19 MAY |  As some communities in the United States open K-12 schools, CDC offers the following considerations for ways in which schools can help protect students, teachers, administrators, and staff and slow the spread of COVID-19. Schools can determine, in collaboration with state and local health officials to the extent possible, whether and how to implement these considerations while adjusting to meet the unique needs and circumstances of the local community.  Read more

TEXAS HOME LEARNING
Begin At-Home Learning By Selecting Your Role
Comience El Aprendizaje En Casa Seleccionando Su Rol:
https://texashomelearning.org/

6 Apr | Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos Authorizes New Funding Flexibilities to Support Continued Learning During COVID-19 National Emergency  More info

• Federal Student Aid (FSA) for students, borrowers, and parents. 
• The Office of Postsecondary Education has issued guidance, including an FAQ, for interruptions of study related to COVID-19.
• The CDC has issued guidance for administrators of US Institutions of Higher Education to plan, prepare and respond to COVID-19.
• Also, see a letter from the Office for Civil Rights that addresses potential discrimination associated with coronavirus.

The Department has provided additional information for families and communities including:

• At-home activities for students and parents to continue learning while not in school;
• Information regarding certain flexibilities under the Every Student Succeeds Act, or “ESSA;”
• Information regarding services to children with disabilities;
• A fact sheet from our Office for Civil Rights on the risk of Coronavirus in schools while protecting the civil rights of students; and a short webinar on Online Education and Website Accessibility;
• Information on the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, or “FERPA,” including a webinar, as it pertains to K-12 and higher education students;
• Information for Accrediting Agencies Regarding Temporary Flexibilities Provided to Coronavirus Impacted Institutions or Accrediting Agencies.

The Department will continue to update its website, ed.gov/coronavirus. Please direct education related questions to COVID-19@ed.gov

Over the last few weeks, the White House, the Department of Education, and other federal agencies have released a significant amount of guidance to support schools, educators, and families regarding COVID-19 (Coronavirus). For updated information, please visit Coronavirus.gov, CDC.gov/coronavirus, and USA.gov/coronavirus.
For education-related information, the Department has established a dedicated Coronavirus webpage (ed.gov/coronavirus), which includes resources for institutions of higher education and for K-12.

• The website includes guidance for students at institutions of higher education, and covers Coronavirus-related scenarios that could impact students who are enrolled in study abroad programs, students who meet full-time requirements but fall below 12 credit hours, students who are quarantined and miss class, campuses that have temporarily stopped offering ground-based classes to prevent the spread of Coronavirus, and foreign schools that serve Americans who receive Federal financial aid. 
• Also see a letter from the Office for Civil Rights that addresses potential discrimination associated with coronavirus.

The Department has provided additional information for families and communities including:

• Information regarding certain flexibilities under the Every Student Succeeds Act, or “ESSA;”
  
• Information regarding services to children with disabilities;
• A fact sheet from our Office for Civil Rights on the risk of Coronavirus in schools while protecting the civil rights of students; and a short webinar on Online Education and Website Accessibility.
• Information on the Family Education Records Privacy Act, or “FERPA,” as it pertains to K-12 and higher education students.
• Information for Accrediting Agencies Regarding Temporary Flexibilities Provided to Coronavirus Impacted Institutions or Accrediting Agencies.

The Department will continue to update its website, ed.gov/coronavirus. Please direct education related questions to COVID-19@ed.gov.

16 March 2020 | Governor’s Office Clears Path for Gov­ern­men­tal Bod­ies to Meet Tele­phon­i­cal­ly or by Videoconferencing Dur­ing Coro­n­avirus Disaster

Governor Abbott’s office today approved a request by the Office of the Attorney General to temporarily suspend a limited number of open meeting laws in response to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) disaster. This action will allow governmental bodies to conduct meetings by telephone or video conference to advance the public health goal of limiting face-to-face meetings (also called “social distancing”) to slow the spread of the Coronavirus (COVID-19).  

Importantly, however, this action does not suspend requirements that governmental bodies conduct meetings in a transparent and accessible manner. Specifically, governmental bodies are still be required to do the following: 

• provide online written notice containing a public toll-free dial-in number or a free-of-charge videoconference link, as well as an electronic copy of any agenda packet, before conducting telephonic or video conference meetings;  
• provide the public with access and a means to participate in those meetings, preferably through two-way audio or video connections; and  
• provide the public with access to a recording of those meetings.   

Read the Attorney General's notification:
www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/governors-office-clears-path-governmental-bodies-meet-telephonically-or-videoconference-during

Our students are out for extended periods of time due to COVID-19 precautionary measures. While these efforts go a very long way to protect our communities, our students and teachers need the same protections applied to accountability.

Whether it's poverty or lack of resources, many communities along the border (and across Texas) do not have access to wifi and do not possess digital devices necessary for online learning. This means our students whose promotion, retention, and graduation is based on test scores are at great risk. 

Our nation, state, and cities across the U.S. have declared emergency. Holding our students and teachers responsible for continued learning in the current situation is irresponsible and unnecessary. 

16 March 2020 | Governor Abbott Waives STAAR Testing Requirements
https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/Governor%20Abbott%20Waives%20STAAR%20Testing%20Requirements.pdf

The Texas State Board of Education is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the adoption of an African American Studies course on November 13th - Click here to review the agenda.  AAS will be the second addition to the Texas Ethnic Studies course catalog. Click here to review the course and submit your public comment. 

Sign Up to testify here.

The Texas Education Agency’s “Texas Resource Review” (TRR), formerly known as the Instructional Materials Quality Review (IMQR), has received a great deal of criticism, and rightfully so. Here’s why:

1. Democracy. The TRR removes the public voice from Instructional Material reviews. The TRR does not, however, relinquish the taxpayer dollars. You may be asking yourself, “Where is the public input now?” The Texas State Board of Education requires all materials to be online and at your local Education Service Center. The TXSBOE also solicits public input from their respective districts as well as input via phone call, email, USPS, and fax, which is reviewed by all Members. We also hold public hearings. Anyone can listen via livestream, where anyone can attend in-person, or in the hearing room, and speak their piece. The Texas State Board of Education is the public’s access to public education.
2. Participation. Since the quality review process began in 2017, fewer than 3% of Texas ISD’s are participating in this costly experiment.  
3. Twice the effort, what's the result? Why should taxpayers bear the burden of costly reviews, twice? The easy answer is - they shouldn’t. So which one should the state use? That’s an easy answer, too, but, elected officials, ISD leadership, nor taxpayers get to decide. For now, you will fund both: one that ISDs prefer and one they do not. 
4. Ranking. One of the biggest criticisms of the TEA’s quality review continues to receive focuses on the ranking of materials. A handful of individuals selected by The New Teacher Project (with oversight from EdReports, contracted by SAFAL) were all set to give stars to materials based on a set of indicators.

Here is some critical information that taxpayers should know:

• The New Teacher Project has no experience reviewing instructional materials in Texas, or anywhere else. 
• EdReports has only worked on Common Core materials, which are illegal in Texas. EdReports uses its preexisting scorecards to grade Texas materials. In other words, EdReports is using a scorecard made for materials that are illegal in Texas.
• SAFAL has several contracts with TEA and several quality issues, which have resulted in reduced payments. 

5. More Stars = Better Quality. The issue then becomes the definition of quality. A textbook that received a high score (or more stars) is considered “high-quality.” However, Texas students have a wide range of needs. For example, a Dual Language academy may not find textbooks that do not support Language Learners or Biliteracy as high quality. Will the Board of Trustees at your ISD purchase books and technology which are best for their community? Or will they purchase what TEA says is good stuff?

6. The Law. “The commissioner by rule shall establish the procedure by which a publisher may submit instructional materials for inclusion in the web portal.” 
see: Texas Education Code Sec. 31.081 https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._educ._code_section_31.081

The web portal is the TRR (or the IMQE). The intent behind the law was to have a review of Open Educational Resources (OERs), which are freely accessible, openly licensed text, media, and other digital assets that are useful for teaching, learning, and assessing as well as for research purposes. 

However, the ambiguity in the statute and the lack of oversight of TEA has resulted in this:

"At the request of a single member of the Texas State Board of Education or 10% of ISD’s, a publisher must submit their materials to the Quality Review."

Please note that in no place in Texas statute does a single member of an elected body have this kind of power. Many of the TXSBOE Members stood against this TEA Rule. However, Commissioner Morath has the final say. 

The Texas State Board of Education nor the Texas Education Agency determines the best method to teach. Equally, neither should the TEA or the TXSBOE rank or score textbooks and technology. 

​It seems that TEA is placing itself on a path to accomplish what C-Scope could not. ​

If there is anyone still doubting that charter operators in Texas (and across the nation) receive every economic and political advantage, please take a moment to watch the 14 June 2019, Public Hearings at the Texas State Board of Education. Plan for several hours of your day to watch the hearings in their entirety (click here). Or, you can watch the condensed version below:

"I have six pages of questions for you." Here are the Teacher's Notes: (click here for the 6-page PDF)

1. Extensive communication from a Superintendent can result in TEA revising the charter application. 
2. Charter operators detail exactly how they will cherry-pick their students on their applications. English Learners and students with Special and Specific Needs are listed at dramatically lower percentages than surrounding ISD campuses. 
3. Charter Boards of Managers do not resemble the community the charter occupies. Often, boards do not reflect any community in the nation. 
4. Conflicts of interest are not a concern when democracy is not a requirement. 
5. Students with disciplinary histories or records are not allowed to attend. But, your tax dollars are!
6. State credentialed teachers are not required by law, therefore are not hired. It's a great cost savings for charter operators. Our students and communities pay the price. 

In January 2019, the Texas State Board of Education passed policy intending to require public hearings on Charter Contact Amendments and Expansions, which is how existing charters multiply.
TXSBOE policy intends to gather public input on charter expansions

However, the Texas Legislature decided that a website that exists in obscurity is sufficient. Now taxpayers are told where their public education dollars are being siphoned to online rather than by surprise when taxpayer-funded buildings go up (without a bond vote like ISDs perform, by law). Did you know that when a charter defaults on their building loans, you pay the debt - and the charter keeps the building?  

My office continues to work on making these applicants follow the law, and the applications equitable to the lawful and righteous efforts which ISD's must perform and provide effective educational opportunities to all students. However, applicants regularly submit false information based on their cherry-picking and segregationist abilities. This ability results in ISD Superintendents forced to extensively communicate with TEA and attend public hearings to dispute the falsehoods told by charter applicants. More often than not, to no avail. 

What is the IMQE?  The Instructional Materials Quality Evaluation is TEA's expensive solution in search of a problem. The conflict? The IMQE is funded by taxpayer dollars which should be going to ISD's - so our local educators can determine which instructional materials are best for our children.  

Reason #1: Fiduciary duty
As elected officials, we have a fiduciary duty to ensure that the state is spending Texas taxpayer dollars in a manner that provides the best value to the state. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) has paid Safal Partners $3.26M for a one-year contract ending in August 2019. Safal subcontracted EdReports to produce quality evaluations or reviews.  EdReports has never reviewed Texas materials, they have always only worked on Common Core. 

• No reviews were published by the September 2018 deadline (as mandated by law).
• No reviews were published in time to be useful to districts for the K-8 ELAR adoption, and 
• Only 21 reviews will be published by May 2019, which is after districts have made their selection decisions.  

As elected officials, we also have a duty to invest taxpayers’ dollars in doing what is right for students, not in something no one really wants. 
The IMQE is also referred to as the "Portal" is NOT something school districts want, as evidenced by the struggle TEA had in getting districts to participate in the pilot.  Only 30 of 1,023 ISD's are participating in the IMQE Pilot. 

On November 13, 2018, the Urban Curriculum Council, representing 13 of the state’s largest districts sent a letter opposing this project. Three points of that letter: 

1. The IMQE is not a project that members of the UCC or others from the field have requested as something that meets the needs of the students in our districts; it is a project initiated by the Texas Education Agency;
2. The IMQE is not needed as the Texas State Board of Education TEKS alignment process appropriately and adequately supports school districts in reviewing instructional materials. *The TXSBOE process is also the means to public input via teacher workgroups and public hearings;
3. Once the TEKS alignment is determined by the TXSBOE process, districts use their own processes to make the best selection for their students. 

Each community has its own set of unique needs. The definition of High Quality in El Paso may not match the definition of High Quality in Lufkin. 


Reason #2: Using Common Core (EdReports and LA Believes) to review Texas instructional materials
It’s illegal for Texas to adopt the Common Core standards and it’s illegal for Texas schools to teach the Common Core standards. Safal’s contract states that existing EdReports’ reviews (which are exclusively Common Core) will be used on the reviews of Texas instructional materials.

Page 25 of 229 of TEA’s contract with Safal includes an "Updated Statement of Work" (revised as of July 3, 2018), which reiterates Safal’s proposal: 

Teacher review teams will use existing EdReports reviews to identify which evidence applies to the Texas rubric.
*Review the contract here: TEA Contract #3854, SAFAL Partners

It is illegal for Texas schools to teach the Common Core. Nevertheless, the TEA awarded this contract for quality reviews to an entity that told us they will use portions of its EdReports and Louisiana Believes’ existing reviews of Common Core materials for the Texas reviews.  

EdReports and Louisiana Believes’ reviews of Common Core materials are already available on public websites.  EdReports will cut and paste from their existing reviews to produce reviews of Texas materials. Why are Texas taxpayers paying millions of dollars for something we could get for free?


Reason #3: Why is Texas following Louisiana’s model?
TEA has stated that they are modeling the IMQE process after Louisiana’s process.

• According to Forbes July 2018 Report, Texas is ranked 36 in school quality. Louisiana is ranked 50;​
• U.S. News ranks Texas 33rd for our Prek-12 education system;  Louisiana is ranked 49th. 

Why would TEA want Texas to follow Louisiana's lead?

​Of the many substantive House Bills heard today in the Committee on Public Education, HB 1853 lays out some of the most outrageous Charter operator allowances:

• Charters (and Districts of Innovation) are NOT required to employ certified and credentialed teachers; 
• The Texas State Board for Educator Certification does NOT have the statutory authority to investigate or track teacher misconduct. 

Texas is only 1 of 8 states in the U.S. which allows uncertified personnel to teach our students. I would not take my truck to an uncertified GM mechanic... much less my child to a classroom where there is an uncertified teacher which the state of Texas cannot investigate for misconduct.


HB 2510 - Disciplinary Action allowed for Charters 

Students who attend charters are treated quite differently than students in public schools. For example, charter kids have been expelled for reasons such as presence in school space without supervision, cursing, and not attending Saturday school. Charters also do not post their reasons for expulsion on their Code of Conduct.

While these behaviors may not be condoned, they are not reasons students should be expelled. Bare in mind that:

• 6% of Texas students are enrolled in Charters
• 43% of all Texas students expelled are expelled from Charters

*Texas House Public Education Interim Report p.39


HB 43 - Charter disciplinary exclusion

ISDs are required to educate all students while charters cherry-pick students in many ways. This bill discussed unique non-selection of students based on “disciplinary problems"  which has included the simple removal of students to the principal's office for disrupting the class. 

Charter operators are using stories of extreme violence and sexual assault as scare tactics to defend their cherry-picking practices.  For example, the question posed to the committee was "Do you want your students with those kids?" The irony, however, is that charter personnel are not required to be certified which disallows the State from investigating and tracking of the inappropriate behaviors of the adults. 

It should be noted that according to charter lobbyists at today's hearing, charters can opt-in to Chapter 37 - Safe Schools.

Charters want taxpayer dollars - which are intended to serve the greater good, but only want to serve certain students. Perhaps because it's the only way they can claim such high levels of success or maybe it's because their programs are not as good as they claim because they only work for a specific kind of student. 

Nevertheless, if you're tired of your tax dollars funding some students at the expense of all students, contact your elected officials and tell them Texas can no longer afford to support two education systems. Simply funding one great system is the answer Texas students deserve. 

Who represents me? ​https://wrm.capitol.texas.gov/home