HOUSE HB 72 ;
"+ STUDY Haley
GROUP bill analysis 6/21/84 (CSHB 72, by Haley)
®@ SUBJECT: Education administration, programs, and finance
COMMITTEE: Public Education: committee substitute recommended to
VOTE: 8 ayes--Glossbrenner, Blanton, C. Evans, Fox, Grisham,
Heflin, Ragsdale, Haley
1 nay--Hammond
| Q present, not voting
|
| OTHER The committee voted on several significant amendments
| COMMITTEE to HB 72, including:
| ACTION:
-~-The Blanton amendment to strike the provision for
appointing, then electing a 12-member State Board
of Education: ;
| 5 ayes--Glossbrenner, Blanton, Fox, Grisham, Heflin ©
| 3 nays--C. Evans, Hammond, Ragsdale
| l present, not voting--Haley
--The Blanton amendment to require a teacher-
| competency test for already-employed teachers:
5 ayes--Blanton, C. Evans, Fox, Hammond, Heflin
3 nays--Glossbrenner, Grisham, Ragsdale
1 present, not voting--Haley
--The Heflin amendment to make prekindergarten a local
| school-district option instead of a requirement:
| 5 ayes--Blanton, C. Evans, Fox, Grisham, Heflin
3 nays--Glossbrenner, Hammond, Ragsdale
l present, not voting--Haley
--The Blanton amendments to keep the current salary
structure, raise teacher pay, and retain the
personnel unit as the basis for school finance:
5 ayes--Glossbrenner, Blanton, Fox, Grisham, Heflin
2 nays--Hammond, Ragsdale
2 present, not voting--Haley, C. Evans
| BACKGROUND: See House Study Group Special Legislative Report No. 103,
The June 1984 Special Session: A Preview, June 4, 1984.
SPECIAL Because of the complexity of the bill, this analysis
| NOTE: is presented in an unusual format. The report analyzes
| the bill under four headings--organization and management;
| teachers; finance; and educational quality. Committee
changes are digested along with provisions of the
original bill.
1

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
; Page Two
SPECIAL Arguments for and against the bill are also grouped
NOTE: under the four headings. The SUPPORTERS SAY arguments
(continued) are those in favor of the original bill. The OPPONENTS
SAY arguments include those in favor of the committee
changes.

The digest and arguments do not refer to the proposed Haley
floor substitute per se, but it is substantially identical
to the original HB 72. Where the floor substitute differs

materially from the original bill, the differences are
, described in the NOTES section at the end of this
report.
ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
DIGEST: The organization and management sections of HB 72, as
originally introduced, would replace the current State
Board of Education elected from the 27 congressional
districts with a transitional state board appointed
from 12 districts. A Legislative Education Board
consisting of the Lieutenant Governor, the House Speaker,
and members of the House and Senate would oversee state
education policy and would submit the names of three
residents of each district to the Governor, who would
appoint one to the transitional board. After four years,
state board members would be elected from the 12
districts. The election would be held on the first
; Saturday in April of even-numbered years; all school
, districts would have to hold their school-board elections
at the same time. State board members would be elected
; by plurality vote. Board terms would be four years
- rather than six. (For more information on this plan
and the boundaries of the 12 proposed districts, see
- HSG Daily Floor Report, June 18, 1984.)
‘The State Board of Education would be the primary policy-
making body for public education. It would establish
four-year plans for meeting system goals and evaluate
‘and report on progress made toward those goals before
each regular legislative session. The state board would
. require each district, as part of its annual financial
- report, to break down costs by campus and program and
include management, cost-accounting, and financial
information.
2

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Page Three
DIGEST: Rulemaking authority currently assigned to the Central
(continued) Education Agency or the commissioner of education

would be transferred to the state board.
The commissioner of education would serve at the will
of the board rather than for a four-year term. Senate
confirmation of the board's appointee would no longer
be required. The commissioner would no longer need to
be a five-year resident of the state or meet other
gualifications such as being eligible for the highest
school administrator's certificate or holding a master's
degree.

. The state board would no longer review decisions of
the commissioner on appeals of local school-board
actions. If the commissioner refused to reinstate
a suspended or canceled teacher's certificate or upheld
or overruled a teacher firing, the appeal would go to
the district court in Travis County; other appeals
would go to the district court where the school district
was located.
The commissioner could no longer review or reject books
submitted for adoption by the state textbook-selection
committee; the state board would have that authority
exclusively. Textbooks would be adopted on a maximum
Six-year cycle.
The state board would be required to set standards for
accreditation of school districts, encompassing goals
and objectives, statutory compliance, test scores,
effectiveness of principals, fulfillment of curriculum
requirements, special programs, correlation of test scores |
and grades, teacher training, paperwork reduction, and
board-member training. The state board would have to
revoke accreditation, and could withhold state funds,
from a district that failed to maintain minimum state
standards. Districts would be investigated at least

every three years to determine whether they satisfy
state standards. Principals, teachers, and parents
would be consulted in an accreditation investigation.
The local school board would receive advance notice of
an investigation. If a district were deficient the
commissioner would take action in stages: (1) confidential
notice to the local board and superintendent; (2) public
notice; (3) appointment of an agency monitor to report
on local activities; (4) appointment of a master to
oversee local operations. If the district lost
accreditation, a master would have to be appointed. A
master would approve or disapprove any action by the
local board or superintendent.

3

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Page Four :
DIGEST: The state board would adopt a uniform school calendar
(continued) for every district, including holidays. Students would
not be required to begin classes before Sept. 1.
Local school boards would publish an annual performance
report based on uniform standards, including financial
' information, trends of test scores, attendance, and
class size.

_ The state board would accredit courses on the duties
of school-board members and establish statewide
standards for such courses. The board could provide
for such training courses to be offered by regional
education-service centers.

Penalties would be provided for frivolous civil lawsuits
' filed under state law against school districts or school

employees and officers. The defendants in such cases

would be entitled to an award of costs and reasonable
attorney's fees.
The state board would adopt a model administrative
structure for local districts, particularly to encourage
consolidation of districts too small to operate
efficiently.
Local districts would be required to draw attendance _
zones to encourage "feeder" schools, enabling all those attending
the same elementary school to go on to the same junior

and senior high schools. A feeder school's student

population could be divided if necessary to comply with
federal desegregation requirements.
School districts could use lease-purchase agreements
for buildings and equipment.

The Central Education Agency could not maintain offices
outside of Austin, meaning that existing vocational
education area offices would have to be closed.
Committee Version
The committee deleted the provisions of the original
that would replace the current elected State Board of
Education, standardize the election day of local school

districts, and create a Legislative Education Board.

; 4

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
‘ Page Five
| DIGEST: The committee restored most of the current qualifications
(continued) for the commissioner of education and restored appoint-
ment of the commissioner for a four-year term. But the
committee did not restore the requirement that the
commissioner be a five-year resident of Texas.

The committee amended the provision for district financial
reports to stipulate that they contain information not

| already reported in other forms.

Regarding the proposed six-year textbook-adoption cycle,
the committee made an exception for subjects undergoing
so little change that new textbooks would be unnecessary.

|
The committee would grant a master the authority to
approve or disapprove any action by a local board or
superintendent only after a loss of accreditation.
The committee deleted school-board member training from
the requirements for district accreditation. The committee
would require local board members to receive
training and would require the district to inform the
public, before the election filing date, of any training
received by school-board candidates. The state board
would appoint a 15-member advisory committee, including
at least five current local-board members, to set

statewide standards for such training.
The committee deleted the provisions requiring a uniform
school calendar, administrative models for school
districts, and "feeder" school attendance zones. It
also deleted the ban on maintaining Texas Education
Agency offices outside of Austin.

SUPPORTERS The 27-member State Board of Education is too cumbersome

SAY: and unresponsive to manage the far-reaching reforms
proposed in this bill. Board members have only reacted
to problems belatedly instead of taking the initiative
to improve the multibillion-dollar state education
system over which they preside.
Few would dispute that a smaller, streamlined state board
is needed. Yet HB 72 would avoid an abrupt, disruptive
shift to a smaller, elected board. In consultation
with legislative leaders, the Governor would appoint the
best managers in the state to an interim board in order
to get the new education system off to a strong start.
After this transitional period, the voters would again
choose the board members, with a new focus of public
attention on electing the best possible members in order
to sustain the momentum of reform.

5

--- PAGE BREAK ---

: oa fe, i
i Shoe
HB 72
Page Six oo
SUPPORTERS The current organization of the state education system
SAY: diffuses too widely the responsibility for setting
(continued) educational policy. HB 72 would clarify that the state
board alone sets policy, which the commissioner as
; chief executive officer carries out. Like most other
state agencies, the board should be free to hire and
fire this chief executive unimpeded by outmoded restric-
tions.
To increase accountability, identify problems as they
emerge, and ensure a more responsive system, uniform
standards must be established for the evaluation and
comparison of performance district by district. Wide
disparities in district performance and administrative
efficiency cannot be tolerated any more than disparities
in school funding. The new accreditation criteria would
help prevent districts from falling below minimum standards.
In extreme cases, the state should assume supervision
of a local district through appointment of a master in
order to protect the local students and taxpayers.
But in order to avoid such problems, school trustees
. would be encouraged to participate in special training
programs. Many trustees lack in-depth familiarity with
subjects such as school finance.
Currently school calendars and holiday schedules of the
various districts are a mishmash. Interdistrict compe-
titions are hindered when scheduled events fall in the
middle of the semester in some districts and during
final exams in others. HB 72 would require synchronization
of school schedules in order to introduce statewide
consistency.
Some districts are too small to operate efficiently and
should be encouraged to consolidate. Administrative .
models established by the state board could provide a
uniform standard for such districts to use in deciding
how best to improve their administrative performance.
Textbooks currently are not replaced for eight years,
forcing students to use material that is far out of
: date. A maximum six-year textbook-adoption cycle would
help ensure that students have books reflecting current
knowledge.
OPPONENTS Election of State Board of Education members remains the
SAY: best means of guaranteeing an accountable board.
Unseating the current board elected by the people would
be a drastic and unnecessary step. Responsibility for
directing the state educational system has been fragmented
6

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
oo Page Seven
, OPPONENTS until relatively recently, so those ready to junk the’

SAY: democratically elected board should look for another

(continued) scapegoat. The board has effectively carried out tough
assignments in recent years, such as setting standards
for curriculum and for teacher-competency testing.
The Republican-primary defeat of board chair Joe Kelly
Butler in May demonstrated that voters do pay attention
to the board and can make changes if they so choose.

. Cutting the number of board members by half or more has .
superficial appeal but would make little real difference
in the way the board works. Like the Legislature, the
board does much of its substantive work in committees.
Reducing the number of board districts would only make
it more difficult to ensure minority representation;
each district would have to cover a much larger territory,
diluting concentrations of minority voters. A shift from
a large elected body to a smaller board that is first
appointed, then elected, probably would not pass muster
with the U.S. Department of Justice under federal Voting
Rights Act review. Electing the board in April would
cause additional problems--for example, in Houston, ©
school-board elections are held in conjunction with
city elections in November, so shifting those elections
to April could have an adverse impact on minority-voter

turnout.

The commissioner of education should be insulated from
the politics of the board by having a set term with
removal only for cause. The Legislature can also make
certain that the commissioner is a person of the highest
caliber by retaining current qualifications in the law.
Although local school districts clearly need to remain
subject to state standards and accountability, the
Legislature should not authorize the Texas Education
Agency to place expensive new paperwork burdens on the
districts merely for the sake of centralization and
uniformity. The voters in each district make policy by
electing trustees to respond to local needs; those
trustees should have the flexibility to do their job.
Local circumstances vary widely in a state as diverse
as Texas, so the local districts should, within certain
limits, be allowed to set their own school calendar.
For the same reason, it would be a waste of time and

, money to formulate administrative models adaptable to
every school district in the state. And local districts

--- PAGE BREAK ---

: . - pf Fy 1
HB 72 i
Page Eight
OPPONENTS have enough problems already with setting school
SAY: attendance zones; they should not be hindered further
(continued) by state law. Local school trustees should be encouraged
to attend training sessions, but a district should not
have its accreditation threatened if a trustee refuses
to participate. Informing local voters of a trustee's
. failure to participate should be sufficient.
Giving a master veto power over local district decisions
prior to loss of accreditation would frustrate the
state's purpose: The district would have a greater
; incentive to correct deficiencies if it could avoid
a losing its authority to a master.
Vocational-education area offices should not be closed.
These local offices provide necessary services. Counting
in the cost of relocating staff and higher travel expenses
, from Austin to do the same work already done in the
field, no savings would be realized.
OTHER Since most appeals from actions by local school boards
OPPONENTS are eventually heard in district court anyway after
SAY: being heard by the commissioner of education and the
state board, both the commissioner and the state board
should be removed from the process in order to save time
and expense.
8

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Page Nine
TEACHERS
DIGEST; Teacher career ladder. The bill would require that all
teachers be assigned by their school districts to one
of four levels of a new career ladder, for the purpose
of determining salary. Assignment would have to be
; based on performance, teaching experience, job-related
education, and advanced academic training.
Appraisals. The bill would require the State Board of
Education, after soliciting the advice of teachers,
to establish a statewide method and uniform standards
for appraising classroom performance as part of the
process of assigning career-ladder levels to teachers.
The criteria for appraising performance would have to be
based on observable, job-related behavior, including
discipline management. Teachers' self-evaluations
would be included in the appraisal process. Teachers
whose duties include supervising extracurricular activities
could be appraised only on the basis of classroom-
teaching performance.
Teachers would be appraised twice each academic year.
Two appraisers would be required--the teacher's super-
visor and a classroom teacher knowledgeable in the
teacher's subject area. Districts could allow more than
two appraisers to take part. The state board would
make rules governing exceptions for districts where
employee shortages make the two-appraiser rule impractical.
The state board would also be required to set up uniform
statewide training and certification programs for
appraisers.
The bill would authorize local districts to determine
the weight to give the criteria in the appraisal
process.
Appraisers would rate teachers using four performance
categories: below expectations, satisfactory, exceeding
expectations, and clearly outstanding.
Career-ladder level reguirements. Level-one entry would
require certification by the State Board of Education.
_ The bill would allow two options for level-two entry.
A teacher with a bachelor's degree would need three
years of experience teaching at level one and nine
semester hours of higher-education courses (or 135
actual hours of advanced academic training) to reach
9

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
, Page Ten ‘
DIGEST: level two. A teacher with a master's degree would need
(continued) two years of teaching at level one and six semester
hours of course work (or 90 actual hours of training). '
Beyond level two, faster advancement would be awarded
for better job-performance appraisals. The degree held
would not affect level-three or level-four entry. (All
options for levels three and four would require performance
ratings of satisfactory or higher for all years.)
For level-three entry, a teacher who earned exceeding-
expectations ratings for three of the preceding six
years would need six years at level two and nine semester
hours of course work (or 135 hours of training). A
. teacher who earned clearly-outstanding ratings in two
of the preceding three years would need three years at
level two and three semester hours of course work (or
45 hours of training).
In the career ladder, those reaching level four would be
designated as master teachers. They would have special °
duties, including supervising student teachers, acting
as team leaders or department chairs, assessing level-
four candidates, or conducting advanced academic training.
For level-four entry, teachers would have to pass a
master-teacher examination, including oral and written
tests and other assessments, to be developed by the state
board with the advice of teachers. A teacher with
clearly-outstanding ratings two out of the previous three
years would also need six years at level three and six
semester hours of course work (or 90 hours of training).
A teacher with clearly outstanding ratings for three
consecutive years would need three years at level three
and three semester hours of course work (or 45 hours
of training).
Level-four maintenance would require teachers to have
taught in the classroom at least 60 percent of the school
day for the three preceding years and to perform at
least two master-teacher duties every three years. A
teacher maintaining clearly-outstanding ratings each
year would not need more training or course work. A
teacher with clearly-outstanding ratings two out of each
three years would need three semester hours of course
work (or 45 hours of training).
10

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
—_ : Page Eleven
|, DIGEST: Course work and academic training. Local districts would
(continued) have to authorize courses and training programs for
teachers, approving only those related to a teacher's
subject area and teaching duties. Training in classroom
management would be acceptable. Course work and training
could be substituted for each other, with one semester
hour of course work equaling 15 hours of academic
training.
Level revocation. Master teachers not meeting maintenance
requirements would be reassigned to level three. Teachers
at level three who for two consecutive years did not earn
ratings better than satisfactory would be reassigned
to level two. Teachers at level two or three rated below
, expectations would be reassigned to level one. Any
teacher reassigned to a lower level could requalify for
higher levels by earning the required performance ratings.
If a teacher was reassigned involuntarily to another
grade or subject outside his specialty because of a
shortage of teachers, for the first three years thereafter
the district could not move the teacher to a lower career-
ladder level because of below-expectations ratings.
Level~assignment appeal and transferability between
| districts. The bill specifies that assignment to a
career-ladder level by the district would be final and
could not be appealed. Level assignment would not be
the equivalent of tenure or a grant of any property
right. Level assignment would not necessarily transfer
with a teacher who took a job in another district,
although the second district could use evaluation
results obtained by the teacher's previous employer.
Salaries. The bill would replace the current state
salary-grade system with a new ll-step salary schedule
for teachers. The bill would place each teacher at
the lowest step that would give the teacher a raise of
at least $1,700 per year over 1983-84 salary levels.
Beginning with the 1984-85 school year, teachers would
advance one step per year to achieve the following
annual minimum salaries:
step 0: $15,200 step 6: $22,040
step 1: $16,340 step 7: $23,180 |
step 2: $17,480 step 8: $24,320
step 3: $18,620 step 9: $25,460 |
step 4: $19,760 Step 10: $26,600 |
step 5: $20,900 |
11

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Page Twelve :
DIGEST: Teachers on levels two, three and four of the career
(continued) ladder would receive state-funded career-ladder supple-
ments. Local school districts would be required to
expend at least 50 percent of funds from a ‘special
Education Improvement and Career Ladder Allotment for
these supplements. Each district would decide the amount
of state-funded career-ladder supplements to award to
teachers at different levels.
Qualifications and training for administrators. HB 72
would define the roles, necessary qualifications, training,
-and duties of superintendents and other administrators.
The bill would require that local district qualifications
for the posts of superintendent and principal be flexible
enough to allow an outstanding educator to qualify.
Alternative certification and noncertified teachers. The
bill would allow certification for teachers (in subject
areas in which the state board recognizes a critical
shortage) who have not graduated from approved teacher-
education programs. Candidates would have to pass all
generally required skills tests, perform a one-year
internship in a public school, and take training in
teaching methods and classroom management. The one-year
internship would count as a year of experience for
career-ladder assignments. -
The bill would also authorize and encourage districts
to recruit noncertified professionals with college
degrees to teach secondary math, science, computer
science, and other technological subjects. Noncertified
professionals would be limited to three classes per day,
; and their pay would be proportionally smaller than a
full-time teacher's. They would not be eligible for
benefits, although, like certified teachers, they
would be protected from civil liability in performing
their duties. :
Local boards could not displace certified teachers
in hiring noncertified teachers, and they could not
hire noncertified teachers when qualified certified
teachers had applied for the same positions. Local
boards would have to submit a plan for employing
noncertified teachers to the commissioner of education,
who would approve or reject it within 30 days.
12

--- PAGE BREAK ---

| HB 72
Page Thirteen
) DIGEST: Preparation time and minimum teaching duties. The bill
(continued) would require that all teachers teach at least four
hours of every teaching day. It also specifies that
the teacher's minimum daily 45-minute period for
preparation and planning could also be used for
conferences with parents and for reviewing student
homework. Teachers could not be required to take part
in any other activities during this time.
Teacher-education program standards and sanctions. The
bill would authorize the commissioner and State Board of
Education to warn, place on probation, and withdraw
accreditation from a program that does not meet
accreditation standards within a reasonable time.
Students admitted to a program before accreditation
was revoked would not be disqualified from certification.
The bill would require teacher-education program
administrators to report to the state board annually
on program performance measures such as achievement-
test scores of enrolled students and number of program
graduates working in public schools.
Financial aid to qualified candidate teachers. The bill
would authorize the Coordinating Board of Texas Colleges
and Universities to cancel repayment of loans made from
the Texas Opportunity Plan Fund to qualified college
students who earn teaching certificates from approved
programs and who teach at least four years in areas
designated by the state board as critically short of
teachers.
The bill would also create a new Future Teacher Loan
Fund, a revolving fund to be administered by the
Coordinating Board and funded by a proposed special
legislative appropriation. The bill would authorize
loans from the fund to financially needy students who
maintain a 3.0 grade-point average on a 4.0 scale while
in an approved teacher-education program.
The bill would authorize the Coordinating Board to
cancel repayment if the borrower earns a certificate
and teaches for four years in a state-board-designated
teacher-shortage area. Repayment of the loan would
have to start immediately if the borrower left teaching
within four years. The Attorney General or any county
or district attorney could sue in case of default on
loan payments.
}
13
|
|
|

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Page Fourteen
DIGEST: The Coordinating Board would be required to report to
(continued) the Governor annually on the use of loan funds and
the effectiveness of the loan program. ,
Private-donor research fund. The bill would create a
new Private Donor Research Fund to encourage private
; donations to support research and development in
teacher education and teaching. The Legislature
could match private donations with biennial appropriations,
up to a limit of $5 million. The State Board of Education
would administer the fund, solicit federal funding,
and distribute grants from the fund among teacher-
education programs and school districts.
Committee Version
Competency exam. The committee version of the bill
would direct the state board, with the advice of teachrs
and administrators, to develop a comprehensive examination
for already-employed teachers and school administrators.
The exam would test basic skills and subject-area
knowledge appropriate for certification of primary and
' secondary teachers. For administrators the exam would
test administrative skills and knowledge in subjects.
Examinees could participate in board-developed preparation
(including remedial aid) for the exam and could take
it more than once. The state board would define
satisfactory performance on the exam and could limit
the number of times it could be taken. To continue
teaching (this section does not mention administrators),
examinees would have to pass the exam by June 30, 1986,
unless allowed by the state board to stay on the job
due to emergency need. A teacher could not work more
than one school year under a certificate of emergency
need.
The committee would authorize districts to release
from further employment or place on probationary-contract
employment any person who failed by June 30, 1986, to take
or to pass the teacher-competency examination.
Salaries. The committee version also changes the
teacher-salary provisions of the original bill. The
committee version retains current law (repealed by
the original bill) assigning school personnel to one
of 18 pay grades (and providing a personnel-unit value
for employees at each level). The original bill requires
14

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
, ' Page Fifteen
) DIGEST: that in the 1984-85 school year each teacher be placed
(continued) at the lowest salary step that would provide a minimum
$1,700 per year raise; the committee version authorizes
the $1,700 minimum raise for pay grades seven (teachers)
through 18 (superintendents of districts with more than |
50,000 pupils). Teachers would still be guaranteed a
minimum starting salary of $15,200, as in the original
bill, with annual step increases of $1,140 up toa
maximum of ten years.
The committee bill authorizes local school districts
to pay specified supplements for career-ladder advance-
ment. The annual supplement above the state minimum
salary would be $2,000 for level two, $4,000 for level

three, and $6,000 for level four. If the district
pays more than the state minimum, teachers would be
entitled to the career-ladder supplement in addition
to the amount otherwise paid by the district in local
supplements. As in the original bill, districts would
have to spend at least 50 percent of their special
allotment on career-ladder supplements. Use of the
allotment to supplement the salary of employees for
directing cocurricular or extracurricular activities
would be prohibited.
Appraisals. The committee bill would block teachers

from appraising other teachers. The amendment would
change the minimum personnel required to perform
appraisals of a teacher from one administrator and
one classroom teacher to "the teacher's supervisor and...
and administrator knowledgeable about the applicable
subject or grade level."
The committee also would require that appraisals for
teachers (and administrators) be detailed by category
of professional skill and provide for separate ratings
in each category. Discussion aimed at helping the
appraised teacher remedy deficiencies would be required,
along with written identification of performance areas
needed for advancement.
The committee bill would block master teachers from
taking part in appraisals of other teachers. It would
require the state board to define the duties of master
teachers, and would exclude assessment of level-four
candidates from the list of possible options.

| ;

; 15

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72 _
Page Sixteen ,
DIGEST: Appeal of career-ladder assignment. Another committee
(continued) change deletes the section of the original specifying
that local-district decisions on career-ladder assign-
ments are final and cannot be appealed. The amendment
would allow teachers to appeal such decisions to the
commissioner of education, the State Board of Education,
and state courts.
The committee bill also adds that when teachers transfer
to jobs in other districts and are being appraised by
officials in the new district, only appraisals based on
minimum state criteria may be used, and locally developed
criteria must not be applied.
SUPPORTERS This bill gives Texas teachers a long-overdue pay raise.
SAY: It will make teacher salaries more competitive--and
that is the crucial first step in educational reform,
because low pay has been lowering the quality of
applicants for teaching jobs.
The bill would also make needed reforms in the teaching
profession. It ties future pay raises to an incentive-
based career ladder for teachers. In the past teachers
have had to move into administration or into industry
for a living wage and a sense of professional growth.
Some of the best teachers have been discouraged by
a system providing too little incentive for improvement.
The career ladder will help keep qualified, experienced
teachers in the classroom. At the same time, the
career ladder mandates semiannual appraisals and requires
teachers to continue their own education. The career
ladder will help all teachers improve, and it will
reward the best teachers with the highest pay.

The proposed teacher-evaluation process is equitable
and workable. Making teachers part of the appraisal
team will bring the practitioner's perspective to the
process, yielding more reliable results. Other
provisions, such as alternative-certification plans

to lure qualified professionals into teaching and
koans for high-ranking students, will attract the
best-qualified people to service in the Texas schools
and help to overcome the looming teaching shortage.

16

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Page Seventeen

SUPPORTERS The Select Committee on Public Education showed that

SAY: the state should concentrate every available dollar .

(continued) on classroom teachers in core teaching areas. The
committee bill would grant pay raises to administrators
and other district personnel who are already better

paid and whose salaries have been rising faster than

those of teachers over the last decade.
Allowing teachers to appeal career-ladder assignments |
would bog the entire system down in costly litigation.
Requiring that teachers pass a written examination
is a bad idea--there are some very good teachers who
might do poorly on such a test, A teacher's skills
show in the classroom, and all requirements for
continued employment should take that into account. Taking
a punitive attitude to teachers will not help improve
education in Texas.

OPPONENTS The bill doesn't go far enough in reforming teacher

SAY: pay and certification. A competency examination is also
needed as a condition of employment to push marginal
teachers to improve and to push the clearly incompetent
into other work.

) The career-ladder concept is good but continued longevity
raises for poor teachers drastically undermine the new
incentive system. This is not enough of a reform to
justify a tax increase.

Involving teachers in peer review will lead to dissension,
favoritism, and damaged morale. Appraisal is a management
function that should be performed by administrators.
Allowing local districts to decide how much weight to .
give state-board-mandated appraisal criteria undermines
the intended uniformity of those criteria. This wiil
be a particular problem when teachers transfer from
one district to another. If the appraisals are not
fair and uniform the whole career ladder could break
down, as career ladders have in other states.
Prohibiting appeals of career-ladder assignments
is a denial of due process to teachers. No matter
how carefully designed, the proposed appraisal process
for teachers would still be open to procedural error
or bias. Administrators charged with granting appraisals
on which raises are based also have to hold down budgets.

; This is a potential conflict of interest. Teachers

- ghould be able to seek redress from the state board or
) the courts when mistakes are made.
17

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
‘ Page Eighteen
FINANCE
DIGEST; The bill would eliminate the current school-finance

mechanism, which distributes money to districts primarily
through a "personnel-unit" salary scheme, and replaces

it with a basic entitlement mechanism. The state would
give each district a basic allotment of $1,290 per school

year for each student in average daily attendance.

To accommodate geographic variations in the cost of providing
basic education, the bill would adjust the basic allotment
using a "price differential" adjustment formula. A price-
differential index would be assigned to each school
district. The index value for a given district would
take into account differing teacher salaries in contigious
districts and the percentage of the district's students
who are educationally disadvantaged.

The basic allotment would be further adjusted for small
districts, defined as those with fewer than 3,000
students in average daily attendance. The smaller the
district, the higher its adjusted allotment would be
under the formula.
In addition to the adjusted basic allotment each school
district could receive a special allotment for each
full-time student enrolled in a special-education program,
a bilingual or special-language program, or a vocational-
education program. The adjusted basic allotment for
students in these programs would be weighted to reflect
the added cost of providing these special educational
services. Special-allotment funds would have to be used
for the designated programs.
A compensatory-education allotment would also be
granted for each educationally disadvantaged student.
The average enrollment in the federal school-lunch
program would determine a district's number of educationally
disadvantaged students. Compensatory-education money
would have to be used for remedial and compensatory-
education programs.
The bill would create another special allotment for
educational improvement and support of the career
ladder. The size of the allotment would be determined
by multiplying the district's average daily attendance
; by $150 for the 1984-85 school year, $160 for the 1985-86
school year, and $170 for the 1986-87 school year
and each school year thereafter. The Legislature could
appropriate more money for this allotment.
18

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Page Nineteen

DIGEST: Fifty percent of this allotment money would be reserved

(continued) for career-ladder salary supplements, 25 percent
would be used for nonteacher salaries, and 25 percent
could be used for any legal purpose. This allotment
could not supplement the salary of an employee for
directing cocurricular or extracurricular activities.
Under this bill districts whose teacher population
had more experience than a statewide average would
qualify for an experienced-teacher allotment to help
them hire and retain experienced teachers. The formula
used to calculate this allotment would compare a
district's average minimum teacher's salary required
by law to the statewide average teacher's minimum
salary required by law. Additionally, the formula
weights the allotment in favor of poorer districts.
The smaller a district's local obligation wider the Foundation
School Program, the larger its experienced-teacher
allotment would be. A "budget-balanced" district--
one whose local fund assignment equaled its Foundation
School Program costs--could not receive an experienced-
teacher allotment.
Districts would also receive a transportation allotment,
the amount of which would be set by appropriation.
Transportation-allotment funds could only be used
for transportation services.
The bill would also create an enrichment-equalization
allotment similar to the current equalization-aid
entitlement. School districts whose property wealth
per student in average daily attendance is at or below
110 percent of the statewide average would qualify for
aid. A district's equalization aid would be limited
to 35 percent of its total Foundation School Program
allocations. A district's aid under this provisions
could be reduced if its tax effort was below standard.
The bill would require the State Board of Education to
determine each biennium the real, accountable costs
school districts incur in providing accredited education
programs and to report its findings to the Legislature.
In adopting the amount of the basic, special, and
transportation allotments, the Legislature would be

required to consider the Board's report.
19

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Page Twenty
DIGEST: Under the bill, the local share of the Foundation
(continued) School Program would be based on the ratio of a district's

property wealth to statewide property wealth. This ratio
would be multiplied by a factor of 30 percent of the
total state's Foundation School Program costs. This
30 percent represents the aggregate local share of the
total Foundation School Program. The total cost of the
Foundation School Program under this provision would
not include the experienced-teacher allotments or
enrichment-equalization allotments.
If the state's share of the Foundation School Program
for a given year exceeded the amount appropriated for
that year, the Commissioner of Education would reduce
each district's allocation proportionately.
HB 72 would eliminate the "hold-harmless" provision
of current law, which says that no district's local
fund assignment shall exceed 120 percent of its prior
year's local fund assignment.
The bill would also eliminate the current "minimm-aid" provision |
which says that no school district shall receive less |
state aid than it did for the 1980-81 school year.

; School districts that would receive less state aid
in the 1984-85 school year than they received in the |
1983-84 school year would be eligible for equalization
transition aid if they raised their tax rate by at least
8 percent to offset that loss. Equalization-transition
aid would be payable for three consecutive school years,
starting with the 1984-85 school year. The state could
spend no more than $50 million the first year, $25 million
for the second year, and $12.5 million for the third
year for this aid. If the amount districts would
qualify for under this provision exceeded the amount
appropriated for any year, the commissioner of education
would reduce each district's grant proportionately.
The State Property Tax Board would be required to conduct
an annual instead of a biennial study to determine the
total taxable value of the property in each school district.
For funding purposes, the average daily attendance would
be determined by the best four weeks of an eight-week

. attendance period specified by the State Board of Education.
Average daily attendance is currently determined by
attendance taken for the entire school year.

20

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Page Twenty-9ne
. Committee Version °
DIGEST: The committee bill would eliminate HB 72's
(continued) basic-entitlement and special-allotment funding
mechanism and go back to a personnel-unit funding
mechanism. The substitute retains current statutory
personnel-unit values but provides for higher salaries.
Each district's local fund assignment would equal the
amount of money yielded by applying a tax rate of nine
cents per $100 valuation to a district's taxable property
for the prior tax year. Current law sets the tax rate
at ll cents. The Legislature could provide for a
different tax rate in the general appropriations act.
The committee bill would delete the original bill's
requirement that the commissioner reduce each district's
annual allocation under the Foundation School Program
when the state's share exceeded the amount appropriated.
The committee bill would also eliminate the equalization-
transition aid established in the original bill.
The maximum amount of equalization aid for which a
school district would be eligible would be increased
to 50 percent of the statewide average total of Foundation
School Program allocations. The tax-effort provision
contained in the original bill would be retained.
The committee bill retain HB 72's special allotment
for education improvement and support of the career
ladder.
The committee bill restores the current statutory
minimum-aid provision (see NOTES).
SUPPORTERS
SAY: The personnel-unit funding mechanism in the current
Foundation School Program is unfair to poor school
districts. By treating experienced teachers as the
equivalent of novices for the purpose of claiming state
funding of teacher salaries, the system gives wealthier
districts that have already attracted experienced
teachers an advantage. These wealthier districts
naturally choose to have the state pay for their
highest-salary teachers--using their allotted personnel
units to make the "best buy." Thus their personnel
units translate into more state funding than the units
allocated to poorer districts with less experienced
. teachers. Since more than 70 percent of Foundation
School Program money is spent on salaries, the personnel-
unit, best-buy system skews the state's whole school-
finance program in favor of wealthier districts.
21

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Page Twenty-Two
SUPPORTERS a
SAY: Doing away with the personnel-unit system would not
(continued) discourage school districts from hiring more experienced
teachers, as opponents have charged. Districts would
receive a special allotment under HB 72 to hire experienced
teachers. Another educational~improvement allotment
would give them money to pay teachers higher salaries.
All of the money in the first allotment and all but
25 percent of the money in the second allotment could
be spent on teachers' salaries.
The hold-harmless and minimum-aid clauses in the current
system also diminish the equalizing effect of the
Foundation School Program. These clauses protect
school districts with increasing property wealth against
any loss of state aid. These provisions cost the state
$35 million in the 1982-83 school year alone. This
money could have been used to increase equalization aid
. to the poorer districts.
Even though some school districts will lose money through
the elimination of the hold-harmless clause, this
loss will be cushioned by the new equalization-transition
aid program. School districts that lose money could
be eligible for more than $87 million through the 1986-87
school year under this program. This aid would let
these school districts raise their local tax rates
gradually in order to recoup any loss, yet would still
be phased out in three years.
Other parts of the bill would also distribute state
; funds on a more equitable basis. Special allotments .
would provide additional funds to districts with
handicapped, disadvantaged, and non-English-speaking
students, many of whom live in poorer districts. '
Increasing the local fund assignment would not mean
that school districts would automatically have to raise
taxes. Through its accountable-costs provision, the
bill would expand the Foundation School Program to
include many basic educational costs now paid out of
local-enrichment funds. Some of what districts now
spend in enrichment would simply be considered part of
their local fund assignment under HB 72. And the state
will be spending more money on education. As a result,
even though some districts' local fund assignments
would increase, this local share would be part of a
larger education-spending pie. Only a small percentage
of districts would receive fewer state dollars in
1984-85 than they got in 1983-84 under this bill.
, 22

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Page Twenty-Three
SUPPORTERS
SAY: State enrichment aid should not be given to those
(continued) school districts that do not make a reasonable effort
to levy taxes at the local level. The bill would
ensure that those school districts that tax their
residents at a lower-than-standard rate would have
their state enrichment aid reduced proportionately.
Funding should be based on students' average daily
attendance and not on the average enrollment figure
that opponents prefer. If funding were based on
enrollment, school districts would have no incentive
to encourage high attendance. Attendance and overall
student performance would drop.
This bill would enhance the equalizing effect of the
Foundation School Program. Under this bill, the state
would have a better chance of defeating a legal
challenge to its school-finance system, like the lawsuit
that has been filed by the Mexican American Defense
and Educational Fund. If the state loses that lawsuit,
it would end up having to pay much more money than under
this bill.
OPPONENTS
SAY: Eliminating the personnel-unit system would discourage
school districts from hiring experienced teachers.
The current system guarantees the districts that the
state will allocate funds for these teachers' salaries.
Under the allotment system in the original bill, school
districts would be given state aid without regard to
the type of teachers hired. Even though the original bill
includes an experienced-teacher allotment, it does not
require school districts to use this money for experienced
teachers. The education-improvement and career-ladder
allotment only ensures that 50 percent of that money
would be used for teachers’ salaries. These two allotments
do not adequately protect the teachers of this state.
Everyone is familiar and comfortable with the personnel-
unit system. It protects experienced teachers and
should not be changed.
By increasing the local fund assignment, the original
bill would cause many suburban school districts to raise
their local tax rates, even though they already have
tax rates at or above the average statewide level.
These districts would be burdened even more because
they have proportionately few students in special,
bilingual, and compensatory-education programs. These
districts are also not small enough to qualify for
small-school adjustments.
23

--- PAGE BREAK ---

7 HB 72
' Page Twenty-four
OPPONENTS
SAY; The committee bill would maintain a low local fund
(continued) assignment and would lessen the magnitude of losses |
suffered by these districts. Since property values as
determined by the State Property Board will sharply |
increase under the board's new biennial report, the |
. nine-cent tax rate would actually increase the local
share of the total Foundation School Program spending.
OTHER
OPPONENTS
SAY: The original version of HB 72 does not go far enough.
It is a half-hearted attempt at correcting an extremely
. inequitable school-finance system.
The local fund assignment is not high enough. A state/
local split closer to 50/50 would more fairly reflect
the current state/local shares of the total spent on
public education.
The most inequitable factor in the current system is
, that the state does not grant funds for building costs.
Money generated for this purpose is totally a function
of the local tax base. As a result, the richer districts
can afford to build modern, comfortable facilities
while the poor districts struggle to maintain older,
substandard buildings.
Richer school districts have been protected long enough
through the hold-harmless and minimum-aid provisions.
They should not be protected yet again by $87 million
in equalization-transition aid. This money should be
directed to the poorer districts that cannot afford
to raise enough local-enrichment funds.
Continuing to base funding on average daily attendance
instead of average daily enrollment would punish poor
school districts, since they usually have lower attendance
in their schools. It would make more sense to base
funding on enrollment, because that is what school
districts must base their budgets on. School districts
must hire enough teachers and buy enough books to
accommodate all their enrolled students, whether they
show up for class or not. Attendance-based funing
simply gives more state aid to the richer districts that
do not need it.
24

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Page Twenty-Five
OTHER
OPPONENTS
SAY: The weights placed on compensatory-education and
(continued) bilingual-education programs would still be too low.
The weights would only produce about $100 more for
every student in these programs. Moreover, the
weight assigned to bilingual-education programs is
less than the weight assigned to compensatory programs.
Bilingual education should receive the same if not more
weight.
In order to equalize the current school-finance system,
the Legislature is simply going to have to give more ,
money to the poorer districts than to the richer districts.
It would be fiscally impossible to give more money
to all districts and still achieve equalization of the
Foundation School Program. The poor schoolchildren
in this state should not suffer any longer in order to
protect the wealthy. ;
25

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Page Twenty-Six
EDUCATIONAL QUALITY
DIGEST: Academic promotion, course credit, and tutorial services.
The bill would require that public-school students be
promoted only on the basis of academic achievement, not
: by social promotion. A student would have to maintain
a grade average of at least 70 on a scale of 100 to
advance from one grade to the next, and a grade average
of 70 in a course to get credit for the course. The
State Board of Education would prescribe alternatives
to strict academic promotion for students consistently
unable to meet academic requirements, and school districts
could offer those alternatives. The school district
would notify the parents of students who received
unsatisfactory grades and would attempt to set up
conferences between the parents and the appropriate
teachers.
Students in primary grades could advance one grade
on the basis of advanced-placement exams. Students
in the sixth grade or above could get credit for a
; particular subject on the basis of an advanced-
placement exam. The exam would be developed and
administered by school districts, under guidelines
established by the State Board of Education.
Each school district would be required to offer after-
school tutorial services. Student attendance at tutorials
would be optional.
A student with more than five days of unexcused absence
during a semester or more than ten days of unexcused
absence during a school year could not receive credit
' for a class.
Prekindergarten and preschool. The bill would require school
districts to offer half-day prekindergarten classes.
Four-year-olds identified as having a language or learning
disability would be eligible to attend.
Each school district that is required to offer a
bilingual-education or special-language program would
also have to offer a voluntary, eight-week, half-day,
intensive summer program for children of limited English
proficiency who will be eligible for admission to kinder~
garten or the first grade at the beginning of the next
school year.
26

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Page Twenty-Seven
DIGEST: Class sizes. The bill would require school districts
(continued) to maintain an average ratio of not less than one teacher
for each 20 students in average daily attendance. (Current
law specifies a 25-to-one student-teacher ratio.)
In addition, individual first- and second-grade classes
would have an upper limit of 27 students beginning
with the 1985-86 school year, and third- and fourth-
grade classes would have an upper limit of 27 beginning
with the 1988-89 school year. The commissioner
of education could grant temporary, one~semester hardship
exceptions.
Extracurricular activities and interscholastic competition.
The State Board of Education would, by rule, limit
participation in and practice for extracurricular
activities during the school day and the school week.
A student who received a grade of less than 70 in any
academic class during any grade-reporting period would
be suspended from extracurricular activities during the
subsequent reporting period. The suspensions would not
apply during the summer or during the first grade-
reporting period of a regular school term.
Local school boards would be required to adopt and
strictly enforce a policy limiting interruptions of
classes during the school day for nonacademic activities,
including limiting nonemergency announcements to one
per school day.
The rules and procedures of any organization sanctioning
or conducting interscholastic competition would have to
be consistent with State Board of Education rules. The
board could approve, disapprove, or modify any rules
of the University Interscholastic League, which is under
the direction of the University of Texas at Austin, or
require the UIL to adopt any rule or procedure initiated
by the board.
Basic skills and achievement tests. The bill would require
"Griterion referenced" testing of students in the third
grade for minimum basic skills in English and mathematics,
in addition to the current testing of fifth-graders and
ninth-graders. In the other grades, students would take
annual, state-approved “norm referenced achievement tests,"
measuring their knowledge of particular academic subjects.
School districts would be required to report test results,
by grade and by campus, to the Texas Education Agency.
School districts would be required to provide remedial
programs for students whose achievement-test scores fell
below a standard set by the State Board of Education.
27

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Page Twenty-Eight
) DIGEST: Discipline management and parental involvement. Each school
' (continued) district would be required to have an approved "discipline
. Management program," including a student code of conduct
setting forth the district's expectations. Discipline
Management programs would require parental involvement.
Vocational education. The bill would require the
State Board of Education to establish rules for vocational
education. All vocational-education programs in public
schools would require approval of the State Board of
Education. The board would review each vocational-
education program at least every four years to reestablish
its approval status.
The board would give priority for approval to programs
identified on an annually updatedlist of priority
occupations. Each school district seeking approval of
a new vocational program would be required to doa
study to determine whether operating its own program
is the most cost-effective approach. All requests for
programs would have to include a "plan for articulation"
between the proposed programs and those already in
existence in the area.
All vocational. programs would be required to have
competency-based instruction for each student based on
guidelines established by the State Board of Education.
Each vocational-education program would need an initial
enrollment of 30 students and a program could not be
offered if fewer than 20 students were enrolled, except
in districts with small populations.
A district would be required to give priority to using |
employer-based facilities for training students in
occupations with rapidly changing technologies.
The State Board of Education would be allowed to provide
incentives for school districts to employ industry
; professionals as part-time instructors.
The State Board of Education would be required to
create a master plan that describes the objectives
; of vocational education in Texas. This plan would be
updated on an annual basis to ensure that vocational
education programs meet the needs of emerging occupations
and address the needs of certain people such as the
handicapped, the disadvantaged, and adults.

--- PAGE BREAK ---

. - . )
HB 72
Page Twenty-Nine
DIGEST: The board would be required to consult with state agencies,
(continued) school districts, and the private sector in developing
the plan, and would hold public hearings each year before
final plan approval.
Committee Version
The provisions of the committee bill on academic promotion,
course credit, and tutorial services are the same as in
the original bill.
Prekindergarten and preschool. The committee version
would make the offering of prekindergarten classes a
local option. To be eligible for enrollment in a pre-
kindergarten class, a four-year-old would have to be
unable to speak and comprehend English, or be from a
poverty-level family and be determined to be "educationally
disadvantaged," as defined by eligibility for the free
and reduced-price school-lunch program.
As in the original bill, each school district that is
required to offer a bilingual-education or special-
language program would also have to offer the intensive
summer program for preschool children of limited English
proficiency.
Class size. The committee bill, like the original,
would require school districts to maintain an average
ratio of not less than one teacher for each 20 students
in average daily attendance. In addition, under the
committee bill individual first- and second-grade classes
would have an upper limit of 23 students beginning with
the 1985-86 school year, and third- and fourth-grade
classes would have an upper limit of 23 beginning with
the 1988-89 school year. As in the original bill, the
commissioner of education could grant hardship exceptions.
Extracurricular activities and interscholastic competition.
In the committee bill, a student who received a grade of
less than 70 in more than one class during any grade-
reporting period, or failed to maintain an overall
average of at least 70, would be suspended from extra-
curricular activities during the subsequent reporting
period. A school principal could waive a suspension if
the unsatisfactory grade was in an advanced or honors
class. Suspensions would apply during the summer, as well
as during the first grade-reporting period of a regular
school term.
29

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Page Thirty
| DIGEST: As in the original bill, local school boards would be
(continued) required to adopt and strictly enforce a policy of
limiting interruptions of classes during the school day
for nonacademic activities, including limiting non-
emergency announcements to one per school day. After
Aug. 1, 1985, the rules and procedures of any organization
sanctioning or conducting interscholastic competition,
including the University Interscholastic League, would |
require State Board of Education approval to become |
effective. |
|
Compulsory school attendance. Under the committee |
version, children would be required to attend school
until they completed the academic year in which their
16th birthday accurs. (Under current law, they must
attend until they reach the age of 17.)
Basic skills and achievement tests. Starting in the
. llth grade, students would be tested on "Secondary exit
' level assessment instruments designed to assess mathe-
matics and English language arts competencies for pupils
at the 12th grade level." A student who after several
attempts could not pass all sections of the test by the
end of the twelfth grade would receive a “certificate
of completion," but not a high-school diploma. Students
who failed the test would be offered remedial instruction.
Students who received a certificate of completion could
retake the test periodically until they passed it and
received a diploma.
The committee bill would also require criterion-referenced
testing of students in first, third, fifth, seventh,
ninth, and 12th grade for minimum basic skills in
English and mathematics.
Discipline management and parental involvement. The
committee version adds to the original bill the require-
ment of a hearing, providing procedural due process,
before a school board could suspend an incorrigible
pupil from school. The hearing would have to show that
the pupil's continuing presence posed a clear, present,
and continuing danger of physical harm to the pupil
or others, or that the pupil had persistently and
seriously violated published standards of conduct,
posed a continuing serious threat to disrupt the educa-
tional process, and that all feasible alternatives, including
various discipline-management techniques, had been
exhausted. The school board would be required to make
30

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Page Thirty-One
DIGEST: reasonable efforts to provide for the continuing
(continued) education of a suspended pupil in an alternative
setting.
The vocational-education provisions of the committee
bill are the same as in the original.
SUPPORTERS This bill would go a long way toward promoting a higher
SAY: level of student achievement in our public schools.
The bill would put an end to the practice of allowing
students to progress through the school system without
requiring a satisfactory academic performance, by
setting a statewide grading standard for course credit
and academic promotion. To reclaim the school day
for academic education, statewide rules would limit
participation in extracurricular activities during the
school day. Students failing a class would have to drop
out of extracurricular activities until they brought
their grades up. These requirements would put extra-
curricular activities back in proper perspective and
give students an additional incentive to keep up with
their course work. Annual achievement tests, administered
statewide, would provide a measure of how well students
are mastering their subjects and indicate where remedial
action is needed.
Educational-research studies reinforce our common-sense
knowledge that early childhood is a critical time
for developing the skills and motivation necessary for
success in the educational system. The bill strengthens
early-childhood education by requiring prekindergarten
classes for language- or learning-disabled four-year
olds, plus preschool programs for children of limited
English proficiency. School districts must be required
to offer these classes, because they are just too vital
to leave to the vagaries of local school-board politics.
Lowering pupil-teacher ratios in early grades also will enhance
student performance and future prospects.
When people are asked to list the major problems facing
the public schools, discipline ranks at or near the top.
The bill's discipline provisions will upgrade the
learning environment. In addition, the bill will give
more support to the schools by requiring parents to
get more involved.
31

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Page Thirty-Two
SUPPORTERS Vocational education is an essential part of the state's
SAY: well-balanced curriculum. It teaches marketable skills
(continued) and allows students who plan to enter vocational trades
to "get a foot in the door." Vocational-education programs
help keep students in school.
This bill would improve the overall quality of vocational
education in Texas and would address some of the criticisms
leveled against vocational education. It would require
a master plan for vocational education, with specific
goals for integrating and coordinating vocational-
education programs at the high-school, college, and
adult-education levels. The board would ensure that
new and emerging occupations become an integral part of
the curriculum. Review every four years would ensure
relevance and quality of programs. Classes would be
offered only when there is a significant demand for
them.
OPPONENTS It is not enough merely to require students to take |
SAY: basic-skills tests and achievement tests more often. |
We must require, before we grant a high-school diploma,
that a student demonstrate a twelfth-grade-level mastery
of the basic skills in English and mathematics. Only
in this way can we effectively address the most fundamental
public concern about the deterioration of our public-
school system--that possession of a high-school diploma
no longer means a student can read, write, and compute
with some proficiency. We should give our students
all the remedial instruction and opportunities they need
to retake a basic "exit-level" skills test, but in the
end they must be able to pass it. To require anything
less shortchanges both the students and the taxpayers.
The decision to offer prekindergarten classes for four-
year-olds should be made by the school districts. The
local school boards are best qualified to judge whether
prekindergarten is needed ina particular area.
Where prekindergarten is offered, it should be available
to children from low-income families, in addition to
those with a language or learning disability. The
Head Start program has shown the value of early-childhood
educational opportunities for disadvantaged children.
32

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Page Thirty-Three |
OPPONENTS Educational research shows that elementary-school (
SAY: classes in the first few grades should ideally have no
(continued) more than 15 students, to allow adequate one-to-one
teacher-student contact. Limiting class sizes in the
first four grades to 27, as in the original bill, is not
enough. The committee version's limit of 23 would
still be too high, but it would come closer to the ideal.
It is too harsh to require that a student who received
a failing grade in any class during a single grade-
reporting period be suspended from all extracurricular
activities. It could do more harm than good in its
effect on student motivation. Some extracurricular
activities, such as language clubs and student council,
are valuable components of the educational experience.
Also, the original bill's restrictive policy could deter
students from taking more advanced courses, to avoid
jeopardizing their freedom to participate in extra-
curricular activities. The commitee version embodies
a more balanced policy.
Specifying that a suspension from extracurricular
activities could not carry over from the end of the ©
spring semester through the summer and into the beginning
of the fall semester, as the original bill does, means
that an athlete could fail every course in the spring
and still play football in the fall. This provision
is weaker than the requirement in UIL rules now and
should be deleted.
Students who intend to quit school on reaching the age
of 17 without finishing the school year are sometimes
a cause of discipline problems. It makes more sense
to require attendance in school only until the end
of the school year in which the student turns 16.
School-discipline policy must include more effective
methods for dealing with incorrigible students. Suspension
from school doesn't solve a discipline problem, it
simply causes it to go away for a time. When a student
is forbidden to attend school, the likelihood of dropping
out is increased. Drop-outs are more likely later to
get in trouble with the law or wind up on the welfare
rolls. A student should be suspended from school only
in very serious cases, and only after other discipline
management methods have failed. A suspended student
should be given an opportunity for continued education
33

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Page Thirty-Four
OPPONENTS in an alternative setting, for example at a different
SAY: school or at a school-community guidance center. It
(continued) is not in society's interest for problem students to
discontinue their education altogether.
OTHER As proposed in the committee bill, the use of a standardized |
OPPONENTS skills test as a high-school graduation requirement would |
SAY: discriminate against students who, through no fault of
their own, have been given a poor-quality education so
far. The greatest injustice of this proposed requirement
would be perpetrated against minority students and students
from low-income families, who are disproportionately
likely to have had inadequate educational opportunities.
Denying these students a diploma after 12 years in school,
on the basis of a single test, even after they have
completed all required courses with satisfactory grades,
would only perpetuate the discrimination against them.
The stigma of receiving a certificate of completion,
rather than a diploma, would hinder their future
employment opportunities, causing them unwarranted
economic hardship.
Unsatisfactory test scores should be used diagnostically,
as symptoms of failure in the school system, and to
indicate where remedial instruction is needed. But
they should not be used to penalize the victims of the
system's failure.
A standardized skills test should only be phased in
aS a graduation requirement after the school system has
been thoroughly reformed, so that every student has had
an equal opportunity for twelve years of high-quality,
equitably financed education from well-qualified
teachrs.
|
34

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
| Page Thirty-Five
) NOTES: A proposed floor substitute by Rep. Haley was distributed
to House members on June 20. Some changes in this floor
substitute are expected before the House convenes today.
The discussion below does not reflect such last-minute
changes.
Organization and management
The Haley floor substitute proposes a different version
of the transition to a smaller, elected State Board of
Education. The transitional board would have 15 members,
each one appointed from a district encompassing ten
contiguous districts of the Texas House of Representatives.
All school districts would begin electing their trustees
on the same day starting on the first Saturday in April
of 1986. On this local school-board election day in 1988,
seven of the 15 State Board of Education districts would
elect members to replace appointed members of the
transitional board. On the first Saturday in April of
1990, the remaining eight seats would be filled by
election. (Note that under the original version of
—— HB 72, all 12 board positions would be filled by election
, in April 1988.).
The floor substitute, in a provision not found in the
original HB 72, proposes that local school-board trustees
be paid at least $25 for each board meeting they attend,
plus actual and necessary expenses incurred in the
performance of their official duties. Under current
law, school: trustees serve without compensation.
The floor substitute deletes certain other provisions
from the original bill.” Like the committee version
of the bill, the floor substitute deletes the proposed
administrative models to encourage local consolidation;
it also deletes the "feeder" school requirement for
attendance zones. Again like the committee version,
the floor substitute deletes authority for the state
board to set a uniform statewide school calendar and
holiday schedule. But the floor substitute retains
the original bill's provision for starting the school
year on Sept. l.
Teachers
The Haley floor substitute would: set up a ten-step
minimum salary schedule for the 1984-85 school year.
}
35 |
|

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Page Thirtv-Six
NOTES: _In the 1984-1985 school year, according to the floor
(continued) substitute, teachers would be assigned to the step

on level one that would increase their state-minimum
salary at least $1,700 per year over 1983-84 levels.
In the 1985-86 school year, the following annual state-
funded minimum salaries would be instituted:

level one: $16,500 level three: $19,500

level two: $17,500 level four: $22,900
Some teachers would be assigned to level two in 1985-86,
based on experience, education, and appraisals earned
before the effective date of the bill. They would be
assigned to the level-two step higher than their last
step at level one.
After September 1985, raises in the state minimum salary
for teachers would come only through advancement on the
career ladder. The floor substitute bill's career-level
entry requirements are similar to those in the original
HB 72, except that advancement would be allowed for
teachers substituting experience for college course
work.
The floor substitute would not allow local school
districts to determine the weight to be given state
appraisal criteria in making career-ladder assignments.
It would make career-ladder levels transferable for
teachers changing to other districts. Teachers could
"waive entitlement" to their career-ladder assignments
in such cases.
Finance
On June 17, the House Public Education Committee adopted
an amendment specifically eliminating the minimum-aid
provision in the Education Code. However, the minimum-
aid provision appears intact in the committee substitute
in which the committee's amendments were consolidated.
The Haley floor substitute would delete the original
HB 72 requirement that a district must raise its effective
tax rate by at least 8 percent above the 1983 level before
the district could receive equalization-transition aid.
As a result of this change, more districts would become
eligible to receive this aid. Opponents argue that
this would aggravate the inequity of the current funding
system.

36

--- PAGE BREAK ---

HB 72
Page Thirty-Seven
| NOTES: Educational Quality
(continued) i

The Haley floor substitute retains most of the original

bill's provisions regarding academic promotion and course

credit, tutorial services, prekindergarten and preschool,
class sizes, extracurricular activities and inter-

scholastic competition, discipline management and parental ,

involvement, and vocational education. The floor

substitute retains three of the changes made by the
committee:

--It contains the committee's requirements regarding
basic-skills testing, including the requirement
that students pass a 12th-grade-level test in English
and math skills in order to obtain a high-school

diploma.

--It includes the phase-in of an upper limit of 23 students
per class in first through fourth grades.

--It appears to retain the provisi