‐
mandated shift in sources of funding for schools.  Federal Stimulus Funding—In 2009, the federal government passed the stimulus bill, which provided additional federal dollars to help states maintain crucial public services during the recession. The Texas Legislature used $1.6 billion each year in stimulus funding to support the FSP and an additional $362 million for instructional materials.3 The stimulus funds were used in lieu of state funds, thus reducing state funding for education by corresponding amounts.  Funding Cuts of 2011 – In 2011, the Texas Legislature rewrote state formulas to cut state funding for schools by $4 billion. The state also eliminated $1.4 billion in grant programs. State funding formulas continue to pay for each student attending public school; however, the funding cuts mean that for the 2011–12 and 2012–13 school years each student is funded at approximately $569 less per year than during the previous biennium. 83rd Legislative Session It is unlikely that any significant changes to the school finance system or the share of funding that the state provides to public schools will occur before the resolution of school finance litigation brought by plaintiffs representing several hundred school districts calling into question the adequacy and efficiency of the current school finance system. If the trial concludes in the plaintiffs’ favor, legislators will most likely begin work on how to best accomplish the orders sent down from the court, including how much additional funding to infuse into the system and how to overhaul or tweak the system to more efficiently fund Texas school districts. 2
3
Legislative Budget Board, “Fiscal Size‐Up: 2012–13 biennium,” January 2012, p. 222. Ibid., p. 219. © 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. “Smoothing Out” Adjusting the Foundation School Program Payment Schedule Background Texas provides billions of dollars to school districts through the Foundation School Program (FSP) to help fund public education. As part of the state’s partnership with local school districts, a system was established to distribute state funding throughout the year. According to the current state payment system, districts receive the majority of their funding from the state early in the fiscal year. During the 80th Legislative Session, an amendment was offered to Senate Bill 1848 (SB 1848) that would have “smoothed out,” or more evenly distributed, FSP payments over the fiscal year. Supporters of the amendment argued that adjusting the FSP payment schedule was critical to lowering the state’s debt burden and maintaining its favorable bond rating. While arguing that smoothing out is necessary for the state's future economic viability, there was no indication of how much money smoothing out would actually save. However, the change would have been very difficult for school districts that set their budgets based on the existing payment schedule. Many districts would incur increased costs from borrowing money to meet their own short‐term cash needs. Some districts would have lost revenue from short‐term cash investment interest. SB 1848 did not pass and state aid payments currently flow as they have in the past, but interest in smoothing out state payments remains. While six years have passed since the 80th Legislative Session, the topic of smoothing out was broached again during an October 2012 interim Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on the state’s current fiscal condition. FSP Payment Schedule The state distributes the FSP payments to school districts throughout the year, with districts receiving the majority of their FSP funds between September and November. The state disburses FSP funds to districts according to three payment schedules depending on district wealth per pupil:  Category 1 districts have wealth per pupil below half the statewide average and receive 35 percent of their payments during September through November.  Category 2 districts have between half the statewide average and the statewide average and receive close to 50 percent of their payments during the same time period.  Category 3 districts have a wealth per pupil above the state average and receive 80 percent of their payments within the first two months of the fiscal year.1 District Impact School districts do not collect local property tax revenue until months after the beginning of the school year. The current FSP payment schedule recognizes districts’ delayed access to local property tax revenue and thus provides the bulk of the districts' state revenue early in the school year. Property tax 1
Texas Education Agency, Schedule of Monthly School Fund Payments.
© 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. rate compression mandated by the state has necessitated a larger contribution of state revenue to public schools. The state contributes approximately 45 percent of the cost of public education in Texas.2 Accordingly, the timing of the FSP payments is of critical importance to schools. If the FSP payments to districts are smoothed out, Category 3 districts (i.e., the wealthier ones) are likely to experience the biggest reductions in their early state payments. However, Category 1 districts (i.e., the least wealthy ones) also will be impacted, as they are the most reliant on state aid and the least able to borrow money to cover a cash flow shortfall if the amount of state aid provided early in the year is no longer sufficient to meet the costs of starting school.3 State Perspective In order to raise the money necessary to address the state’s cash flow shortages each fiscal year, the comptroller of public accounts issues “Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes” (TRAN). These notes are short‐term bonds that mature over the course of the state’s fiscal year. In 2012, the comptroller issued $9.8 billion in TRAN. These notes were issued in August of 2012 and will mature in August 2013. While TRANs raise revenue for the state, issuing these bonds also increases the state's borrowing costs, as the state is required to repay these TRANs at an interest rate of 0.225 percent.4 Adjusting the FSP payment schedules to more evenly distribute state aid to school districts throughout the fiscal year would allow the state to avoid larger payments to districts early in the fiscal year, thus reducing the nominal amount of TRANs that will be issued and, in turn, the state's overall borrowing costs. However, this method for balancing the state’s ledger falls squarely on school district budgets. The smoothing out approach potentially addresses a cash flow problem for the state but at the expense of school districts. Conclusion Smoothing out the FSP payment schedule partially shifts the responsibility for funding property tax relief back to school districts as the state attempts to balance its books. Legislative committees may revisit the issue of smoothing out the state's payment schedule to school districts as they take inventory of the effects of the 2011 budget deficit and seek “efficiencies” to strengthen the state’s fiscal position. To date, the state has never determined exactly how much money would be saved by smoothing out the payment schedule. However, it is difficult to envision a smoothing out scenario that would be beneficial or revenue neutral for school districts. 2
Legislative Budget Board, “Fiscal Size‐Up: 2012–13 Biennium,” January 2012, p. 222. Texas Association of School Business Officials, “Testimony to Texas Senate Finance Subcommittee on Government Issues,” September 2008, p. 2–3. 4
Comptroller of Public Accounts, “Texas Short Term Notes Receive Highest Ratings,” October 2012.
3
© 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. Prekindergarten Background In 1984, the Texas Legislature established a half‐day prekindergarten program to help eligible four‐year‐
old students develop the language, mathematics, and social skills they will need to succeed in public school. A school district must provide a half‐day prekindergarten (pre‐K) program if 15 or more eligible students reside in the district. Children Eligible for Free Pre‐K Over the years, the Legislature has expanded the categories of students who are eligible for the state’s free pre‐K program to include: children unable to speak English; students deemed educationally disadvantaged (i.e., eligible for free or reduced‐price lunch); homeless students; children whose parents are either on active military duty, in an activated reserve unit, or who were killed or wounded while serving on active duty; and children in the Texas foster care system. A Texas school district may extend its free pre‐K program to three‐year‐old children who meet the same eligibility requirements. The district receives per student funding from the state for this expansion. Districts also may allow other students to attend pre‐K, but the state does not provide funding for noneligible students. Pre‐K Funding The state provides funding to districts for each eligible three‐ or four‐year‐old student to attend a half‐
day pre‐K program. Districts may fund the second half of a full‐day program in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to, Title I or Title III federal funds; local funds; other state, federal, or foundation grants; and compensatory education funds. In past years, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) administered the Early Start Grant program to provide districts with additional state funding to extend the half‐day pre‐K program to a full‐day program for eligible students. But, in 2011, the Texas Legislature eliminated funding for the state’s Early Start Grant program. The elimination of grant funding forced some school districts committed to offering full‐day programs to utilize local dollars to fund the second half of the day. Other districts scaled back their programs due to budgetary constraints. Pre‐K Partnerships and Delivery Models Given state and local interest in preparing all children to be ready for kindergarten (i.e., “school ready”), school districts, childcare centers, and Head Start have forged partnerships to leverage resources and serve more students. Some delivery models include school districts working in coordination with Head Start or with a private childcare center. The state standards applicable to such programs vary based on resources, location, and type of partnership. For instance, state pre‐K programs fall under the purview of TEA, while childcare centers are regulated by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (TDFPS). Texas public school instructors must be certified teachers. While childcare centers are not required to have certified teachers, their centers must be licensed by the TDFPS. © 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. Accountability To evaluate the effectiveness of school district pre‐K, Head Start, and community‐based childcare programs in preparing children for kindergarten, state leaders enacted the School Readiness Certification System. Now known as the Kindergarten Readiness System, the Texas Education Agency operates the program, which is housed at the Region 17 Education Service Center. It is the only system in the nation that evaluates pre‐K programs utilizing multiple delivery models. To determine a program’s effectiveness in preparing students for kindergarten, the Kindergarten Readiness System analyzes a student’s preschool data as well as the same student’s achievement on the kindergarten reading diagnostic instrument. High‐performing early childhood education programs are awarded the “Prekindergarten Center of Excellence” designation, a State of Texas gold standard for high quality pre‐K. Currently, the Kindergarten Readiness System certification is available free of charge to school districts and childcare centers; however, that may cease if the Legislature does not allocate funds to support the program during the next session. During the 82nd Legislative Session, legislators discussed a proposal that would have deducted money from Foundation School Program (FSP) funds to pay the costs of the certification. That measure did not pass. 83rd Legislative Session Pre‐K funding will likely be discussed during the 83rd Legislature. Elimination of the Early Start Grant forced many districts to scale back their pre‐K programs to half‐day programs even though their students were making gains in a full‐day program. Other districts have been forced to dip into local funds to continue their full‐day programs but will unlikely be able to sustain that funding strategy. © 2012 Texas Association of School Boards • All rights reserved. Fast Facts about Texas Public Schools
State Budget for Public Education Facts
• Texas public schools are funded from three sources. In 2009–10, 45.6 percent of the funding came
from local taxes, 42.3 percent from state revenue, and 12 percent from the federal government. 1
• For the 2012–13 biennium, the Texas Legislature appropriated $50.8 billion for public education,
which is 29 percent of the state’s 2012–13 budget. 2
• Texas legislators cut $4 billion in formula funding from the Foundation School Program and $1.4
billion in grant funding for public schools, as compared to 2010–11 funding levels. 3
Texas Public Schools Facts
• Texas has 1,031 independent school districts and 8,044 campuses. Additionally, 198 charter school
operators operate approximately 482 open-enrollment charter campuses. 4
• Texas school districts and charter schools enroll 4.9 million students. Over the last decade, student
enrollment increased by 862,184 students or approximately 80,000–90,000 students per year.
Public school enrollment in Texas grew by 87,607 students between 2009–10 and 2010–11. 5
• Texas public schools are growing much faster than public schools nationally. Between 1998–99 and
2008–09, enrollment increased by more than 20.4 percent, compared to 5.9 percent nationally. 6
• More than half (59.1 percent) of Texas public school students are economically disadvantaged, up
45.5 percent over the last decade. That increase is more than double the 21.5 percent increase of
the public school population as a whole. 7
• Of Texas public school students, 16.9 percent are classified Limited English Proficient, up 45.8
percent over the last decade, and 9 percent are enrolled in special education. 8
Efficiency Facts
• Texas ranks 48th among all states in public education spending, spending on average $8,654 per
pupil. 9
• On average, Texas school districts spend 3.1 percent of their operating budgets on school district
administration and 5.5 percent on campus administration. 10
• Texas schools spend almost two-thirds (62 percent) of their operating budget on instruction and
instruction-related expenses; the rest is spent on food services, buses, utilities, and building
maintenance, all of which are necessary for educating students. 11
• Almost two-thirds (64.4 percent) of district personnel provide direct instruction to students
(including teachers and teacher aides). District and campus administrators make up 3.8 percent of
the professional staff employed by districts. 12
1
These data do not illustrate the impact of the state funding cuts in 2011.
Legislative Budget Board, “Fiscal Size-Up: 2012–13 Biennium,” January 2012.
3
Legislative Budget Board,“Summary of Conference Committee Report on HB1,” May 2011; 2009–10 AEIS; 2010–11 AEIS.
4
Texas Education Agency, “2010–11 State Snapshot,” May 2012, and “Summary of Charter Awards and Closures,” August 2012.
5
Texas Education Agency, “Enrollment in Texas Public Schools 2010–11,” October 2011.
6
Ibid.
7
Ibid.
8
Ibid.
9
Education Week, “2012 Quality Counts,” January 2012.
10
Texas Education Agency, “Academic Excellence Indicator System: 2010–11 State Profile Report,” 2012.
11
Ibid.
2
•
Ninety-six percent of districts earned a “Superior Achievement” or “Above Standard Achievement”
rating on the Texas Education Agency’s Financial Accountability system for 2010–11. Only 2
percent of districts received a rating of “Substandard Achievement.” 13
Effectiveness Facts
• Most Texas public school students are completing high school. Of the class of 2011, 93.2 percent
graduated, continued their education, or received a GED, and 85.9 percent graduated high school
within four years (up from 84.3 percent in 2010 and 80.6 percent in 2009). 14
• Only 6.8 percent of students dropped out of high school (down from 7.3 percent in 2010 and 9.4
percent in 2009). 15
• Most students (82.4 percent) in the Class of 2011 graduated on the state’s Recommended or more
rigorous Distinguished High School programs; only 17.7 percent of the Class of 2011 graduated on
the Minimum program (percentages equal more than 100 percent due to rounding). 16
• The percentage of students completing Advanced Placement or dual-credit courses, an indicator
of college readiness, has increased steadily over the last three years: 26.3 percent in 2009–10,
24.6 percent in 2008–09, and 23.1 percent in 2007–08. 17
• Additionally, Texas ranked 13th among the states in students’ achieving high scores on Advanced
Placement exams. 18
• Fourteen Texas public high schools rank among the top 100 schools in the nation, according to
Newsweek and US News & World Report. 19
• Texas eighth-grade students rank 10th (tied with Iowa) among all states on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math test, indicating that Texas is doing well in
preparing children for engineering and technical jobs. 20
School District Personnel Facts
• School districts and charter schools employed a total of 663,146 full-time equivalent staff during
the 2010–11 school year, 3,300 fewer employees than during the prior year.
• Sixty percent of district personnel provide direct instruction to students.
• The beginning teacher salary in Texas was $41,272 during the 2010–11 school year, and the
average salary was $48,638. The statewide average salary for campus administrators was $70,819
and $89,481 for district administrators.21
• In 2010, the median superintendent salary was $107,000, meaning that approximately half of the
superintendents earned less than that amount. The average superintendent salary was $123,079
(less than two percent higher than 2009–10). Less than 20 percent of Texas superintendents
earned more than $150,000. The number of superintendents who did not receive a raise in 2010–
11 more than doubled from the prior year. 22
12
Ibid.
Texas Education Agency, “Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas: Overall Statistics 2010–11,” September 2012.
14
Texas Education Agency, “Secondary School Completion and Dropouts in Texas Public Schools: 2010–11,” July 2012.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
18
Education Week, “2012 Quality Counts,” January 2012.
19
Lauren Streib and Ian Yarett, “America’s Best High Schools 2012,” Newsweek, May 21, 2012.
20
United States Department of Education, “National Assessment of Educational Progress: Mathematics,” November 2011.
21
22
Texas Association of School Boards, “2010–11 Salaries and Wages in Texas Public Schools: Superintendent Report,”
November 2011.
13
Information Resources about Texas Public Schools and Districts
Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) Reports contain a wide range of data on the performance
of students in Texas school districts, including student performance indicators, school and district
staffing data, school district finances, special programs, and student demographics. AEIS Reports are
available for the state, by ESC region, and for individual districts and campuses
(ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis).
The Texas Education Agency’s (TEA) annual Snapshot provides individual district and statewide data on
topics including student performance on state assessments and college admission tests, demographic
information about students and staff, as well as financial information about school district budgets,
property values, and state funding. Campus-level (school) data are not provided in Snapshot but can be
found in the AEIS Reports (ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/snapshot/index.html).
District Performance Summary Reports list data for individual school districts, including student
demographics, academic performance, staffing, financial performance, and tax rates
(ritter.tea.state.tx.us/school.finance/forecasting/summaries/district_summary_0809.html).
In addition to the academic rating system, Texas school districts are rated on financial management
indicators, as well. TEA administers the Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas (FIRST). FIRST Reports
are available for the state and for school districts (tuna.tea.state.tx.us/First/forms/AdminStats.aspx).
Additionally, the Comptroller of Public Accounts rates Texas school districts and campuses based on
relative efficiency. The Financial Allocation Study of Texas (FAST) is designed to measure how spending
in every Texas public school district and school translates to student academic progress. FAST Reports
are available for individual districts and campuses (www.fastexas.org).
The Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) encompasses all data requested and
received by TEA about public education, including student demographic, academic performance,
personnel, financial, and organizational information. PEIMS Reports may be found at
ritter.tea.state.tx.us/adhocrpt/Standard_Reports.html.
TEA publishes an annual report on enrollment and enrollment trends in Texas public schools. National
trends also are examined, and enrollment data for the four most populous states (California, Florida,
New York, and Texas) are compared. Enrollment in Texas Public Schools 2010–11 may be found at
www.tea.state.tx.us/acctres/Enroll_2010-11.pdf.
How Texas Ranks Compared to Other States on Education-Related Indicators
Student Performance Indicators
Indicator
2011 Participation Rate
2011 Passing Rate
2011 Participation Rate
2011 Combined Score
ACT
SAT
National Assessment of
Educational Progress
(NAEP) 4th Grade Math
Texas’s
Rank
19
26
18
47
All Students
24
NAEP 4th Grade Reading All Students
37
NAEP 8th Grade Math
All Students
10
NAEP 8th Grade Reading All Students
37
Dropout Rate
25
Freshman Graduation
Rate
Graduation Rate
Spending Indicators
Indicator
Spending
Average Teacher Salary
Per student in average
daily attendance, as
percent of national
average, 2009–10
$47,157
36
Texas’s
Rank
36
34
Source
ACT, Inc.—National and State Scores
ACT, Inc.—National and State Scores
TEA News Releases—Sept. 14, 2011
College Board
National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics
Assessment, Scale Score
Progress (NAEP), 2011 Reading
Progress (NAEP), 2011 Mathematics
Progress (NAEP), 2011 Reading
Progress (NAEP), Public School
Graduates and Dropouts from the
Common Core of Data: School Year
2007–08
Progress (NAEP), Public School
Graduates and Dropouts from the
Common Core of Data: School Year
2007–08
Source
NEA Research Estimates Database
(2010), K–12—Elementary and
Secondary
NEA, Rankings & Estimates: Rankings
of the States 2009 and Estimates of
School Statistics 2010
Glossary: Education Terms and Abbreviations
Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS): A system of indicators established by the Texas
Legislature and adopted by the State Board of Education (SBOE) to help determine the quality of
learning on a campus and in a school district. The indicators include passing rates on the state tests,
student attendance, scores on college entrance exams, staff data, student data, and expenditure
summaries. The state assesses district and school performance compared with state-level standards.
AEIS is the foundation data set for a school district’s accountability rating.
Actual Tax Rate or Nominal Tax Rate: The tax rate adopted by school districts and used to calculate tax
bills.
Alternative Certification Program (ACP): Some institutions of higher education, education service
centers, and large school districts have been approved by the State Board for Educator Certification to
operate alternative certification programs which prepare noneducators to earn a teaching or
administrator certificate. These programs involve university coursework or other professionaldevelopment experiences, as well as intense mentoring and supervision during the candidate’s first year
as an educator. In addition, some regional education service centers offer alternative programs of
preparation similar to the school-based programs.
Alternative Education Program (AEP): See “Disciplinary Alternative Education Program (DAEP),”
Glossary.
“At-Risk” Students: A student is identified as at risk of dropping out of school under Texas law and
entitled to additional educational services if the student is younger than 21 years old and meets any of
the following 13 statutory criteria: (1) was not promoted to the next grade level for one or more school
years; (2) failed or is failing two or more subjects in the foundation curriculum during a semester in the
current or last school year; (3) failed a state assessment; (4) is enrolled in prekindergarten, kindergarten,
or grades 1–3 and failed a readiness test or assessment instrument administered during the current
school year; (5) is pregnant or is a parent; (6) has been placed in an alternative education program
during the preceding or current school year; (7) has been expelled during the preceding or current
school year; (8) is currently on parole, probation, deferred prosecution, or other conditional release;
(9) was previously reported as a dropout; (10) is a student of limited English proficiency; (11) is in the
custody or care of the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services or has, during the current
school year, been referred to the department by a school official, officer of the juvenile court, or law
enforcement official; (12) is homeless; or (13) resides or resided during the preceding school year in a
residential placement facility in the district, including a detention facility, substance abuse treatment
facility, emergency shelter, psychiatric hospital, halfway house, or foster group home. (Texas Education
Code (TEC) § 29.081(d).)
Available School Fund (ASF): Created by the Texas Constitution of 1876, the ASF is made up of earnings
from the Permanent School Fund (PSF), constitutionally dedicated motor-fuel taxes, and other
miscellaneous revenues. The bulk of ASF revenue is distributed to school districts on a per-student basis.
Each year, the SBOE must set aside an amount equal to 50 percent of the distribution from the PSF to
the ASF for appropriation by the Legislature to the state’s instructional materials fund.
Average Daily Attendance (ADA): ADA is a method of counting students for the purpose of providing
state aid to school districts. Currently, Texas counts students in attendance each day and averages the
attendance count over the year. ADA counts are lower than enrollment counts. (TEC § 42.005.)
Basic Allotment: The basic allotment is an amount set by statute which, after adjusting for districtspecific characteristics, is used to calculate the amount of revenue a district will receive from the state’s
Foundation School Program. Current law sets the basic allotment at $4,765 per student in average daily
attendance for the 2011–12 and 2012–13 school years. The amount of the basic allotment can only be
changed by the Legislature. (TEC § 42.101–.106.)
Campus Charter: Texas law permits school districts to operate in-district charter schools or charter
programs, which are “chartered” by the school board. These are typically referred to as “campus
charters” or “campus program charters.” District-chartered campuses and programs are exempt from
some of the laws, including personnel laws, that apply to traditional schools but are not as free from
regulation as open-enrollment charter schools. A district may convert a traditional campus into a district
charter school if a majority of the school’s teachers and the parents of a majority of students attending
the school sign a petition requesting conversion. Alternatively, a district may open a new school as a
charter campus. A district receives federal, state, and local funding for a charter campus in the same
way as traditional campuses are funded, and the school board remains accountable for the performance
of a district charter school. (TEC § 12.051–.056.)
Caps: A general term that describes statutory limits on tax rates, revenues, or increases in school district
expenditures. It also may refer to the statutory limit on the number of charters the State Board of
Education may grant for open-enrollment charter schools.
Career and Technical Education (CTE) Programs: In Texas, CTE is organized into 16 career clusters, and
there are 120 state-recognized programs of study aligned with the 16 career clusters. State law requires
the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to prepare biennially a state CTE plan that sets forth objectives for the
next biennium and five-year goals. In the 2010 CTE State Plan, TEA requires secondary school districts
(school districts with high schools) to offer a minimum of three CTE programs of study from three
different clusters. (TEC § 29.181–.190.) (See also “Career and Technical Education,” Issue Brief.)
Chapter 41 Districts: Chapter 41 of the Texas Education Code pertains to school districts with property
wealth in excess of $476,500 per student in weighted average daily attendance (WADA). Chapter 41
districts are commonly referred to as “property-wealthy” districts. These districts are subject to the
wealth-reduction (or Robin Hood) provisions in Chapter 41 by which local district funds are “recaptured”
by the state and redistributed using at least one of five options (see also “Chapter 41 Options,” Glossary)
to school districts with lower property wealth. (TEC Chapter 41.)
Chapter 41 Options: State law provides school districts with property wealth in excess of $476,500 per
weighted ADA (WADA) with five options to reduce their property wealth to the $476,500 threshold: (1)
district consolidation by board action, (2) detachment and annexation of property by board action, (3)
purchase of attendance credits from the state (voter approval required), (4) contracting with other
districts to educate additional students (voter approval required), and (5) tax-base consolidation (voter
approval required). (TEC Chapter 41.)
Charter Schools: Charter schools are publicly funded schools that are subject to fewer state regulations
than traditional public and magnet schools. Texas law provides for four classes of charters: campus and
program charters, open-enrollment charters, college or university charters, and home-rule district
charters. (TEC Chapter 12.) (See also “Public School Choice,” Issue Brief; “Campus or Campus Program
Charter,” “College or University Charter,” “Home-Rule School District Charters,” and “Open-Enrollment
Charters,” Glossary.)
CISD: Consolidated Independent School District.
College or University Charter Schools: College or university charters are subject to largely the same
regulatory provisions as open-enrollment charters but must be supervised by a college/university faculty
member with expertise in educational matters. The charter school’s financial operations must be
overseen by the college or university business office. College and universities may operate multiple
charter campuses under one charter. According to TEA, in 2012 four colleges/universities operated
charter schools. (TEC § 12.151–.156.)
College Readiness: The Texas Education Code defines “college readiness” for purposes of the state
assessment program as the level of preparation a student must obtain in English language arts and
mathematics courses to enroll and succeed, without remediation, in an entry-level general education
course for credit in the same content area for a baccalaureate or associate degree program at a general
academic teaching institution (other than a research institution) or a postsecondary educational
institution that primarily offers associates degrees or credentials other than baccalaureate or advanced
degrees. (TEC § 39.024.)
Compensatory Education: School districts and charter schools are entitled to additional state funding to
provide supplemental instruction and support services, known collectively as compensatory education,
to students who are educationally disadvantaged, certain students living in a residential placement, and
pregnant students who are entitled to remedial or support services. Educationally disadvantaged
students include students who have been identified as being “at risk” of dropping out or of not
performing at an appropriate academic level on the state assessments. The additional state funding a
district receives to provide compensatory education, referred to as the Compensatory Education
Allotment, is calculated by applying a funding weight of 1.20 to the number of students enrolled in the
district who are eligible for the federal free or reduced-price lunch program and by applying a funding
weight of 2.41 to the number of eligible pregnant students enrolled in the district. (TEC § 42.152.)
Completion Rate: An indicator in the state accountability system, the completion rate is the percentage
of students from a class of ninth graders who complete their high school programs by their anticipated
graduation date. Completion rates reported by different organizations may differ because they use (1)
different time periods covered in the calculation, (2) different definitions of a school completer or
dropout, (3) different definitions of a class (or cohort) of students, or (4) different underlying methods to
calculate the rates.
Conforming Textbook List: In 2011, the Legislature eliminated the state conforming and nonconforming
textbook lists and changed the method by which school districts purchase instructional materials.
Previously, the SBOE adopted instructional materials based primarily on the extent to which the
materials covered the state’s learning standards or the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS).
Instructional materials that met 100 percent of the TEKS were placed on the “conforming” list of stateadopted instructional materials; materials that met at least 50 percent of the TEKS but fewer than 100
percent were placed on the “nonconforming list.” The state paid the full price of materials on the
“conforming list” and a portion of the price of materials on the nonconforming list, based on the
percentage of TEKS covered. (See also “Instructional Materials and Technology Purchasing,” Issue Brief;
“Nonconforming Textbook List,” Glossary.)
Consolidation: Consolidation occurs when two or more independent school districts merge to create
one new district. Consolidation can occur as a result of a school board resolution, local vote, or on order
of the commissioner of education. Consolidated districts often use the term CISD (“Consolidated
Independent School District”) after the district’s name. (TEC Chapter 13.)
Copper Pennies: School districts can levy a maintenance and operations (M&O) tax rate of up to $0.17
above the compressed tax rate or, most commonly, up to $1.17 per $100 of taxable value. For most
districts, the first six pennies above the $1 tax rate (i.e., $1.01–$1.06) are called “golden pennies,” and
the remaining pennies, those pennies between $1.06 and $1.17, are called “copper pennies.” Golden
pennies are named such because they carry a higher guaranteed yield ($59.97 per penny per WADA)
than copper pennies ($31.95 per penny per WADA) and are not subject to recapture by the state. School
boards can access copper pennies only after they have levied their six golden pennies ($1.01–1.06) and
have had a successful tax ratification election to raise the M&O tax rate.
Cost of Education Index (CEI) or Adjustment: The CEI is an index the state uses to adjust the basic
allotment to account for cost differences among districts that are beyond local school district control.
The rationale for having a CEI is that a dollar does not stretch as far in some parts of the state as it does
in others. In other words, school districts in high-cost environments need additional dollars to be able to
purchase the same resources and hire the same sort of teachers as other districts. The CEI is a weighted
average of values for five school district characteristics: district size, district type (independent town,
rural, other), the percentage of low-income students, the average beginning teacher salary in
surrounding districts, and location in a county with a population of less than 40,000. The CEI has not
been updated since 1990. (TEC § 42.102.)
County Appraisal District (CAD): Each county (one multicounty: Potter and Randall) has established an
appraisal district office that is responsible for maintaining taxable real and personal property records
and placing a value on all property for taxation purposes. A chief appraiser, an individual appointed by
an appraisal district board of directors, heads the CAD office. The appraisal district board is, in turn,
elected by certain taxing entities.
CSD or CCSD: A Common School District or Common Consolidated School District is generally a very
small district with a three-member (CSD) or seven-member board of trustees that governs district
affairs. Taxing authority, however, is held by the county commissioners’ court.
Debt Service: See “Interest and Sinking Fund Tax,” Glossary.
Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs (DAEPs): A school district is required to provide an
educational setting for students who engage in certain illegal conduct or for students who violate
certain provisions of the school district’s code of conduct. A DAEP may be located on or off a regular
school campus, but students assigned to a DAEP must be separated from students not included in that
program. A DAEP must provide instruction in English language arts, mathematics, science, history, and
self-discipline, as well as counseling services so that students can return to, and succeed in, their
regularly assigned classrooms and schools. All teachers must be certified, and TEA must adopt minimum
standards, including student/teacher ratios and teacher training. Districts must allocate to a DAEP the
same expenditure per student that would be allocated for the student’s regularly assigned program,
including a special education program. These programs were formerly referred to as “Alternative
Education Programs (AEPs).” (TEC § 37.008.)
District-Level Planning and Decision-Making Committee: State law requires each district to establish a
district-level planning and decision-making committee. The committee must include representative
professional staff of the district, parents of students enrolled in the district, business representatives, and
community members. At least two-thirds of the professional staff must be teachers, and if possible, at
least one of the professional staff must have primary responsibility for educating students with disabilities.
The district-level committee’s duties include holding at least one public meeting per year to discuss the
district’s performance report from TEA, consulting with the superintendent regularly regarding supervision
of the district’s educational program, analyzing information related to dropout prevention, and assisting
the superintendent with the annual development of the district-improvement plan.
Dropout: A dropout is defined as a student who is enrolled in public school; does not return to public
school the following fall; is not expelled; and does not graduate, receive a General Educational
Development (GED) certificate, continue school outside the public school system, begin college, or die.
Dropout Rate (Annual): The annual dropout rate measures the percentage of students who drop out of
Texas public schools in a single school year. The annual dropout rate requires only one year of data and
can be calculated for any grade level. The formula to calculate the annual dropout rate is the number of
students who dropped out during the school year divided by the number of students enrolled during the
school year. The annual dropout rate for grades 7 and 8 is one of the measures in the state
accountability system. This is a one-year measure, calculated by summing the number of dropouts
across the two grades.
Existing Debt Allotment (EDA): See “Facilities Funding,” Glossary.
Edgewood: The Texas school finance equity lawsuit, Edgewood v. Kirby, filed in 1984 by a group of lowproperty-wealth school districts led by Edgewood ISD in San Antonio, is commonly referred to as
“Edgewood” or “Edgewood I.” At the center of the dispute was the question of what constitutes an
efficient system of school finance. During the next decade, three subsequent lawsuits over the state’s
school finance system were filed, Edgewood II–IV respectively.
Education Service Center (ESC): There are 20 ESCs, or regional intermediate education units, located
throughout Texas. ESCs assist and provide services for local school districts. Each ESC is managed by an
executive director appointed by the commissioner of education and is governed by a board that is
elected by the superintendents and school board members in the region.
Educational Equity: Educational equity is a term that refers to providing students with access to the
same/similar courses in all Texas school districts. Many Texas districts, especially small and rural districts
which have difficulty attracting teachers, cannot offer the breadth of courses typically available in urban
and suburban districts. To improve educational equity, the Legislature provides small and midsized
districts with an “adjustment” or funding weight that allocates additional state funds to those districts to
compensate for their diseconomies of scale. The state virtual schools network also improves educational
equity by making online courses available to every district in the state.
Educator Certification: To be certified to teach in a Texas public school, a person must have a bachelor’s
degree with coursework in three areas: (1) a broad general education, (2) academic specialization(s),
and (3) teaching knowledge and abilities. An exception to the degree requirement , however, is that
certain career and technology teaching certificates may be issued on the basis of work experience. To be
admitted into a teacher-preparation program, a candidate must demonstrate basic academic skills by
passing tests in reading, mathematics, and writing.
End-of-Course (EOC) Exams: Part of the new State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR)
program, EOCs are the state exams that assess a student’s mastery of the TEKS for high school English,
math, science, and social studies courses. The state developed 12 EOCs: English I, English II, and English
III (each of which has a reading and writing component); Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II; Biology,
Chemistry, and Physics; World Geography, World History, and US History. Students enrolled in ninth
grade during the 2011–12 school year were the first students to take the EOCs rather than the more
general exit-level Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) tests. (TEC § 39.023.) (See also “State
of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR),” Glossary.)
Equity: In school finance, the term “equity” generally refers to a fair or equal distribution of resources
for educating students, taking into account student differences and school district characteristics. The
standard in the Texas Education Code is that the system should “adhere to a standard of neutrality that
provides for substantially equal access to similar revenue per student at similar tax effort, considering all
state and local tax revenues of districts after acknowledging all legitimate student and district cost
differences.” In other words, an equitable school finance system would be property wealth neutral: a
district’s property tax base should have little or no impact on its ability to generate funding from the
state’s Foundation School Program. (TEC § 42.001(b).)
Facilities Funding: During the 1990s, the Legislature created two state funding programs for school
facilities: the Instructional Facilities Allotment (IFA) program helps school districts construct new
instructional facilities, and the Existing Debt Allotment (EDA) helps districts cover the costs of existing
debt for instructional and noninstructional facilities. Both programs provide state funding to eligible
school districts in the form of guaranteed yield ($35 per student per penny of a district’s I&S tax rate),
but for EDA recipients, the guaranteed yield is applied only to the first $0.29 of the district’s I&S tax rate.
Only school districts with low property wealth are eligible for IFA funding and must apply to TEA for the
funds. EDA funding also is based on district property wealth but is not application based; if a school
district’s locally generated revenue is below the $35 guaranteed yield per student per penny, the district
automatically receives EDA funding. A third state facilities funding program is the New Instructional
Facilities Allotment (NIFA), created to defray the increased operational costs when a new school is
opened. During the first year, the school district will receive $250 for each student in average daily
attendance at the new campus, and during the second year, $250 per additional student attending the
school. (TEC § 42.158 (NIFA); Chapter 46, Subchapter A (IFA); TEC § 46.031–.037 (EDA).)
Formula-Funded Finance System: A system of formulas that allocates state revenue from the Foundation
School Program (FSP) to school districts based on each district’s geographic characteristics and the needs of
its students. Prior to 2006, FSP funding was distributed to all Texas school districts through school finance
formulas. Since 2006, FSP funding has been distributed to some districts through the school finance formulas
but to the majority of districts based on revenue targets. A district’s target revenue is approximately the
amount of revenue the district received in 2006. In 2011, the Texas Legislature rewrote school finance laws
so that by the 2012–13 school year, the majority of Texas school districts (approximately 650) will be funded
through formulas while the remaining 380 districts will continue to be funded based on target revenue.
Foundation School Program (FSP): The system of calculations and formulas by which the majority of
state funds for education are distributed to Texas school districts. Funding for the FSP comes from the
Permanent School Fund, Available School Fund, Foundation School Fund, state general revenue, and
local property taxes. Currently, the FSP, as described in Chapter 42 of the Texas Education Code, consists
of two parts or tiers, as they are more commonly called. Tier 1, known as the “foundation tier,” consists
of a series of formulas that are supposed to allocate sufficient funding to each school district to provide
a basic educational program that meets the state’s legal standards. Since 2006, the target revenue
system has overridden the Tier 1 formulas as a means of allocating state aid to most districts. Tier 2,
known as the “enrichment tier,” consists of a guaranteed-yield system that provides districts with
substantially equal access to revenue at similar tax rates in order to supplement the basic educational
program. Many districts claim that Tier 2 funding is insufficient to meet the district’s supplemental
needs because districts need those funds to fund the basic educational program. The FSP also funds two
school facilities programs: the Instructional Facilities Allotment (IFA) and the Existing Debt Allotment
(EDA). (TEC Chapter 42.) (See also “Formula-Funded Finance System” and “Facilities Funding,” Glossary.)
Fund Balances: The amount of assets in excess of liabilities in school district accounts. These assets may
include investments, delinquent taxes, accounts receivable, and inventories. Fund balances are not
“rainy-day funds” or savings accounts. Districts generally accumulate fund balances for three reasons: to
cover cash flow deficits in the fall until property taxes are collected in January, to demonstrate financial
stability in order to enhance district bond ratings which in turn secure lower interest rates, and to create
a financial cushion to meet unexpected expenses and emergencies. The amount of a district’s fund
balance fluctuates considerably throughout the year, as revenues are received and expenses are paid.
According to the Government Fiscal Officers Association, each district’s individual circumstances
determine the appropriate level of fund balances, but no district should have an unrestricted fund
balance in the general fund of less than two months of operating revenues or expenditures.
Golden Pennies: The first six pennies of a district’s M&O tax rate over $1 are called “golden pennies”
because they have a higher guaranteed yield than the remaining “copper” pennies up to the $1.17 tax
rate cap and are not subject to recapture by the state. The guaranteed yield of golden pennies is set at
that of Austin ISD, currently $59.97 per penny per student. Accordingly, these pennies provide the
greatest amount of per-penny revenue to all school districts. School boards may levy the first four
golden pennies simply by a vote of the board but must hold a tax ratification election before raising the
tax rate further, including before levying the final two golden pennies. (See also “Copper Pennies,”
Glossary.)
Guaranteed Yield: The guaranteed yield is a method of calculating state aid for school districts. The
school finance laws guarantee that districts will receive a certain amount of funding per student per
penny of local tax effort. School districts adopt local property tax rates and levy taxes. The school
finance formulas allocate state funding to make up the difference between the tax revenue per student
a district generates from local taxes and the guaranteed yield. High-wealth districts usually generate
sufficient local property tax revenue to meet the guaranteed yield without additional state funding. In
the Foundation School Program’s basic tier (Tier 1), the guaranteed yield in 2010–11 is $47.65 per penny
per student up to a district’s compressed 2005 M&O tax rate. In Tier 2, or the “enrichment tier,” the
guaranteed yield on the first six pennies is $59.97 (roughly the revenue per student per penny
generated from local property taxes in Austin ISD) in 2010–11. The remaining 11 pennies in the
enrichment tier have a guaranteed yield of $31.95 per penny per pupil.
Hold Harmless: The term “hold harmless” is used to describe a provision in the school finance laws
designed to protect a school district from the loss of local revenue or state aid. Hold-harmless provisions
are common when the Legislature makes a significant change to the school finance formulas that
effectively redistributes revenue among districts.
Home-Rule School District Charters: Texas’s charter school law includes provisions that permit an entire
school district to convert to charter school status through a home-rule school district charter. Home-rule
districts are exempt from some but not as many state regulations as open-enrollment charter schools. A
home-rule charter is adopted and becomes effective only if approved by a majority vote in an election in
which at least 25 percent of the district’s registered voters participate. The voter-participation
requirement of the home-rule district charter is a substantial hurdle. No Texas district has sought homerule conversion. (TEC § 12.011–.030.)
Impact Fees: Impact fees are a one‐time fee that a governmental entity requires real estate developers
to pay in order to fund capital improvements needed as a consequence of a new real estate
development (e.g., streets, sewers, and water infrastructure). Legislation passed in 2007 exempts school
districts from paying impact fees imposed by other local governmental entities, unless the school board
consents to the fee. Since then, local political subdivisions have started imposing “universal fees” or
“access fees” on school districts, which are essentially new names for impact fees. Without defining the
term “impact fee,” the attorney general has opined that a school district should be able to recognize the
contents of an “impact fee” regardless of its name. Nevertheless, local political subdivisions have been
known to withhold services from public schools in retaliation for the school board’s refusal to pay these
types of fees.
Independent School District (ISD): The Texas Constitution permits the Legislature to create school
districts. Each district operates its schools and taxes property within the district to support the schools.
The term “independent” refers to the fact that the school district is not a part of city or county
government and has independent budgeting and taxing authority. In some states, cities or townships
operate or fund schools in addition to providing other government services. ISDs are governed by locally
elected boards of trustees.
Individual Education Plan (IEP): A document that public schools are required by federal law to provide
for each student who has been identified as eligible for special education. The IEP identifies the
appropriate educational goals for the student and explains the services the district will provide and how
the school will assess the student’s progress toward achieving the IEP goals. An IEP is intended to help
ensure that students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive
environment. (TEC § 29.005.)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): The 1997 federal IDEA Act provides legal protections
for children with disabilities.
Instructional Facilities Allotment (IFA): See “Facilities Funding,” Glossary.
Instructional Materials: “Instructional Materials” means content that conveys the state’s curriculum
standards (TEKS) for a subject in the public school curriculum. The term refers generally to textbooks
and online instructional content used in the instruction of students which school districts may purchase
using the new Instructional Materials Allotment. In 2011, the Texas Legislature replaced all statutory
references to “textbooks” with a reference to “instructional materials.” (TEC § 31.002(1).)
Instructional Materials Allotment: In 2011, the Texas Legislature created the Instructional Materials Fund
which provides state funding for school districts, charter schools, and juvenile justice alternative education
programs (JJAEP) to purchase “instructional materials,” technology equipment that directly supports
classroom instruction, and certain technology-related services. Each school district, charter school, and JJAEP
is entitled to an annual Instructional Materials Allotment (IMA) based upon the number of students enrolled
on a date during the preceding school year specified by the education commissioner. The commissioner must
determine the amount of the allotment per student each year on the basis of the amount available in the
state Instructional Materials Fund. The district’s IMA is transferred from the state Instructional Materials
Fund to the district’s instructional materials account at TEA. Districts may carry forward unspent IMA funds to
the next school year. Districts may use IMA funds to purchase state-adopted instructional materials and
technology or materials and technology that are not on the state-adopted lists. (TEC § 31.0211.)
Interest and Sinking Fund (I&S) Tax: Also called the debt service tax. A tax levied by school districts to
pay the interest and principal on district-issued bonds, usually for construction of facilities and other
capital needs.
Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program (JJAEP): In counties with populations greater than
125,000, the juvenile board must develop a JJAEP approved by the Texas Juvenile Probation
Commission. In these larger counties, students who engage in conduct requiring expulsion under
Chapter 37 of the Texas Education Code must be placed in a JJAEP. (TEC § 37.011.)
Local Fund Assignment (LFA): The portion of the foundation program allotment required to be paid by
school districts using local property tax revenue. The greater the property wealth of a district, the higher
the LFA and the lower the amount of state aid the district will receive. (See also “Foundation School
Program,” Glossary.)
Maintenance and Operations (M&O) Tax: The local property tax rate levied by school boards to
generate revenue which the board may use to operate and maintain the district’s schools.
Municipal School District (MSD): A school district whose boundaries correspond precisely to city limits
and whose governance is shaped in part by city officials. (TEC § 11.303.)
Nonconforming Textbook List: In 2011, the Legislature eliminated the conforming and nonconforming
lists and changed the method by which school districts purchase instructional materials. Previously, the
nonconforming list was one of two lists to which the SBOE assigned state-adopted textbooks. The
“nonconforming list” included state-adopted textbooks that covered at least 50 percent of the TEKS for
the subject and grade level, were free from error, and met applicable physical specifications. If a school
district selected a textbook from the nonconforming list, the state paid the percentage of the cost equal
to the percentage of TEKS addressed in the material; the school district was responsible for the
remainder of the cost. (See also “Instructional Materials and Technology Purchasing,” Issue Brief;
“Conforming Textbook List,” Glossary.)
Open-Enrollment Charter Schools: Texas open-enrollment charter schools are public schools authorized
(via a charter) by the SBOE and operated by certain “eligible entities,” including nonprofit organizations,
universities, or local government groups. Charters are granted for a period of five years. Charter schools
receive state and federal funding like traditional public schools but have no taxable property from which
to generate local tax revenue. Open-enrollment charter schools are exempt from many state mandates
but are required to comply with the state and federal accountability laws. (TEC § 12.101–.135.)
Open Meetings Act (OMA) and Social Media: The Open Meetings Act was adopted to help make
governmental decision making accessible to the public. It requires meetings of governmental bodies to
be open to the public, except for expressly authorized closed sessions, and to be preceded by public
notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the meeting. The provisions of the OMA are mandatory
and are to be liberally construed in favor of open government. The application of the OMA to social
media, such as texting, blogs, Facebook, and Twitter, is raising many novel questions, particularly when
a quorum of a school board interacts using social media. (Texas Government Code Chapter 551.)
Open-Source Textbook: Online instructional material that is available for download from the Internet at
no charge and without requiring a membership, the purchase of a code to unlock content, or other
access or use charges, except for a charge to order an optional printed copy of all or part of the
textbook. The term includes a state-developed open-source textbook. (TEC § 31.002(1-a).)
Permanent School Fund (PSF): The PSF is a perpetual trust fund created with a $2 million appropriation
by the Texas Legislature in 1854 expressly for the benefit of the public schools of Texas. The Constitution
of 1876 stipulated that PSF also should include certain lands and all proceeds from the sale of these
lands, and subsequent legislation gave more land and rights to the PSF. The SBOE administers the PSF.
Earnings on the PSF’s investments are distributed annually into the Available School Fund. The SBOE
must set aside 50 percent of the annual distribution for the Legislature to appropriate to the state’s
Instructional Materials Fund, and the remainder must be apportioned on a per-capita basis to districts
for students enrolled in Texas public schools. (TEC Chapter 43.)
Permanent School Fund Bond Guarantee Program: The bond guarantee program (BGP) allows for
bonds that are properly issued by a school district to be fully guaranteed by the corpus of PSF, on
approval by the commissioner of education. Bonds guaranteed by the PSF receive “AAA” ratings from
the major bond-rating services. Therefore, the BGP eliminates the need for districts to purchase private
bond insurance. Also, the “AAA” rating allows school districts to realize savings in interest payments to
the bondholder. These savings, in turn, are passed on to district taxpayers in the form of a lower bondservice tax rate (interest & sinking tax rate). In 2011, the Texas Legislature extended access to the BGP
to certain charter schools that can prove their ability to issue “investment-grade” debt.
Public Education Grant (PEG) Program: In 1995, legislation passed to permit students in low-performing
public schools to use a PEG to attend another public school in the student’s home district or in another
district. The amount of the PEG is the total state and local funding per student for the student’s home
district plus 10 percent. The receiving district may accept or reject the student and may not charge the
student tuition in excess of the PEG. (TEC § 42.157.)
Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS): PEIMS is the state’s education data
management system that includes information about student enrollment, student demographics, school
district revenue and expenditures, teacher salaries, etc. The data collected in PEIMS is transmitted from
local school districts to the Texas Education Agency by the education service centers. (TEC § 42.006.)
Public Information Act (PIA) and Social Media: The Public Information Act defines information
collected, assembled, or maintained under law or in connection with a governmental body’s transaction
of official business. The PIA provides that public information must be made available to the public upon
request during the normal business hours of the school district, unless an exception applies that allows
or requires that the information not be made public. The application of the PIA to social media (e.g.,
texting, blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) has been challenging for school districts. While social media has
provided greater opportunities for communication among school districts, parents, staff, and
community members, the increased volume and fluidity of social media in school districts has raised
many issues related to production, retention, and destruction of electronically stored communications.
(Texas Government Code Chapter 552.)
Rollback Elections: A school board that adopts a tax rate that exceeds the rollback tax rate must call an
election so that voters within the district’s boundaries can determine whether to ratify the higher
adopted rate. The rollback rate is generally equal to the tax rate that would generate the same local tax
revenue and state aid per weighted student in daily attendance as was available the previous year.
School Board Authority: State law gives local school boards the exclusive power and duty to govern and
oversee the management of the public schools. Powers and duties not specifically delegated to the
Texas Education Agency or the State Board of Education are reserved for local trustees. (TEC § 11.151.)
School Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas (School FIRST): School FIRST is a financial
accountability rating system for Texas public schools. Districts provide financial information to the
commissioner of education on a rating worksheet. The School FIRST system rates districts based on their
answers to 22 separate questions on the rating worksheet, called indicators. The School FIRST system
assigns one of five financial accountability ratings to Texas school districts: Superior Achievement,
Above-Standard Achievement, Standard Achievement, Substandard Achievement, and Suspended-Data
Quality. The education commissioner may sanction those schools that receive Substandard Achievement
or Suspended-Data Quality. (TEC § 39.081–.086.)
Special Statutory Districts: There are six school districts in Texas created by a special legislative act but
not administered by a state government agency. These districts have no taxable property and are almost
wholly supported with state and federal money. They include public schools associated with military
bases in the San Antonio area and the Masonic House in Fort Worth. (TEC § 11.351.)
State-Administered Districts: State-administered districts are created by legislative action and funded
and administered by state government agencies, such as the Texas School for the Blind and the Texas
School for the Deaf. In addition, the Texas Youth Commission also operates a number of schools
throughout the state.
State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC): In 2005, the SBEC ceased to exist as an independent state
agency, and its employees transitioned into the TEA. SBEC still has a body of 14 appointed members that
regulates and oversees all aspects of the certification, continuing education, and standards of conduct of
public school educators. (19 Texas Administrative Code Part 7.)
State Board of Education (SBOE): A 15-member body elected by general election to staggered, four-year
terms. Each member represents one region of the state. The SBOE’s role is to provide leadership and to
adopt rules and policies for public education in the state. The board’s primary responsibilities include
overseeing the investment of the Permanent School Fund, which helps fund public schools; adopting the
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, which are the curriculum standards for the state; approving
instructional materials from which Texas school districts may choose; approving or revoking charters for
open-enrollment charter schools; adopting educator certification and ethics rules as proposed by the
State Board for Educator Certification; and developing and updating a long-range plan for public
education, such as the “Long-Range Plan for Technology.” (TEC §§ 7.101–.113, 32.001.)
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR): In spring of 2012, the STAAR assessment
replaced the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) assessment program for students in
grades 3–8. Students in the ninth grade during the spring of 2012 took the EOC exams, but students who
were in grades 10–12 during the same time will take the TAKS tests until they graduate. The most
significant differences between the TAKS and the STAAR assessment systems are: the STAAR tests are
more rigorous and have higher passing standards than the TAKS; in high school, the more general gradelevel-based TAKS tests have been replaced with course-based end-of-course exams (EOCs); the Algebra
II and English III EOCs assess students not only for passing but also for improvement and “postsecondary readiness”; and the performance standards on the STAAR tests are vertically aligned from
grade to grade and to external evidence of college readiness. (TEC § 39.021–.037) (See also “Assessment
and Accountability System,” Issue Brief; “Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS),” Glossary.)
Tax Ratification Elections (TREs): In 2006, the Legislature required school boards to compress their
districts’ local maintenance and operations (M&O) tax rates by one-third. For most districts, this meant
reducing the local property tax rate from $1.50 to $1. The Legislature also reset the maximum school
district M&O tax rate at $1.17 and required school districts to seek voter approval for tax rate increases
above $1.04 (in most school districts) up to the $1.17 tax cap. These elections are called “tax ratification
elections.”
Teacher Retirement System (TRS): TRS delivers retirement and related benefits authorized by law for
members and their beneficiaries.
Technology Allotment: Prior to the 2011–12 school year, school districts were entitled to $30 per ADA
to provide for technology and teacher training related to that technology. The 82nd Legislature repealed
the technology allotment and created a new allotment, the Instructional Materials Allotment (IMA),
which a district may use to purchase instructional materials, including books and online content,
technology that directly supports classroom instruction, and certain technology services.
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS): TAKS was the state assessment system prior to the
new STAAR tests. TAKS is a series of criterion-referenced tests in reading (in grades 3–9); language arts
(in grades 10 and 11); writing (in grades 4 and 7); science (in grades 5, 10, and 11); social studies (in
grades 8, 10, and 11); and mathematics (in grades 3–11). An 11th-grade exit-level TAKS test assesses
English III, Algebra I, Geometry, Biology, Integrated Chemistry and Physics, early American and US
History, World Geography, and World History.
Texas Education Agency (TEA): The administrative and regulatory unit for the Texas public education
system managed by the commissioner of education. Section 7.021 of the Texas Education Code sets out
TEA’s powers and duties: “The agency shall administer and monitor compliance with education
programs required by federal or state law, including federal funding and state funding for those
programs.” TEA is responsible for implementing public education policies as established by the federal
government, State Legislature, State Board of Education, and commissioner of education. (TEC § 7.021–
.037.)
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS): Subject-specific state learning objectives adopted by the
State Board of Education. The state’s academic assessments are aligned with the TEKS. (TEC § 39.021.)
Texas Virtual School Network (TxVSN): TEA offers state-supported online high school courses to
students across the state through the TxVSN. TEA administers the TxVSN under the leadership of the
commissioner of education, sets standards for and approves virtual courses and professional
development for online teachers, and has fiscal responsibility for the network. The Region 10 Education
Service Center reviews the TxVSN courses and operates the network, along with the Harris County
Department of Education.
Texas school districts rated “Academically Acceptable” or higher, “Recognized” open-enrollment charter
schools, regional education service centers, and public or private colleges and universities may apply to
offer virtual courses. TxVSN providers offer high school courses that are part of the state’s required K–12
curriculum and Advanced Placement and dual-credit courses. The courses must be aligned with all of the
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for the course or grade level, meet national standards for
online courses, be taught by a Texas-certified instructor trained in online instruction, and must be
approved by the TEA. (TEC Chapter 30A.) (See also “Virtual Schools and Online Courses,” Issue Brief.)
Textbook: See “Instructional Materials,” Glossary.
Textbook Funding: See “Instructional Materials Allotment,” Glossary.
University Interscholastic League (UIL): Operated through The University of Texas at Austin, UIL is the
governing organization for most public school extracurricular activities throughout the state. Rulemaking
authority for the UIL lies with its members and the State Board of Education.
Vouchers: The term “voucher” usually refers to a program that provides public funds to students to
attend private or parochial (religious) schools. Vouchers are actually a subset of a larger political
movement referred to as “school choice.” Texas legislators have filed but have not passed bills creating
voucher programs for students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged students, and all Texas
students. (See also “Public School Choice,” Issue Brief.)
Wealth: In school finance, the wealth of a district is measured in the taxable value of its property per
weighted student in average daily attendance (WADA).
Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA): In Texas, school districts receive additional or “weighted”
funding for students with special educational needs in order to help recognize the additional costs of
educating those students. State law assigns a funding weight to students enrolled in the following
programs: special education, career and technical education, English as a second language, gifted and
talented, and compensatory education. These weights, enacted into law in 1984, have remained mostly
unchanged. The most recent change to the weights was the creation of the regular program adjustment
factor (RPAF) during the 2011 legislative session. The RPAF, which is set to expire on September 1, 2015,
funds students in the regular program at 98 percent of what the school finance formulas would
otherwise deliver. (TEC § 42.151–.156.)
West Orange-Cove v. Neeley: In 2001, plaintiff school districts led by West Orange-Cove ISD sued the
state, claiming that locally imposed property taxes had become an unconstitutional state property tax
and that the state had underfunded public education. The plaintiffs were joined by nearly 300
intervener districts also making claims about inadequate funding. The plaintiffs prevailed at the trial
court level. On appeal, the Texas Supreme Court held that local school property taxes had become state
property taxes in violation of the Texas Constitution and that school districts lacked meaningful
discretion in setting tax rates. The supreme court did not find the Texas school finance system to be
inefficient, inadequate, or unsuitable. However, the court’s opinion was that structural defects in the
system will continue to expose the system to constitutional challenge until the system is overhauled.
Zero Tolerance: “Zero tolerance” is a term that correlates with how a district disciplines a student. If a
student commits an act, the student is punished accordingly. In 2009, the Texas Legislature decided
mitigating factors should be considered before a student receives his or her punishment. A district must
now consider if the act was in self-defense, what the intent was, whether the action was connected to a
disability, and/or the student’s disciplinary history. (TEC § 37.001.)

a guide to texas public education

Transcription

Similar documents

The Destination is Worth the Journey! Call 877

Village at Cedar Park

How it works… Get moving….hop a bus and see Waco!

Private Drinking Water Well Basics

RN-to-BSN or RN-to-MSN Education

Print Flyer - Texas Alliance of Land Brokers

Friday the 13th! June 13th-14th, 2014

Foodie Guide - State Fair of Texas

Private Jet Charter Fact Sheet

Home Makeover - Eagle Lake Headlight