El Paso – Texas State Board of Education Member Georgina Pérez (D-El Paso) joins members of the Texas Legislature in urging the legislature pass House Bill 392 by Rep. Rhetta Bowers (D-Garland), otherwise known as the CROWN Act.

The CROWN Act stands for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair and would prohibit discrimination on the basis of hair texture or protective hair style associated with race.

"As Texans, our diversity is a source of both beauty and strength," said Pérez. "Every student and every employee should be proud to wear their hair in a way that serves both practical purposes as well as a symbol of cultural identity. I am proud to stand with my colleagues in support of the CROWN Act to end discrimination based on natural hair."

HB 392 has been introduced and referred to the House Committee on State Affairs and has yet to receive a hearing. Pérez urges the committee to swiftly consider the bill before the deadline for hearing House bills in committee.

SB 28, may be heard as early as tomorrow on the Senate Floor.

The Texas State Board of Education does not support a supermajority requirement for the SBOE's existing authority to veto approval of a new open-enrollment charter school.

A supermajority requirement disenfranchises a majority of Texas voters.

The SBOE is the only elected body with any oversight regarding the approval of new charter school chains, schools which will cost Texas $8.5 billion in state revenue in the next two years. A supermajority requirement allows a small group on the board to control the lucrative award to a private entity of what is essentially creating an entirely new school district in this state. Limiting the fifteen elected members – a body representative of Texas's very diversity – to decide by supermajority vote would exacerbate our children's educational segregation and disenfranchisement.
 
The SBOE believes it is imperative that its veto authority be expanded to include charter expansion amendments, which account for the vast majority of charter growth. Providing that the veto is expanded in this way, the board would be open to consideration of the following general limitations on veto authority.

The Texas State Board of Education voted in its legislative agenda to request veto powers over charter expansion amendments in 2020. The TXSBOE has made no agreements to limit its existing authority to veto new charter applicants.

Please see the proposal sent to the Lt. Governor's office, to follow. We offered a proposal of limits of reasons for vetoes of initial charters - only if veto authority is granted for charter expansion amendments, but we did not agree to a supermajority limitation.  I therefore respectfully urge you to oppose SB28.

These considerations, focused on students' and taxpayers' best interests, will give charter applicants and existing charter school operators clearer information about the metrics for consideration of requests to establish or expand a charter school. Transparency and public review, and input on these requests, will provide the public with the assurances that charter schools in Texas provide the student equity and educational quality that our students deserve.
 
The State Board of Education veto of an open-enrollment charter school application or amendment request will be limited to the following considerations to ensure student equity, academic performance, financial responsibility, and ethical transparency:


STUDENT EQUITY

1. Evidence the requestor serves the lesser of state or local average of special education students and has recruitment policies in place that encourage special education students to apply and that do not limit admission and enrollment.
2. Evidence the requestor has budgeted for, employs, and intends to employ certified teachers in special education and bilingual education as required by law.
3. Evidence the charter intends to serve students representative of student demographics in the proposed charter location.

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

1. Evidence of a record of performance such as state ratings of campuses, performance of all students, teacher qualifications, and student or teacher attrition.
2. Evidence that the proposed curriculum and materials are aligned with TEKS and do not violate the prohibition of Common Core.
3. Evidence the curriculum and instructional materials are not racially insensitive.  
4. Evidence that planning and execution of each academic and student support program are based on research-based best practices.
5. Evidence that charter leadership has had no prior issues raised related to school/campus operations, academic and fiscal management, or student performance.
6. Alignment of proposed professional development for teachers and staff with the time, budget, and expertise sufficient to execute the application's programs at a high level based on documented best practices.

FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

1. Evidence that the proposed charter model and school design are differentiated from existing public school options in the proposed area.
   
2. Evidence that the proposed campus location and any other requests for new charter campuses will not harm students in existing public schools.
   
3. Evidence that the charter budget includes sufficient funding to support the academic programs, support services, and staffing included in the charter application.
   
4. Evidence of community support and parental demand for the proposed new charter or campus, such as sign-in sheets from public meetings, petition language, and signatures from parents whose children would be eligible for the proposed campus.
   

TRANSPARENCY AND ETHICS

1. Adherence to TEA rules, state law, and instructions in the application, such as the no-contact rule and the use of TEA data in the application.
   
2. Reasonableness of the percentage of state tax dollars paid to related parties, charter management organizations, contractors, and the number of jobs that will be exported.
   
3. No evidence of conflicts of interest, self-dealing, or nepotism between the charter school and its governing body and related parties, including the charter management organization and contractors
   
4. No material breach of transparency and truthfulness in application and public testimony.
   
5. Evidence that the fiduciary responsibilities and decisions reside with the Texas charter governing body.
   
6. Evidence that transparency to parents and public is honored in the same manner provided by law for school districts.