EDGEWOOD ISD, MCALLEN ISD, SAN BENITO CISD, LA FERIA

+
Welcome
83rd Texas Legislative
Session: Understanding
the Impact on Children
Who We Are
• CHILDREN AT RISK is a data-driven research and
advocacy nonprofit organization that drives change
for Texas’ children through strategic research,
education, legal action, and public policy.
+
• Focus areas include:
• physical and mental health
• food insecurity and nutrition
• parenting
• education
• juvenile justice
• human trafficking
+
Executive
This session
children of Texas
were given a
voice on the
issues that affect
their lives and
future
Summary
This session, CHILDREN AT RISK:
 tracked over 968 pieces of legislation
 testified on over 45 bills.
 41 of the 45 bills passed, including 24 priority bills
 drafted language for 11 bills, 10 of which passed.
+ Major Issues
•
•
•
•
•
Education
Health
Juvenile Justice
Child Welfare
Human Trafficking
+
Public
Education
In 2012, 71% of
Texas districts
failed to meet
Adequate Yearly
Progress standards
set by NCLB.
More than half (59.1 percent) of Texas public school
students are economically disadvantaged
+ Major Issues
•
Budget
•
Extended Learning Opportunities
•
School Testing
•
Administrators & Teachers Education
•
Accountability & Assessment
+
Budget
83rd Legislature was faced with :

Historic Cuts
CHILDREN AT RISK’s Study: Doing
More with Less? Public Education in
a New Fiscal Reality

Law Suites

Public Officials

Growing Population

Superintendents

Foundations

Impact of School Districts

Findings/Recommendations
+
Passed Legislation
Expanded
Learning
Opportunities
• SB 503
establishes the
Expanded
Learning
Opportunities
Council.
Testing
• HB 5 reduces the
amount of end of
course exams,
establishes a new
accountability
system for school
districts, and
allows students to
choose a diploma
endorsement.
Charter School
Accountability
• SB 2 is a
comprehensive
bill that
addresses
authorizing,
governing, and
establishing
charter schools
in Texas.
+
Passed Legislation
Teacher Quality
HB 1952 requires
each administrator,
who oversees
student discipline,
to attend
professional
development
training relating to
school discipline
every three years.
HB 642 specifies
how many hours in
particular
categories
teachers,
principals, and
counselors must
take to renew their
respective
certifications.
HB 1751 amends
the Educator
Excellence
Innovation
Program to
encourage districts
to develop
comprehensive
innovation plans
for student and
teacher
development.
+
Passed Legislation
STEM

HB 2201 requires the SBOE to approve at
least six courses related to career and
technology education

HB 1926 increase the providers for the
State Virtual School Network and includes
accountability provisions.
+
Missed Opportunities
• HB 3003: school transitional program for
juveniles spending 30 days in juvenile
justice facilities, residential treatment
centers, and hospitals.
• Of the 5.4 billion cut last session, only 3.9
billion was restored this session.
+
Physical &
Mental
Health
.
Texas is ranked first as having the highest
percentage of uninsured residents and second as
having the highest uninsured rate among children.
+ Major Issues
Immunizations
Parenting
Education
Neonatal and
Maternal
Health
Mental Health
Detection and
Treatment
+
Passed Legislation
Immunizations
SB 63 authorizes a pregnant minor to consent not only to her
child’s immunization, but to consent to her own immunizations.
SB 64 requires a childcare facility to develop and implement
an immunization policy for employees in order to protect the
children in the facility’s care from vaccine-preventable
diseases.
+
Passed Legislation
Maternal Health
SB 495 establishes a maternal mortality/morbidity
task force to make recommendations to reduce rates.
HB 2620 creates a domestic violence task force to
examine the impact of domestic violence on
maternal and infant mortality.
Texas’ maternal mortality rate has quadrupled over
the last 15 years from 6.1 in 1996 to 24.6 out of
100,000 births in 2010.
+
Passed Legislation
Mental Health in School
SB 460 requires teacher certification programs to
include instruction in the detection of students with
mental and emotional disorders.
SB 831 expands the list of best practice-based early
mental health intervention and suicide prevention
programs that school districts can implement and
make the information more accessible.
+
Passed Legislation
Consent for Treatment
• SB 718 allows for a
minor (16 years or
older) to voluntarily
request admission to
an inpatient/outpatient
facility for treatment
and gives CPS the
authority to admit
without consent.
Parenting
• SB 426 seeks to
improve outcomes for
at-risk populations by
promoting the use of
evidence-based home
visiting programs.
+
Missed Opportunities
SB 40 & HB 772 would have changed the current immunization registry
from an opt-in to an opt-out option.
HB 3791 & HB 593, and many other bills would have allowed for the
expansion of Medicaid here in Texas.
+
Nutrition
&
Childhood
Obesity
36%
More than
of Texas children
age 10-17 years
are overweight or
obese.
In Texas, more than 1.8 million children experience
food insecurity which places Texas 11th highest in
child food insecurity in the nation.
+ Major Issues
•
School Breakfast Expansion
•
Physical Fitness
•
School Nutrition Standards
Percentage of children
classified as overweight
or obese by the 2012
FITNESSGRAM
assessment
47%
Harris County
46%
Texas Average
+ Passed
Food
Insecurity
Legislation
• SB 376 expands the school breakfast program to the entire
student body at campuses that have 80% or more economically
disadvantaged students.
• HB 749 focuses on developing and implementing no-cost
strategies to increase participation and access in the summer
Increased
food service program.
Access
Physical
Fitness
• HB 1018 instructs a school district’s school health advisory
council to establish a physical activity and fitness planning
subcommittee with the goal of increasing physical activity and
fitness. Encourages joint land use agreements to be examined.
+
Missed Opportunities
HB 217: Limiting sugary drinks in
schools
SB 65: Recognizing healthy schools
SB 403: Building grocers’ capacity in
food desert areas
+
JUVENILE
JUSTICE
59% of
youth in the
Juvenile justice
system come
from low income
families
In 2010 there were 86,548
formal referrals of youths to juvenile
probation
+ Major Issues
Juvenile
probation is the
largest
mental health
provider for
youth in Texas
Monitoring
the Texas
Juvenile
Justice
Merger
Information
Sharing
Ticketing in
School
Mental
Health
Services
Law
Enforcement
Training
+
Passed Legislation
SB 393 strives to reduce the use of
Class C tickets by requiring
schools to consider other
sanctioning options.
SB 395 allows fines
to be waived or
community service
to be performed for
children convicted
of fine-only
misdemeanors.
School
Discipline
SB 1114 Mandates dismissal of tickets if
campus does not comply with Truancy
Prevention and Class Disruption
Programs and if progressive sanctions
were not implemented.
+
Passed Legislation
Specialty
Courts
Confidentiality
• SB 462 improves
accountability and identifies
best practices in Texas’ drug
and mental health specialty
courts.
• HB 528 closes loophole by
making records related to
fine-only misdemeanors
confidential for all juveniles,
whether or not they have
been convicted.
+
Missed Opportunities
SB 1115
Requires schools to report the ethnicity of students placed in
Alternative Programs & implement an improvement plan, if
necessary
HB 918
Requires the superintendent of a school district to submit a
report that contains the number of citations and arrest made of
students
+
In 2012 Texas had
Child
Welfare
74,258
confirmed
cases of child
abuse & neglect
Children in abusive situations are
more likely to do poorly in school,
have emotional and behavioral
problems, and enter into the Juvenile
Justice System
+ Major Issues
•
Child Abuse
•
Foster Care
•
Access to services
The myriad of negative
226 child
deaths
are related to
abuse or neglect
in Texas
effects
of child maltreatment include
• emotional/behavioral problems
• poor performance in school,
• an increased likelihood of contact
with the juvenile justice system
•
+
Passed Legislation
Foster Care
SB 832 Schools will provide liaison
information to the TEA, and the TEA will
provide training information to the liaisons.
SB 833 allows school districts to track data
through the PIEMS on students in foster
care
+
Passed Legislation
Access to
Mental Health
Services
• SB 44 requires DFPS to report
the number of children with
severe emotional
disturbances who are in state
custody because custody was
voluntary relinquished to
obtain mental health
services.
+
Missed Opportunities
SB 1583:
would have extended the family court’s
jurisdiction until the child’s 21st birthday
for the sole purpose of issuing a special
immigration visa.
There are many foreign children who find
themselves in Texas after fleeing their home country
due to prior abuse, abandonment, or neglect. The
Special Immigrant Juvenile visa exists to provide
these children with immigration relief
+
I-10 corridor is
#1
the
human
trafficking
route in the U.S
Human
Trafficking
As many as
1 in 4
victims pass
through
Texas
As many as 300,000 U.S. children
are at risk for sexual exploitation,
including sex trafficking
+ Major Issues
Prosecution of
traffickers and
“johns”
Restitution for
Victims
Minor Sex
Trafficking
Criminalization
of Victims
+
Passed Legislation
Specialty Courts
Minimum
Standards for
Shelters
• SB 92: encourages the use of diversion
programs and community based services
when there is cause to believe a child is a
human trafficking victim.
• HB 2725 establishes minimum standards of
care and allows for confidentiality of
employees, clients, and location of shelters
that serve human trafficking survivors
+
Passed Legislation
Awareness
• HB 432: Allows charitable contributions by state
employees to assist domestic victims of human
trafficking.
• HB 1272 requires the Human Trafficking
Prevention Task Force to develop curriculum to
train medical providers, child welfare, and school
personnel to identify human trafficking victims.
• HB 1120 includes trafficking of persons on list of
offenses where financial reward is available
through Crime Stoppers.
+
Passed Legislation
Enhanced Penalties
• HB 3241: Creates the civil offense of racketeering related to
human trafficking.
• SB 12 allows evidence of prior similar offenses to be
admitted in cases involving certain sexual offenses against a
child.
• SB 94 provides opportunity to human trafficking survivors to
seek civil remedies from traffickers and publishers of
advertisements about their compelled prostitution.
+
Passed Legislation
HB 8: Broadens class of individuals eligible to file an application
for a protective order to all survivors of human trafficking, makes
trafficking survivors eligible for reimbursement for relocation and
housing expenses. Adds compelling prostitution to the list of
felonies with no statute of limitation concerning traffickers and
“johns”.
HCR 57:
Resolution requesting that the lieutenant governor
and the speaker of the house of representatives create a joint
interim committee to study human trafficking in Texas and submit a
full report to the 84th Legislature in January, 2015.
+
Missed Opportunities
• SB 1520/HB 3407 would have
developed a set of recommended
best practices for identifying victims
of human sex trafficking in the TJJD
• Victims are still being criminalized in
the court system
+
Conclusion

During the 83rd Session, the Legislature certainly used this
opportunity to pass significant improvements to our state’s
laws regarding children. But as this Report shows, there were
missed opportunities as well.

CHILDREN AT RISK applauds the advocates and
policymakers who work diligently to help make children a
priority in Texas. With their continued efforts we will work
together to improve the lives of Texas children.
+
Thank You!
Q
&A
Contact
Information:
Mandi Kimball, Director of Public
Policy and Government Relations:
[email protected]
or
713.869.7740
TEXAS SCHOOL FINANCE WHERE DO
WE GO FROM HERE?
Presented by: Philip Fraissinet
Thompson & Horton LLP
October 31, 2013
Figure 2. Annual Growth in Public School
Enrollment: 2007-08 through 2011-12
2007-08
4,651,516
89,829
1.9%
2008-09
4,728,204
102,491
2.2%
2009-10
4,824,778
119,137
2.5%
2010-11
4,912,385
133,697
2.7%
2011-12
4,978,120
154,278
3.10%
2,572,093
55.3%
774,719
16.7%
1,619,426
34.8%
2,193,345
47.2%
663,705
14.3%
2,681,474
56.7%
799,801
16.9%
1,608,515
34.0%
2,264,367
47.9%
669,371
14.2%
2,848,067
59.0
815,998
16.9%
1,607,212
33.3%
2,342,680
48.6%
676,523
14.0%
2,909,554
59.2%
830,795
16.9%
1,531,757
31.2%
2,468,574
50.3%
635,400
12.9%
3,008,464
60.4%
837,536
16.8%
1,520,320
30.5%
2,530,789
50.8%
637,934
12.8%
Moak, Casey & Associates
Enrollment
Total Public School Enrollment
Charter School Enrollment
Percent Charter School Enrollment
Low Income/Economically
Disadvantaged
Percent Low Income/Ec. Disadvantaged
English Language Learners
Percent English Language Learners
White
Percent White
Hispanic
Percent Hispanic
African American
Percent African American
October 2012
Source: TEA AEIS database, various years. PEIMS membership counts
for 2011-12.
80
Figure 49. Pre-K – 12 Public Education Revenue
per Student, in 2004 Dollars
$8,000
$7,415
$7,128
$7,000
Moak, Casey & Associates
$6,293
October 2012
Source: MCA Analysis of Figure 181 from LBB Fiscal Size-Up. Adjusted for payment
delays and enrollment.
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
43
Federal
State
Local
Total
82nd Texas Legislature (2011)
Cuts in State Spending
 Total - $15.2B
 Public Education - $5.4B
 FSP - $4B
 Other $1.4B
 HHS - $3.1B
 Higher Education - $1.3B
 Medicaid underfunded - $4+B
83rd Texas Legislature (2013)
Funds Available
 Surplus - $8.8B
 Rainy Day Fund - $11.8B
(at end of August 2015)
 Total Available GR - $101.4B
 RDF Spent - $3.95B ($7.85B balance)
83rd Texas Legislature (2013)
Increased Pub Ed Funding
SB1 and HB1025
 FSP increase - $3.4B
 SB1 - $3.2B
 HB1025 - $201.7M
 Grants & Allotments - $292M
Growth in Property Values
 FSP increase - $1.4B
 Net FSP State increase - $2B
CAUSE NO. D-1-GV-11-003130
TEXAS TAXPAYER & STUDENT
FAIRNESS COALITION, et al.,
Pl
aintiffs,
VS.
MICHAEL WILLIAMS, et al.,
D
efendants.
Consolidated Case
FORT BEND INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,
Pl
aintiffs,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
250th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
MICHAEL WILLIAMS, et al.,
D
48
Texas Constitutional Provisions
•ARTICLE VII, SECTION 1
-A general diffusion of knowledge being essential
to the preservation of the liberties and rights of
the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature
of the State to establish and make suitable
provision for the support and maintenance of an
efficient system of public free schools.
•ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 1-e
- No State ad valorem taxes shall be levied upon
any property within this State
49
Supreme Court
on State Property Tax
Meaningful Discretion
“An ad valorem tax is a state tax … when the State so completely
controls the levy, assessment and disbursement of revenue, either
directly or indirectly, that the authority employed is without
meaningful discretion.”
Need for Local Supplementation
•
Local Districts must be able to provide local supplementation to
fund programming beyond state educational requirements.
•
“The State cannot provide for local supplementation, pressure most
of the districts by increasing accreditation standards in an
environment of increasing costs to tax at maximum rates in order to
afford any supplementation at all, and then argue that it is not
controlling tax rates.”
50
Supreme Court
on Adequacy
•Warned that it remains to be seen whether
Legislature will reverse the “predicted drift toward
constitutional inadequacy.”
•Characterized the situation as “an impending
constitutional violation.”
•There is “substantial evidence . . . that the public
education system has reached a point where
continued improvement will not be possible absent
significant change.”
51
Supreme Court
on Arbitrariness
• “It would be arbitrary, for example, for the
Legislature to define the goals for
accomplishing the constitutionally required
general diffusion of knowledge, and then to
provide insufficient means for achieving those
goals.”
52
Supreme Court
on Efficiency
• “Constitutional efficiency under article VII,
section 1 requires only that districts must have
substantially equal access to funding up to the
legislatively defined level that achieves the
constitutional mandate of a general diffusion of
knowledge. ”
• “The effect of [holding otherwise] is to ‘level
down’ the quality of our public school system, a
consequence which is universally regarded as
undesirable from an educational perspective.”
53
Supreme Court
on Suitability
• “[T]he Legislature may [not] define what
constitutes a general diffusion of knowledge so
low as to avoid its obligation to make suitable
provision imposed by article VII, section 1.”
• “‘[S]uitable provision’ requires that the public
school system be structured, operated, and
funded so that it can accomplish its purpose for
all Texas children.”
54
Figure 57. Relationship Between Percent
Economically Disadvantaged and 2011 Revenue
per WADA
Under 10%
10% to under
30%
30% to under
50%
50% to under
70%
70% to under
90%
90% and over
Grand Total
ADA
WADA
FSP Revenue
Revenue per
ADA
Revenue per
WADA
30,219
34,415
$225,853,345
$7,474
$6,563
570,856
697,294
$4,244,405,813
$7,435
$6,087
808,325
1,020,791
$5,892,091,212
$7,289
$5,772
1,276,001
1,698,012
$7,551
$5,674
1,298,873
1,793,660
$9,635,063,254
$10,022,020,91
0
$7,716
$5,587
221,735
316,250
$7,915
$5,550
4,206,008
5,560,423
$1,755,071,075
$31,774,505,60
9
$7,555
$5,714
Moak, Casey & Associates
% Economically
Disadvantaged
October 2012
Source: Calculated by MCA from TEA files.
53
Figure 58. Scatter Plots of the Relationship between
Performance and Percent Economically Disadvantaged
60
40
20
R² = 0.5736
0
0
20
40
60
80
% Commended - Math
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
R² = 0.6291
0
20
40
% Commended - All
R² = 0.6097
0
20
40
60
80
100
80
49
% At or Above Criterion - SAT/ACT
2010-11 % Economic Disadvantaged vs. % Commended Reading
Districts > 1,000 ADA
60
% Economic Disadvatnaged
2010-11 % Economic Disadvantaged vs. % Commended ALL
Districts > 1,000 ADA
October 2012
80
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Moak, Casey & Associates
100
% Economic Disadvatnaged
2010-11 % Economic Disadvantaged vs. % At or Above
Criterion - SAT/ACT
Districts > 1,000 ADA
120
% Economic Disadvatnaged
% Economic Disadvatnaged
2010-11 % Economic Disadvantaged vs. %
Commended - Math
Districts > 1,000 ADA
150
100
50
R² = 0.7567
0
0
20
40
60
% Commended - Reading
Figure 59. WADA Index and Revenue per WADA under
the 2010-11 Current Law Definition of WADA,
Districts > 1,000 ADA
Performance Measure
District Rating
Unacceptable
Acceptable
Recognized
Exemplary
# Districts
# ADA
# WADA
WADA Ratio
Revenue per WADA
15
271
182
10
35,360
2,509,239
1,582,587
78,823
51,067
3,367,847
2,050,021
91,488
1.4442
1.3422
1.2954
1.1607
$5,495
$5,645
$5,801
$6,474
97
257
83
41
353,153
2,296,522
966,646
589,687
500,365
3,111,911
1,229,553
718,594
1.4169
1.3551
1.2720
1.2186
$5,596
$5,593
$5,835
$6,115
198
133
102
45
478
1,740,074
1,023,584
988,226
454,125
4,206,008
2,399,798
1,361,689
1,250,037
548,898
5,560,423
1.3791
1.3303
1.2649
1.2087
1.3220
$5,592
$5,693
$5,757
$6,207
$5,714
% Commended - Math
< 20%
20% to < 30%
30% to < 40%
40% and Greater
Moak, Casey & Associates
Current Law
October 2012
Source: Moak, Casey litigation model. Districts with less than 1,000 ADA were excluded from this formula.
% Satisfactory on 2012 STAAR five tests
<= 40%
41% to 52%
53% to 64%
65% and Greater
STATE TOTALS
54
Moak, Casey & Associates
Sec. 42.007. EQUALIZED FUNDING ELEMENTS. (a) The Legislative
Budget Board shall adopt rules, subject to appropriate notice and
opportunity for public comment, for the calculation for each year of
a biennium of the qualified funding elements, in accordance with
Subsection (c), necessary to achieve the state policy under Section
42.001.
(b) Before each regular session of the legislature, the board
shall, as determined by the board, report the equalized funding
elements to the commissioner and the legislature.
(c) The funding elements must include:
(1) a basic allotment for the purposes of Section
42.101 that, when combined with the guaranteed yield component
provided by Subchapter F, represents the cost per student of a
regular education program that meets all mandates of law and
regulation;
(2) adjustments designed to reflect the variation in
known resource costs and costs of education beyond the control of
school districts;
November 2012
Figure 3. Education Code Provision for Studies
on School Funding Formula Elements
7
Moak, Casey & Associates
Sec. 42.007. EQUALIZED FUNDING ELEMENTS con’t.
(3) appropriate program cost differentials and other
funding elements for the programs authorized under
Subchapter C, with the program funding level expressed as
dollar amounts and as weights applied to the adjusted basic
allotment for the appropriate year;
(4) the maximum guaranteed level of qualified state and
local funds per student for the purposes of Subchapter F;
(5) the enrichment and facilities tax rate under
Subchapter F;
6) the computation of students in weighted average daily
attendance under Section 42.302; and
(7) the amount to be appropriated for the school
facilities assistance program under Chapter 46.
November 2012
Figure 3. Education Code Provision for Studies
on School Funding Formula Elements con’t.
8
STAAR EOC RESULTS
2013 1st time testers – 421,875
total tests failed
2012 1st timer – 421,042
total tests failed
Moak, Casey & Assocates
61
STATUS OF LAWSUIT
February 4, 2013 – Judge Dietz orally rules that
system violates Texas Constitution
June 19, 2013 – Judge Dietz grants Motion to ReOpen Evidence
January 6, 2014 – Trial resumes, with 6 weeks
allocated
IMPACT OF STATE BUDGET
CUTS ON PUBLIC EDUCATION
Dr. Bob Sanborn, President & CEO
CHILDREN AT RISK
Texas 82nd Legislature Cut $5.4 Billion
From Public Education

$1.4 billion in discretionary grants
 Technology
allotment
 Pre-Kindergarten
 School bus seatbelts
 And more….

$4 billion in formula funding
 8%
cut in 2011-2012
 10% cut in 2012-2013
Texas Public Education Cuts:
Impact Assessment

Quantitative Data Collection: School District Survey

Phase I Survey


Stratified Random Sample of 120 school districts and a
nonrandom sample of 15+ major urban school districts
Phase II Survey

Balance of school districts (900)

Qualitative interviews at the district and campus level

Non-Profit Survey
Superintendent Advisory Committee
Heath Burns
Curtis Culwell
Karen Garza
Abilene ISD
Garland ISD
Lubbock ISD
Wanda Bamberg
Terry Grier
Kirk Lewis
Aldine ISD
Houston ISD
Pasadena ISD
Robert McLain
Guy Sconzo
Daniel King
Channing ISD
Humble ISD
Pharr-San Juan-Alamos ISD
Mark Henry
Thomas Randle
Duncan Klussmann (Chair)
Cypress-Fairbanks ISD
Lamar CISD
Spring Branch ISD
Nola Wellman
Bret Champion
Eanes ISD
Leander ISD
Over 400 School Districts Participated
65% of the Student Population in Texas
Findings from Impact Assessment
Finding 1
There was great diversity as to how
school districts were affected by and
responded to the cuts.
Basic Trends Emerged

Reduced expenditures
 Staffing
& Line item
 Cost containment strategies

Diversified Revenue Streams
 Grants
 User
fees
 Tax Ratification Election & Fund Balance
Districts Are Pursuing Alternate
Revenue Streams

Grants
 Public,

private and corporate
Creative Solutions
 Advertising,

trademarking mascot, logo
Increased or instituted user fees
Finding 2
In absolute terms urban/suburban schools lost
more state aid but in per pupil terms rural/town
districts lost more per student.
Survey: On Average Urban Districts
Lost More Money Than Rural Districts
Survey: On Average Rural Districts Lost
More Money Per Pupil
Finding 3
Districts wanted to avoid teacher layoffs
at all costs. However, payroll expenses
make up the bulk of school district
spending. Consequently, many districts
were unable to avoid a reduction in
teaching staff which was achieved through
attrition.
Statewide: Staff Positions Reduced in
2011-2012
12000
10,717 (-3%)
10000
8000
6,973 (-4%)
6000
4,863 (-7%)
4000
2,188 (-4%)
2000
545 (-2%)
0
Professional
Teaching
Professional
Support
Professional Paraprofessional
Administrative
Auxiliary
Statewide: Teachers Cut Across
Grade Levels
Survey: Most Staffing Cuts Achieved
Through Attrition
Finding 4
Instituting or increasing cost containment
measures was popular among school
districts as a means to reduce overhead.
Survey: Top Cost Containment
Strategies in 2011-2012
Survey: Top Cost Containment
Strategies in 2012-2013
Finding 5
Reducing expenditures was a necessity for
districts however district size and geographic
location impacted how they trimmed their
budgets.
Survey: Top Budgetary Reductions in
2011-2012
Survey: Top Budgetary Reductions in
2012-2013
Different Districts Made Different Cuts

In 2011 urban and suburban school districts were
more likely to cut:
 Guidance
counseling services
 Social work services
 Health services
 Libraries

In 2012 lower poverty districts were more likely to
cut student support and interventions
Finding 6
Average class sizes have increased at the
elementary and secondary level.
Small Class Size as an Education
Policy Priority


Research and evidence based practice show small
class size yields positive academic gains for minority
and high poverty students
State education policy has historically prioritized
small class size initiatives
Statewide: K-4 Class Size
Waivers Increased
Finding 7
Despite extensive research
demonstrating the importance of early
education, districts have reported
changes to their pre-k programs.
High Quality Early Childhood
Education Programs Work

Minority and high poverty children who engage in
high quality early education programs are more
likely to:
 Have
higher cognitive tests scores
 Achieve
more years of education and are more likely
to attend college
 Maintain
academic gains in math & reading into early
adulthood
Survey: 12% of districts reported a
change in pre-k offerings

Of those districts that reported a change in pre-k
programing:
 9%
saw a decrease in pre-k offerings
 Over
79,500 students were affected by decreases in
pre-k
 13
high-poverty districts reduced pre-k programs
Finding 8
The budget cuts prompted many districts
to examine their operations to find
efficiencies.
Opportunity for Efficiencies
Operations
 Energy
audits
 Increased monitoring
of water usage
 Rebid contracts
 Waste management
audits
Transportation
 Cluster
stops
 Rerouting buses
 Reducing catchment
area by miles and
student grade level
Best Practices

Increased collaboration

Low central administrative overhead

Achieving economies of scale
Finding 9
High-quality differentiated instruction has been
compromised.
Larger Classrooms Mean…

Less time for one on one instruction

Small group activities have become larger

Less time for detailed, individualized feedback and
support
Fewer Teachers and Teachers Aides
Mean…



Teachers have less support
Teachers have larger course loads and have lost
critical planning periods
Decrease in student remediation
Districts Struggle to Attract and Retain
Top Talent
Contributing factors include:
 Decreased
morale
 Reduced professional development
 Wage reductions
 Stagnant salaries
 Increased workloads
Some school districts are losing their competitive edge
Texas 83rd Legislature Partial
Restoration

$3.2B more in General Revenue to TEA than 2012-13
budget
Fails to raise per-student funding to pre-recession levels
 Per student funding will drop to $9,609


Basic allotment increased by $200M


$4,950 FY2014 and $5,040 FY2015
~$97M added to new or restructured educational
grant programs


$25M in enhanced funding to the Regional Educational
Service Centers
$30M in supplemental Pre-K funding (14% of the amount
cut from the expansion grant)
THANK YOU TO OUR FUNDERS
Genevieve and Ward Orsinger Foundation
Kathryn & Beau Ross Foundation
KDK-Harman Foundation
Powell Foundation
Meadows Foundation
M.R. and Evelyn Hudson Foundation
RGK Foundation
San Antonio Area Foundation
The Simmons Foundation
The Trull Foundation
Wright Family Foundation
For more information or to read
CHILDREN AT RISK’S full report
Doing More With Less? Public Education in
a New Fiscal Reality
please visit www.childrenatrisk.org
Education Reform Panel
 David Anthony (Raise Your Hand Texas)
 Mike Feinberg (KIPP)
 Scott Hochberg (Former TX State Representative)
 Vanessa Ramirez (KIPP/ReVision/Eight Million
Stories)
 Jason Sabo, Moderator (Frontera Strategy)
Children At Risk
Children’s Law Symposium
Education and Immigration
Marisa Bono,
Staff Attorney, MALDEF
[email protected]
(210) 224-5476 ext. 204
MALDEF
110
Issues Affecting Immigrant Students

Using ELL Status as Proxy to Segregate
Santamaria v. Dallas ISD

Inadequate / Inequitable Funding for ED and ELL Students
Edgewood ISD v. Scott

Obstacles to Higher Education Based on Status
IRCOT v. Texas
Crane v. Napolitano

Inequal Educational Opportunities for ELLs
US v. Texas

2013 Legislative Session - Efforts to Decrease Monitoring and
Accountability for ELLs and Recent Arrivals
MALDEF
111
How Many Immigrant Students
Do We Have in Texas?

Students do not report, TEA does not track

17% English Language Learners
56.4% growth

45.5% Economically Disadvantaged ~ 3 mil.
59.1% growth

50.3% Latino
112
MALDEF
112
Using ELL Status as Proxy to Segregate
Santamaria v. Dallas ISD




Preston Hollow Elementary School
Latino and other minority students were
segregated into the school’s ESL
classrooms
Majority of students in ESL classes were
proficient in English - some had tested in
English and been classified GT
Separate classes, including art, music,
and PE, separate hallways
MALDEF
113
Preston Hollow Elementary Ethnic and LEP
Percentages
5A ESL Pickens Room P11
Total
26
Hispanic
22
84.6%
White
0
0%
African
American
3
11.5%
Other
0
?
0%
MALDEF
LEP
10114
34.6%
Inadequate / Inequitable Funding
for ED and ELL Students
Edgewood ISD v. Scott

Qualified / Certified Teachers

Technology / Materials/ Manipulatives

Compensatory Programs

Extended Learning Time

Smaller Class Sizes

Quality Full Day Pre-K
MALDEF
115
What the Courts have said about Adequacy
and Suitability: Must Consider Needs of All
Texas Students



“It would be ARBITRARY for the Legislature to define
the goals for accomplishing . . .[GDK], and then to provide
insufficient means for achieving those goals.” Legislature’s
choices must be informed by guiding rules and principles
properly related to education. WOC II at 785.
ALL Texas children must REASONABLY be able to have
access to a quality education. . .achieve their full potential. .
.fully participate. . . In the social, economic, and
educational opportunities of our state and nation.” WOC
II at 787.
MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITIES for ALL Texas
children to acquire the knowledge and skills and continue
to learn. . . Id.
MALDEF
116
Arbitrary Design of the Funding
Structure for ELL and ED Students









Last Changes to Funding: 1984
No accounting for inflation
No Cost Study
Need for high quality remediation and interventions has
gone up
Cut Funding for Special Programs
ECE Funding stayed the same though number of students
went up
“if funds left over basis”
Robbing Peter to Pay Paul
Where are the guiding principles?
MALDEF
117
Producing Results for All Children?
TAKS Met 2011 Standard Performance
All Tests- All Grades
90.0%
85.0%
White
86.0%
80.0%
75.0%
70.0%
65.0%
Statewide
76.0%
Latino*
71.0%
60.0%
55.0%
Econ
Disad
68.0%
50.0%
LEP
58.0% At Risk
56.0%
45.0%
40.0%
1
Source: TEA, AEIS, 2010-11 State Performance Report
* Hispanic
MALDEF
118
2011 Achievement Differences All Tests - Statewide v. LEP
Source: TEA, AEIS, 2010-11 State Performance Report
MALDEF
119
2011 TAKS Commended Performance –
All Tests- All Grades
25%
20%
15%
10%
White
23%
Statewide
16%
Latino*
11%
Econ
Disad
9%
5%
0%
LEP
7%
At Risk
4%
1
Source: TEA, AEIS, 2010-11 State Performance Report
* Hispanic
MALDEF
120
Are Texas Graduates College-Ready?
TAKS- Both Subjects, Class of 2010
70%
White
66%
60%
50%
40%
Statewide
52%
Latino*
42%
30%
20%
Econ
Disad
38%
At Risk
22%
LEP
5%
10%
0%
1
Source: TEA, AEIS, 2010-11 State Performance Report
* Hispanic
MALDEF
121
Obstacles to Higher Education Based on Status
IRCOT v. Texas
Crane v. Napolitano
IRCOT v. Texas
 HB 1403 (2001) instate tuition law provides
educational access to all qualified Texas residents,
regardless of immigration status
 IRCOT sued to enjoin, ULI intervened as defendants
Crane v. Napolitano
 Promise of Plyler for undocumented students?
 DACA challenge
 DREAMERs and ULI
MALDEF
122
Unequal Educational Opportunities for ELLs
US v. Texas



1970 – District court ordered Texas and 9 school districts to remedy
past discrimination that continued to harm the educational
achievement of minority students. MALDEF intervened to hold the
State responsible for providing equal educational opportunities to
Latino and ELLs and to remedy past de jure discrimination against
Latinos.
1981 - Court found that the State had failed to help ELLs overcome
language barriers under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act
(EEOA). During appeal, Texas expanded bilingual education to
grades K-6 and providing for English as a Second Language (ESL)
programs for middle and high schools. The Fifth Circuit held the
issue was moot because the State’s revised program must be given
a chance to work.
2006 - MALDEF filed a Motion for Further Relief against the State for
failing to effectively monitor and supervise the State’s bilingual and
ESL programs, and failure of ESL program to help secondary
students learn English.
MALDEF
123
Unequal Educational Opportunities for ELLs
US v. Texas



2008 - Judge Justice found that Texas had violated the EEOA:
under-identification of ELLs; the achievement standards for
monitoring language programs were arbitrary and not based upon
equal educational opportunity; the State’s intervention monitors
lacked bilingual and ESL certifications, resulting in the “blind leading
the blind;” the system monitored language programs only at the
district-level (not the campus-level) thus permitting successful
bilingual programs in elementary schools to mask failing ESL
programs in secondary schools; the secondary ESL program had
failed to help students learn English under the EEOA.
The Court ordered Texas to submit a revised monitoring plan and a
modified secondary language program by January 2009.
2010 – 5th Circuit reversed injunction and remanding the case to the
lower court for additional findings in order to determine whether the
State or individual districts (which have yet to be brought into the
lawsuit) should be held liable for the dismal performance of
secondary ELLs.
MALDEF
124
2013 Legislative Session - Efforts to Decrease
Monitoring and Accountability for ELLs



HB 1328 - ELL Monitoring Bill
HB 2004/ 853 – Originally proposed 3 year
acountability exemption for newcomer
ELLs
Representing school districts in litigation
and students in the legislature – ethical
conflict?
MALDEF
125
Rationale Behind Obstacles to
Educational Opportunities?
1. 21.2% increase over 10-year period to
4,933,617 (7% nationally)
2. 2010-11: Latinos 50.3%, Whites 31.2%,
Afr. Am 12.9%, As Am 3.4%
3. More than 3 out of 4 Latino students are
ED.
MALDEF
126
Rationale Behind Unequal Educational
Opportunities?
"The lesson is this, education costs money, but ignorance costs
more money." -- Judge Dietz
MALDEF
127
127
Land Use Policies and
Obesity Prevention
Robert S Ogilvie PhD
VP for Strategic Engagement
Then . . .
. . . Now
www.worldofstock.com/slides/MES3234.jpg
Now
Adult Per Capita Cigarette Consumption
and Smoking-and-Health Events 1900-1998
1st Surgeon
General’s Report
5000
Broadcast
Ad Ban
End of WW II
4000
Master
Settlement
Agreement
TV/radio
Messages
3000
1st SmokingCancer
Concern
2000
1000
Great
Depression
Nonsmoker
Rights
Movement
Marlboro
Friday
Federal Cigarette
Tax Doubles
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Source: USDA; 1986 Surgeon General's Report
Policy Results in California 1989-2008
 $2.4 billion was spent for the California
Tobacco Control Program
 $134 billion were saved in health care costs
 25% fewer tobacco related diseases
compared to the rest of the nation
What is policy
and why is
important ?
Public Policy
Society
Community
Institutions
Relationships
What do we mean by policy?
• Local ordinances
• Zoning language
• Resolutions
• Standards
• School/agency policy
language
• Contracts/agreements
• State/federal laws
• Organization/company
policies
How do you get policies
adopted?
• Engage: Get people excited about their vision for change
• Assess: What’s the problem?
What solutions are there?
• Propose: Draft a strong policy that expresses the vision
• Advocate: Identify and meet with decision makers
• Implement: Stay focused even after a policy gets
adopted
Impact of Policy
Policies can…
 change environments – permanently
 change behavior
 engage community members and local leaders
 ensure consistent implementation
 allow for enforcement
Types of
Policies to
think about
Policy Solutions
Complete streets,
trails & Safe Routes
to School
Complete Streets Policies: Principles
 Safety: from traffic and crime
 Convenience: connections to the places people want to go
 Comfort: streets designed to be pleasant for all modes
… Complete streets can be adapted to rural communities, too.
Image Source: Complete Streets on Flickr
Example: De Soto, Missouri
 Adopted a complete streets policy in 2008
 Existing opportunities:
 Former railroad town laid out in a compact grid, with an
accessible main street
 Statewide activity around complete streets policies
Why multi-use & recreational trails?
 Increases regional
connectivity & physical
activity
 Can be a smart way to
reuse infrastructure
 Well-paired with open
space conservation goals
Policy Solutions
Access to recreation
through
shared use agreements
Joint Use can show the public the value and
accessibility of our public institutions
http://www.flickr.com/photos/manyhighways/3652475343/
ublic Rights of Way
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cjb19772009/7284286040/in/pool-great_allegheny_passage
Policy Solutions
Access to healthy
food
Healthy Food
Procurement
School
Workplace Institution
& Business
Communities may improve food
procurement through…
Establishing nutritional &
sustainability standards
Better contracting practices
Audits of current procurement
infrastructure
Who is involved in changing
procurement policies?
government
producers
food industry
advocates &
service providers
…and
eaters!
Policy Solutions
School siting
Who makes siting decisions?
• School districts
• Local governments
(planning, parks, public
works)
• Regional governments
(counties, metropolitan
planning organizations)
• State laws (and state
departments of education,
transportation, health)
• Federal government
Using the Model Policies
Districts can:
• adopt initial policy
• adopt all the policies
• modify to meet local needs
and state law
Redevelopment
& Economic
Development
Land Use
Healthy Eating
Active Living
Health in all
Policies
Smoke Free
and Healthy
Housing
Healthy and Safe Schools
and Neighborhoods
a
National Prevention Council Strategies
a
National Prevention Council
Strategies
Clinical &
Community
Preventive
Services
Elimination of
Health
Disparities
Healthy &
Safe
Community
Environments
Empowered
People
↑ # of Healthy
Americans
a
National Prevention Council
Members
Health &
Human
Services,
Veterans
Labor, Housing
& Urban
Development,
Transportation
Justice, EPA,
Interior,
Agriculture
Education,
Community
Service, FTC
↑ # of Healthy
Americans
a
Baltimore: Cross Agency Health Task Force
Communities
Designed to:
Prevent
Obesity
Promote
Good Health
Heart
Health
Early
Cancer
Detection
Sexual
Health
Tobacco
Free
Access
to Quality
Health
Care
Healthy
Baltimore
2015 Priority
Areas
Mental
Health
Reduce
Drug
Use &
Alcohol
Abuse
Healthy
Children
& Teens
Public
Schools
Housing
Authority
Library
Development
Corporation,
Department of
Planning
Healthy
Baltimore
Transportation Department
Parks and Recreation
a
Ex: Seattle
Health &
Human
Potential
Economic
Growth &
Built
Environment
Justice &
Safety
King County
Equity &
Social
Justice
Environmental
Sustainability
Detention, Prosecuting
Attorney
Department of Judicial
Administration , Courts
Transportation Department
Office of Civil
Rights, Assessor
Healthy
Seattle
Department of Permitting
and Environmental Review
Natural Resources and Parks
a
Sustainability & Growth
Health &
Human
Services
CA EPA
Office of
Planning &
Research
Strategic
Growth
Council
Business,
Transportation &
Housing
Natural
Resources
a
Sustainability + Health
 Encourage
sustainable
planning &
infill
 Improve
Public Health
 Improve Air
& H20 Quality
Reduce
GHG’s
Reduce
Toxics
Strategic
Growth
Council
Affordable
housing
Revitalizatio
n
Improve
mobility
Strengthen
economy
Open space
Water &
energy
Parks & rec
Making the case
for change
a
Local jobs created per $1 million
spent on transportation projects
Road-only projects – 7.8
Multi-use trails – 9.6
Pedestrian projects – 10
Cycling projects – 11.4
Heidi Garrett-Peltier. 2011. Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure: A National Study Of Employment Impacts. Political Economy
Research Institute University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
a
Cost savings with 5% drop in obesity rates
Over 5 years - $29.8 billion
Over 10 years – $158.1 billion
Over 20 years - $ 611.7 billion
Jeffrey Levi, PhD., Laura M. Segal. M.A., Rebecca Salay. January 2012. Bending the Obesity Cost Curve.. Trust for America’s Health.
A healthy community is not just a feel-good thing, it
impacts economic development and fiscal health – Mayor Chip Johnson
Policy interventions in Hernando
 farmers market
 community garden
 complete streets policy
 promoting bicycle & pedestrian-friendly routes
 public smoking bans
 expanding parks and recreation
“We shaved 15 percent off our insurance costs,
for a savings to taxpayers of about $130,000" – Mayor Chip Johnson
PRIMERS AND GUIDES
TOOLKITS & FACT SHEETS
Disclaimer
The information provided in this seminar is for informational purposes only, and
does not constitute legal advice. ChangeLab Solutions does not enter into attorneyclient relationships.
The primary purpose of this training is to address legal and/or policy options to
improve public health. There is no intent to reflect a view on specific legislation.
ChangeLab Solutions incorporates objective non-partisan analysis, study, and
research in all our work.
Class C Ticketing
Legislation and Litigation
DUSTIN RYNDERS
SUPERVISING ATTORNEY, DISABILITY
RIGHTS TEXAS
Types of Class C Citations Commonly Issued in
Texas Schools
 Failure to Attend School
 Disruption of class, transportation or school activity
 Disorderly Conduct
 Assault by threat
Reasons for Concern About Class C Ticketing in
Schools
 Purely punitive system that does not typically result





in youth receiving any rehabilitative services
Disproportionate impact on students with
disabilities and students of color.
Citations are heard in adult courts
Children are not appointed counsel
Possibility of arrest at age 17
Confidentiality protections not traditionally
extended in same manner as juvenile court
The Groundwork for Legislative Changes
 Previous (minor) changes to reduce school citations
 Texas Appleseed Study
 Chief Justice Jefferson Report
 Texas Judicial Council Recommendations
SB 393, SB 1114 & HB 528
Highlights include:








New requirements for a valid complaint – no more quick “citations”!!
Child must be at least 12 to be charged with disorderly conduct or a
crime committed on school property/vehicle
Prohibition on Disruption of Class/Transportation charges for
primary/secondary students (likely more disorderly conduct charges
– SB 1114 includes schools as “public places”)
Presumption of insufficient capacity for kids 10-15
Procedure for addressing mental illness, disability or lack of capacity
Prohibition on warrants for crimes committed when defendant was
less than 17 (but arrest still ok for failure to appear at 17+)
Increased confidentiality (conflict between SB 393 and HB 528)
Voluntary adoption of graduated sanction policy by schools
Limitations of Legislative Reform
 Graduated sanctions are voluntary. Will schools adopt?
 Students may still be issued Class C citations for minor
misbehavior (including disorderly conduct and failure to attend
school)
 Class C cases involving juveniles are still heard in high volume
adult courts that are not designed for rehabilitation
 Children are still not provided counsel in Class C cases
 Children still develop risk arrest at 17
Bryan ISD OCR Complaint
 Texas Appleseed (public interest law center) and Brazos County
NAACP filed complaint with Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
Complaint filing – U.S. Department of Education alleging that
Bryan ISD ticketing practices violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, which provides that recipients of federal funds may not
discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
 Complainants are asking the OCR to apply what is known as the
“disparate impact” standard.
 Bryan ISD’s de facto policy of Class C ticketing of students for
minor misbehavior violates Title VI because it:
(1) disproportionately harms African-American students;
(2) does not support the school district’s educational mission or
align with recognized best practices; and
(3) could be replaced by less discriminatory alternatives that would
keep schools safe and orderly.
Dallas County Truancy Court DOJ
Complaint
 Truancy is not effectively addressed through formal
court intervention





Status offense  consensus that should not be criminalized
Overly punitive sanctions & fines make situation worse
Alienates students further from school
Linked with increased dropout rates
One-size-fits-all approach
 Truancy most effectively addressed by focusing on
underlying causes
Underlying Causes of Truancy
Family &
Community
Family financial or medical needs
Pregnancy & parenthood
Child abuse & neglect
Poor school performance
Lack of transportation
Unsafe environment
Poor relationships with
other students
Inadequate identification of
Mental health issues
special needs
Alcohol & drug use
Poor teacher relationships
Individual
School
Truancy
Key Characteristics of Successful Truancy
Reduction Approach
• Broad-based
•
•
•
•
•
collaboration
Comprehensive
approach
Family involvement
Meaningful incentives
& sanctions
Supportive context
Rigorous evaluation &
assessment
Examples of ‘What Works’
 Williamson County Neighborhood Conference
Committee

Only 4 of 235 students had subsequent failure to attend
referral
 Arlington ISD & North Texas Dispute Resolution
Center

80% reduction in absences by year 2
 Lubbock County Office of Dispute Resolution
 Other States: Florida, Connecticut, New York
Dallas County Truancy Courts
Texas Truancy Laws & Enforcement
 Compulsory school attendance from 6 to 18 years old.
 Non-attendance punishable under two statutes:
 “Failure to Attend School” (FTAS) – Class C misdemeanor, tried in adult criminal
court, punishable by fine up to $500+court costs
 “Truancy” – Child in Need of Supervision offense, Family Code, handled in
juvenile court
 Case filed against student if:
 3+ unexcused absences in 4 weeks (discretionary)
 10+ unexcused absences in 6 months (mandatory)
 Only two states (Texas & Wyoming) classify truancy as an adult
criminal offense to be tried in adult criminal court

Protections of juvenile court not present in adult court
 Texas prosecuted at least 76,000 FTAS cases in 2012
 NOT including Dallas County or Fort Bend County
 Prosecution highly variable across school district
 Not correlated with attendance rates
Texas Juvenile Non-traffic Class C
Misdemeanors
Fiscal Year 2012 - 229,155
18%
31%
Non-driving alcohol
3%
3%
Drug Paraphernalia
Tobacco
Failure to Attend School
Other Education Code
Daytime Curfew
All Other Non-traffic
4%
7%
34%
“Failure to Attend School” & “Parent
Contributing” Cases
Filed in Eight Texas Districts 2010-11
District
Enrollmen Attendanc FTAS
t
e Rate
(Student)
Rate/1000 Parent
Students
Contributi
ng
CypressFairbanks
ISD
105,860
95.6%
1,702
16
1,921
Dallas ISD 156,784
94.8%
23,442
221
10,330
Fort Bend
ISD
68,710
96.8%
8,120
118
227
Fort Worth
ISD
81,511
94.9%
1,744
21
1,021
Houston
ISD
198,690
95.5%
21,019
105
no data
Humble ISD 35,678
95.3%
516
14
n/a
Northside
ISD
94.8%
2,455
25
2,515
94,632
Dallas County Truancy Courts Overview
 Specialty courts designed to solely handle truancy cases
o Only in Dallas County and Fort Bend County
 Approximately 36,000 cases in 2012
 Sentence for truancy conviction




$100 to $500 fine + $80 court costs + additional fees
Tutoring & other requirements
Case management services if 2nd offense
Criminal record
 Collected $2.96 million in fines in FY 2012
 Fines pay for truancy court expenses and salaries
 Arrest warrant if do not appear or comply with order

5000 arrest warrants issued; 1700 served in 2012
 Detention & confinement



67 youth jailed/held at Letot Center (DFPS facility) & 504 placed in non-secure DFPS
facility
53 sent to detention for contempt charge
280 transferred to detention for another reason
Problems with Dallas Truancy Courts
 Complex attendance rules


Combination of district, school and classroom rules
Attendance rules usually provided only in English
 Unfair court procedures



Complaints e-filed so probable cause determination by computer
Students forced to represent themselves & do not understand their
rights
Students pressured to plead guilty
 Overly harsh punishments



Hefty fines put economic strain on struggling families
Children arrested at school if miss hearing, or arrested in court if
attend hearing but have failed to comply with court order
Children jailed at age 17 if fines unpaid
 Ineffective at reducing truancy
Department of Justice Complaint –
Overview
 Filed by Disability Rights Texas, National Center for
Youth Law, Texas Appleseed
 Filed with DOJ Civil Rights Division, Educational
Opportunities Section
 Letter requesting an investigation of Dallas County
Truancy Courts and four school districts that use the
courts

Dallas ISD, Garland ISD, Richardson ISD, Mesquite ISD
 Brought on behalf of ten students

J.D., B.B., and L.P.
 Not litigation
 Possible outcomes
Department of Justice Complaint – Legal Claims
 Four school districts violate students’ legal rights
pursuant to several federal laws



Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Titles IV and IX of Civil Rights Act of 1964
 Dallas County Truancy Courts violate students’
constitutional rights




Ban on cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment)
Right to counsel (Sixth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment)
Due process rights – admonishment and knowing waiver of
constitutional rights (Fourteenth Amendment)
Due process rights – unnecessary use of restraint (Fourteenth
Amendment)
Violations Under the Americans with Disabilities
Act
 Failure to make reasonable modifications to
attendance policies, practices, and procedures for
students with disabilities


Districts routinely do not accept doctors’ notes excusing
disability-related absences
District refused to accept doctor’s note because too many days
had passed since the student’s absences
 Failure to provide students with disabilities services
as effective as those provided to non-disabled peers
Department of Justice Complaint – Remedies
Requested
 Declaration that truancy courts violate Eighth
Amendment
 Redesign school districts’ system to address truancy





Implement best practices & use court only as last resort
Ensure all policies accessible to LEP students
Make reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities
Accommodate pregnant and parenting students
Implement School Wide Positive Behavioral Incentives and Supports
(PBIS)
 If courts continue to be used, modify court process to
increase fairness



Students represented by counsel
No school-based arrests or handcuffs in court
Training for judges and court staff
For More Information
DUSTIN RYNDERS, DISABILITY RIGHTS TEXAS,
[email protected]
WWW.DRTX.ORG
Harris County
Juvenile Probation
Department
Reforming Juvenile Justice…
One Kid At A Time!
Thomas Brooks, Executive Director
Harris County Juvenile Probation
Referrals to Harris County Juvenile Probation
Department
Harris County Juvenile Probation Department
Petitions Filed by District Attorney’s Office
Harris County Juvenile Probation Department
Detention Admissions
Average Daily Population
Harris County Juvenile Probation Department
Youth Placed in Residential Facilities
Harris County Juvenile Probation Department
Youth Committed to the Texas Juvenile Justice
Department
Harris County Juvenile Probation Department
Number of Youth Certified as Adult
Harris County Juvenile Probation
2006 – 2012
Major Offenses
Offense
Murder
Auto Theft
Unauthorized Use of
Motor Vehicle
Felony Drug
Burglary
2006
2012
Total Change
(‘06-’12)
16
8
-50%
47
32
-32%
251
101
-60%
744
183
-75%
705
514
-27%
Harris County Juvenile Probation
HOW DID IT HAPPEN?
 Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI)
 2007-Present
 Systemic Changes
 Stakeholder Input
 Community Collaborations
 DA Agreement Allowing Deferred Prosecution
 1st Offender Misdemeanants
 2,200 Less Youth/Year Referred to Court
 88% SUCCESS RATE
 Moving “Back End” Resources to the “Front End”
 Legislative Changes
 TJJD Commitment Diversion Funding
 Mental Health Funding
Harris County Juvenile Probation
JUDICIAL “BUY IN” AND SUPPORT
 Honorable Glenn Devlin, 313th District Court
 Honorable John Phillips, 314th District Court
 Honorable Michael Schneider, 315th District Court
 Utilizing Probation Resources
 Specialty Courts
Harris County Juvenile Probation
FUTURE ENDEAVORS
 Expand Community and Faith Based Relationships
 Increase Community Mentoring
 Legislative Changes
 No Fingerprinting of 1st Time Misdemeanants
 Alternative Schools
 Human Trafficking Legislation
Specialty Courts Panel
•
•
•
Judge Michael Schneider (Harris
County GIRLS Court and Drug
Court)
Judge Glenn Devlin (Harris
County Gang Court)
Dr. Olivia McGill (Harris County
Mental Health Court)