Texas commission on special education funding takes up vouchers
The Texas Commission on Special Education Funding convened on November 14th to discuss Education Savings Account type vouchers for special education children. The commission heard invited testimony from several sources and now must consider whether to recommend vouchers to the legislature. Commission members are Stacey Neal Combest; Sen. Paul Bettencourt; Sen. Angela Paxton; Sen. Judith Zaffirini; Rep. Mary Gonzalez; Rep. Dan Huberty; and Rep. Jacey Jetton.
Testimony was brisk with those testifying weighing in either for or against ESA type vouchers and special education vouchers overall. Dr. Kevin Welner, a professor from the University of Colorado and the Director of the National Education Policy Center, warned commission members that vouchers among special education students don’t seem to work well in other states and that in many instances voucher outcomes have actually been more harmful than natural disasters. Welner’s assertion is borne out in other articles indicating that learning loss is attributable to voucher programs.
Welner was followed by Laura Colangelo, the Executive Director of the Texas Private Schools Association. Colangelo testified as to the rigorous accreditation process for private schools and indicated that it is often heartbreaking when private schools must turn special needs kids away. Colangelo was question by commission member Rep. Dan Huberty who expressed concern that special education children lose their federal protections under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when they move to a private school.
Not all those testifying agreed with Welner’s testimony. Cara Candal with ExcelinEd took exception to Welner’s contention that Education Savings Accounts are vouchers. “I don’t think we should conflate ESA’s with vouchers,” Candal said.
Candal’s remark is somewhat mystifying when you consider the definition of vouchers. Vouchers are defined as “anything that diverts public funds (through a tax credit, rebate, scholarship or any other means) to directly or indirectly subsidize a private education.” It seems that ESA’s for special needs students would fit this description.
Other expert testimony was taken by the commission. Steven Aleman, Sr. Policy Specialist with Disability Rights Texas pointed out that with over 600,000 special education students in the state there aren’t nearly enough private schools to handle even a small percentage of them. Aleman indicated that there is existing state law that goes beyond IDEA protections to ensure students’ needs are met would also no longer apply to students in a private school setting. He encouraged funding formula changes to properly fund special education programs rather than privatizing them through a voucher scheme.
Dr. Andrea Chevalier of the Texas Council of Administrators of Special Education (TCASE) echoed Aleman’s concerns about the loss of federal protections and worried about whether or not the state would provide an ESA large enough to cover the entire cost of educating a special needs child, including transportation. Chevalier also expressed concern that private schools may not be the best choice for student discipline for special needs children as they are not required to report students who are suspended or expelled.
Joleen Sanders-Foster with the Coalition of Texans with Disabilities (CTD) said that “choice exists within the public-school sector” and worried that decisions might be money driven. “Studies show that private schools come out of the woodwork to get their hands on this money,” Sanders said. Sanders also expressed concern about the possibility of forced adherence to the religious tenets of a local private school as well as confidentiality issues. According to Sanders, private schools don’t have to comply with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) which limits the amount of information about a public-school student that can be shared legally without parental consent.
The parent of a special needs student and the Senior Pastor of the South Main Baptist Church in Houston testified about his experience with his son’s placement in a private school. Rev. Steve Wells compellingly related how his son was placed in a private school and was kicked out of the school for missing three days in two weeks. When Wells sought his $9,000 tuition back after only ten days of enrollment, the school refused, and private school leaders refused to meet with him. Wells expressed concern that this could happen again with a voucher program. He also expressed concern that taxpayer dollars would fund religious institutions. “I don’t like the thought of my tax dollars funding Islamic, Jewish, or other schools,” Wells said, “just like some people wouldn’t like their tax dollars funding Christian schools.” Wells also called attention to the underfunding of public schools in Texas and referred to previous testimony that private schools should receive $11,500. “You give $11,500 to public schools,” said Wells, “and watch what they can do.” The current basic allotment for public schools in Texas is $6,160 per student per year.
Other testimony by school officials pointed out that special education vouchers would be problematic if implemented in the state. Dr. Gwen Coffey, the Assistant Superintendent for Special Education of Katy ISD worried that private schools don’t have the same accountability as public schools and that the requirements of a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) might not be provided in a private setting. “We don’t make education better through ESA’s,” Coffey said, “and we don’t really help low-income families. Greater Houston area schools serving special education students cost on average $14,000 and as high as $40,000 per year.”
Testimony was brisk with public education advocates addressing the many problematic issues with private school vouchers and their negative effects on students and voucher advocates pointing out why they think that they would be good for parents who want more educational options.
The Commission did not decide today on whether to include special education vouchers as part of their recommendations to the Texas Legislature. A decision on that is expected in December. Let’s hope they choose wisely.
Testimony was brisk with those testifying weighing in either for or against ESA type vouchers and special education vouchers overall. Dr. Kevin Welner, a professor from the University of Colorado and the Director of the National Education Policy Center, warned commission members that vouchers among special education students don’t seem to work well in other states and that in many instances voucher outcomes have actually been more harmful than natural disasters. Welner’s assertion is borne out in other articles indicating that learning loss is attributable to voucher programs.
Welner was followed by Laura Colangelo, the Executive Director of the Texas Private Schools Association. Colangelo testified as to the rigorous accreditation process for private schools and indicated that it is often heartbreaking when private schools must turn special needs kids away. Colangelo was question by commission member Rep. Dan Huberty who expressed concern that special education children lose their federal protections under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when they move to a private school.
Not all those testifying agreed with Welner’s testimony. Cara Candal with ExcelinEd took exception to Welner’s contention that Education Savings Accounts are vouchers. “I don’t think we should conflate ESA’s with vouchers,” Candal said.
Candal’s remark is somewhat mystifying when you consider the definition of vouchers. Vouchers are defined as “anything that diverts public funds (through a tax credit, rebate, scholarship or any other means) to directly or indirectly subsidize a private education.” It seems that ESA’s for special needs students would fit this description.
Other expert testimony was taken by the commission. Steven Aleman, Sr. Policy Specialist with Disability Rights Texas pointed out that with over 600,000 special education students in the state there aren’t nearly enough private schools to handle even a small percentage of them. Aleman indicated that there is existing state law that goes beyond IDEA protections to ensure students’ needs are met would also no longer apply to students in a private school setting. He encouraged funding formula changes to properly fund special education programs rather than privatizing them through a voucher scheme.
Dr. Andrea Chevalier of the Texas Council of Administrators of Special Education (TCASE) echoed Aleman’s concerns about the loss of federal protections and worried about whether or not the state would provide an ESA large enough to cover the entire cost of educating a special needs child, including transportation. Chevalier also expressed concern that private schools may not be the best choice for student discipline for special needs children as they are not required to report students who are suspended or expelled.
Joleen Sanders-Foster with the Coalition of Texans with Disabilities (CTD) said that “choice exists within the public-school sector” and worried that decisions might be money driven. “Studies show that private schools come out of the woodwork to get their hands on this money,” Sanders said. Sanders also expressed concern about the possibility of forced adherence to the religious tenets of a local private school as well as confidentiality issues. According to Sanders, private schools don’t have to comply with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) which limits the amount of information about a public-school student that can be shared legally without parental consent.
The parent of a special needs student and the Senior Pastor of the South Main Baptist Church in Houston testified about his experience with his son’s placement in a private school. Rev. Steve Wells compellingly related how his son was placed in a private school and was kicked out of the school for missing three days in two weeks. When Wells sought his $9,000 tuition back after only ten days of enrollment, the school refused, and private school leaders refused to meet with him. Wells expressed concern that this could happen again with a voucher program. He also expressed concern that taxpayer dollars would fund religious institutions. “I don’t like the thought of my tax dollars funding Islamic, Jewish, or other schools,” Wells said, “just like some people wouldn’t like their tax dollars funding Christian schools.” Wells also called attention to the underfunding of public schools in Texas and referred to previous testimony that private schools should receive $11,500. “You give $11,500 to public schools,” said Wells, “and watch what they can do.” The current basic allotment for public schools in Texas is $6,160 per student per year.
Other testimony by school officials pointed out that special education vouchers would be problematic if implemented in the state. Dr. Gwen Coffey, the Assistant Superintendent for Special Education of Katy ISD worried that private schools don’t have the same accountability as public schools and that the requirements of a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) might not be provided in a private setting. “We don’t make education better through ESA’s,” Coffey said, “and we don’t really help low-income families. Greater Houston area schools serving special education students cost on average $14,000 and as high as $40,000 per year.”
Testimony was brisk with public education advocates addressing the many problematic issues with private school vouchers and their negative effects on students and voucher advocates pointing out why they think that they would be good for parents who want more educational options.
The Commission did not decide today on whether to include special education vouchers as part of their recommendations to the Texas Legislature. A decision on that is expected in December. Let’s hope they choose wisely.
JOINT HOUSE PUBLIC EDUCATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION COMMITEES MEET - september 20, 2022
The Texas House Public Education Committee and Higher Education Committee held a joint hearing Tuesday, September 20, 2022 to address the impact of the pandemic on the state’s teacher workforce and its current practices to improve the recruitment, preparation, and retention of high-quality educators. They also looked to explore the impact of the educator preparation program regulatory environment and make recommendations to improve the three areas of teacher recruitment, preparation, and retention.
Several TASA members were invited to testify at the hearing. Dr. Roosevelt Nivens, Lamar CISD superintendent and TASA Advocacy Committee chair, testified on behalf of LCISD and TASA. Nivens said his district was in Fort Bend County and was expected to double in size over the next 10 years. He noted that with current attrition rates, LCISD would need to staff more than 700 teachers each year moving forward. Nivens described his district’s efforts to retain teachers, including providing teachers two “mental health” days per year and a collaboration with the University of Houston–Victoria that allows LCISD teachers to earn master’s degrees without having to travel and with reduced tuition.
CEF'S own Danny Massey, Brazosport ISD superintendent, and Dr. Vincent Solis, president of Brazosport College, shared information about their successful “grow your own” partnership. Dr. Scott Muri, Ector County ISD superintendent, described the comprehensive strategy ECISD has implemented to reduce teacher vacancy rates from 18 percent to 1 percent. Recommendations Muri made for the state’s consideration included: increasing the basic allotment to allow teacher pay increases; establishing a Principal Incentive Allotment like the Teacher Incentive Allotment; providing full funding for a teacher candidate residency program; and incentivizing the collaboration between districts and universities to create teacher pipelines.
Dave Lewis, Rochelle ISD superintendent, told the committee that RISD is a rural district with 208 students and 21 teachers, and that the district’s transition to a four-day school week was successful and helped as a recruiting strategy. He said that as a rural district, RISD was at a disadvantage with the Teacher Incentive Allotment because, after investing hundreds of hours to implement the program and invest in their teachers, RISD could still not compete with other districts that can recruit teachers with higher salaries because of their Chapter 313 agreements.
Invited testimony also included representatives of education research institutes, higher education, and JoLisa Hoover, Raise Your Hand Texas’ teacher specialist, who discussed why the teacher shortage is a national crisis not limited to Texas. Teachers cited low pay, unreasonable workloads, and unrealistic expectations as three main reasons for either leaving or considering leaving the profession.
Representatives of TEA, the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC), and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board also provided testimony, explaining the roles of their agencies in assisting with the teacher shortage. One concern shared was that teachers who go through alternative certification programs leave the profession at a much higher rate than those who go through traditional university-based preparation programs. Mentoring or lack thereof played a critical role in this.
Texas public university and alternative certification representatives were also invited to testify about the preparation of high-quality teachers. In response to a question from Rep. Gary VanDeaver about the higher education perspective of the edTPA, which SBEC plans to adopt for use as a teacher certification exam, Dr. Mike O’Malley, dean of the College of Education at Texas State University, noted issues such as the high cost. (For rural districts that need teachers with multiple certifications, the cost could be almost $900 in addition to the cost of a university degree program, plus there would be the interruption of the learning experience for teacher candidates.)
O’Malley said that candidates in traditional preparation programs participate in deeply embedded field work during their semester-long student teaching experience and stressed that because most Texas teachers now come through alternative preparation programs, which are less expensive and do not require as much field experience, most would still enter the classroom day one without having participated in or benefited from the edTPA portfolio experience.
Invited testimony also included representatives of teacher organizations including the Texas State Teachers Association, Texas Classroom Teachers Association, Association of Texas Professional Educators, as well as the Teacher Retirement System and several teacher practitioners. All expressed similar notions as to why Texas is experiencing our current teacher shortage…pay/benefits, training, and working conditions. These issues will have to be addressed in the 88th legislative session if Texas is to have a chance to bring teachers into or back into this noble profession.
Several TASA members were invited to testify at the hearing. Dr. Roosevelt Nivens, Lamar CISD superintendent and TASA Advocacy Committee chair, testified on behalf of LCISD and TASA. Nivens said his district was in Fort Bend County and was expected to double in size over the next 10 years. He noted that with current attrition rates, LCISD would need to staff more than 700 teachers each year moving forward. Nivens described his district’s efforts to retain teachers, including providing teachers two “mental health” days per year and a collaboration with the University of Houston–Victoria that allows LCISD teachers to earn master’s degrees without having to travel and with reduced tuition.
CEF'S own Danny Massey, Brazosport ISD superintendent, and Dr. Vincent Solis, president of Brazosport College, shared information about their successful “grow your own” partnership. Dr. Scott Muri, Ector County ISD superintendent, described the comprehensive strategy ECISD has implemented to reduce teacher vacancy rates from 18 percent to 1 percent. Recommendations Muri made for the state’s consideration included: increasing the basic allotment to allow teacher pay increases; establishing a Principal Incentive Allotment like the Teacher Incentive Allotment; providing full funding for a teacher candidate residency program; and incentivizing the collaboration between districts and universities to create teacher pipelines.
Dave Lewis, Rochelle ISD superintendent, told the committee that RISD is a rural district with 208 students and 21 teachers, and that the district’s transition to a four-day school week was successful and helped as a recruiting strategy. He said that as a rural district, RISD was at a disadvantage with the Teacher Incentive Allotment because, after investing hundreds of hours to implement the program and invest in their teachers, RISD could still not compete with other districts that can recruit teachers with higher salaries because of their Chapter 313 agreements.
Invited testimony also included representatives of education research institutes, higher education, and JoLisa Hoover, Raise Your Hand Texas’ teacher specialist, who discussed why the teacher shortage is a national crisis not limited to Texas. Teachers cited low pay, unreasonable workloads, and unrealistic expectations as three main reasons for either leaving or considering leaving the profession.
Representatives of TEA, the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC), and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board also provided testimony, explaining the roles of their agencies in assisting with the teacher shortage. One concern shared was that teachers who go through alternative certification programs leave the profession at a much higher rate than those who go through traditional university-based preparation programs. Mentoring or lack thereof played a critical role in this.
Texas public university and alternative certification representatives were also invited to testify about the preparation of high-quality teachers. In response to a question from Rep. Gary VanDeaver about the higher education perspective of the edTPA, which SBEC plans to adopt for use as a teacher certification exam, Dr. Mike O’Malley, dean of the College of Education at Texas State University, noted issues such as the high cost. (For rural districts that need teachers with multiple certifications, the cost could be almost $900 in addition to the cost of a university degree program, plus there would be the interruption of the learning experience for teacher candidates.)
O’Malley said that candidates in traditional preparation programs participate in deeply embedded field work during their semester-long student teaching experience and stressed that because most Texas teachers now come through alternative preparation programs, which are less expensive and do not require as much field experience, most would still enter the classroom day one without having participated in or benefited from the edTPA portfolio experience.
Invited testimony also included representatives of teacher organizations including the Texas State Teachers Association, Texas Classroom Teachers Association, Association of Texas Professional Educators, as well as the Teacher Retirement System and several teacher practitioners. All expressed similar notions as to why Texas is experiencing our current teacher shortage…pay/benefits, training, and working conditions. These issues will have to be addressed in the 88th legislative session if Texas is to have a chance to bring teachers into or back into this noble profession.
|
|
On Monday, July 25th and 26th the house committee on public education met to discuss several items including HB 3, 1525, 4545, SB 1365, SB 1716, TIA, CCMR, Covid and learning loss, chronic absenteeism, curriculum and instruction, and parental rights. Following are some of the highlights of the two-day hearing.
Rep. Gary VanDeaver began the first morning by noting that schools are struggling to fill open teacher positions, and this issue must be a priority for the committee. Kyle Lynch, the Seminole ISD superintendent, remarked that reducing the current burdens on teachers would also go a long way in helping schools recruit and retain teachers, as would eliminating the cap on teacher salaries. Northside ISD Superintendent Brian Woods said he believes relaxing some of the restrictions and barriers to rehiring retirees could be of great benefit in filling teacher vacancies as well as other critical positions (counselors, custodians, and food service employees, among others). He said he believes a financial analysis of the surcharge school districts must pay could be of value. Chair Harold Dutton Jr. said that the committee would look at this issue at its September meeting, but there is little they can do prior to the school year to alleviate the current shortage. He said he believes this will certainly be on the committee’s agenda during the next legislative session.
The committee heard from Superintendent Elizabeth Fagen, superintendent of Humble ISD, and Kyle Lynch from Seminole on HB 3 and HB 1525. Praise was offered by both for the level of funding offered by HB 3. With that being said, Dr. Lynch did note that the funding level is not keeping up with inflation. The cost of doing business has risen dramatically in the last year. In order for school districts to continue to offer quality programs, facilities, and instruction, increased funding is a must. He specifically mentioned recapture continues to grow even though HB 3 provided temporary relief. He noted that more than $3 billion was collected by the state last year and increases in this amount will continue if no legislative action is taken next session. Increasing the Basic Allotment would provide relief to all school districts and assist in alleviating the impact of factors such as inflation and recapture. He recommended the committee consider allowing early recapture payment discounts akin to what corporate taxpayers enjoy when paying state sales tax.
Brian Woods, superintendent, Northside ISD, echoed earlier testimony that no inflation index is tied to the Basic Allotment in the current school finance system, which is painful as districts put together budgets for 2022-23. He noted that increasing the Basic Allotment allows for more flexible money for schools, increases all the weights, helps recapture districts, and takes more of the state share of funding. Woods suggested looking back at a one-time index focused on 2019 and in 2023 looking at an index going forward if inflation exceeds a specified amount set in legislation.
TASA Executive Director Kevin Brown said moving forward, inflation is a huge concern for TASA members. It’s impacting every facet of school budgets: diesel, salaries and benefits, and more. Echoing earlier comments, Brown expressed concern about the sustainability of funding and the potential funding cliff in 2025 when federal funding goes away. He encouraged the Legislature to look at funding enrollment vs. ADA, especially with portions of the truancy laws being gutted in recent years. He also noted that Texas is still ranked 40th in funding per student across the states.
With regards to HB 4545, during his testimony Brown asked the committee to look at the overly prescriptive requirements in HB 4545, noting that students’ needs vary, and teachers should be able to differentiate and tailor remediation based on a particular student’s need. He also advised the committee of TASA’s continued work on community-based accountability, through which local school districts have their own accountability systems that measure success based on factors important to the community. He explained that reports from these systems that districts share with their communities provide a broader and more holistic picture of what is actually happening in public schools, aside from STAAR and attendance.
On SB 1716, TEA’s Justin Porter discussed the funding sources and distribution of the grant for supplemental special education services and instructional materials. He said that $79–$118 million was needed next year to serve all families on the waiting list, and moving forward, $45 million annually would be needed to continue the grant. Steven Aleman, Disability Rights Texas, expressed three concerns: 1) equitable participation – the grant is not serving low income or students of color; 2) economies of scale; and 3) the “mission creep” aspect of this service. Aleman recommended establishing a trigger requirement, providing a direct transfer of the needed technology to families, and focusing on the fundamental student supports needed in public schools.
On to day two… Commissioner Morath gave a broad overview of curriculum and instructional materials in Texas. He cited a study that said only 17% of lessons U.S. students receive are on grade level, with the percentage being 19% in Texas. He also expressed concerns with curricular materials used in schools, explaining that since 2011, when the Legislature removed the SBOE’s authority to review/approve instructional materials, Texas has a “state-recommended, district-selected” policy. He told the committee that it would be useful for the SBOE to once again be involved in instructional material review, while allowing districts local discretion and latitude. He also recommended the continued development of OER materials, expanded training and support for teachers and principals on how to teach materials well, and improvements in instructional materials transparency — even a web-based portal through which parents could see what their kids are learning each week. He also recommended additional capacity supports as district audit and evaluate the efficacy of curriculum. Such audits, he said, should be encouraged as much as possible.
On the issue of parental rights, Morath cited a long list of the rights that parents currently have in the public K-12 system. These included the right to request their children go to different schools than those they are zoned for and the right to view instructional materials. He noted the right of parents to temporarily remove their child from instruction if they do not want their child to receive a specific lesson and that parents have some specific rights about health instruction. He explained that districts have grievance policies that allow anyone to grieve anything to the school board, and sometimes they can be appealed to the commissioner. He also explained that parents have certain rights under federal special education legislation. He also said that recent state law requires that the public be allowed to opine on every topic on which a school board will take a vote, but he said few topics must be publicly covered so parents can speak to them. Morath said that parents have the right to involve themselves in their child’s accelerated instruction academic plan, and now, a parent can enforce that their child remain in their current grade rather than being promoted.
Rep. James Talarico (Austin) asked Morath what role accusations against educators is playing in the teacher shortage. Morath answered that “rights start, stop, and revolve around parents and if you assume otherwise, you’re making an egregious mistake.” He said responsibility is different than rights, and as a father when he sends his children to school, it’s a partnership. He expects the school and the parents to both do all they can to educate the child, but at the end of the day “it is still his kid.” Morath said that teachers are leaving the profession because they are being overworked from a time perspective, often handling both instructional design and delivery. He said the degree of support and training in student discipline are also key drivers. The No. 3 factor, according to the commissioner, is pay. “There is no data on societal factors [causing teachers to quit], but we do have anecdotes.”
The committee hearing continued late into the evening with a number of parents and others testifying on the topic of parent empowerment. The committee will meet next at 10 a.m., Tuesday, August 9, to hear invited and public testimony on interim charges related to assessment and accountability.