Here are a few more features you need to know about from SB 11.

1. Major changes are required for the district’s MEOP (Multihazard Emergency Operations Plan).  Look to the Texas School Safety Center (TSSC) for much more information about this.

2. If the district fails to comply with requirements concerning the district’s security audit or MEOP, it may be required to hold a public hearing where public shaming will take place. 

The statute does not use the term “public shaming.” But the legislative intent is pretty obvious.

3. If the TSSC notifies TEA that the district has not submitted an MEOP, the Agency can appoint a conservator for the district.

Even more shame.

4. The law identifies the composition of the district’s School Safety and Security Committee. This committee will periodically make recommendations to the board and administrators.  This committee is subject to the Open Meetings Act, and shall meet at least once each semester and once during the summer.

Lots of committees and teams.

5. If the district receives a bomb threat or terroristic threat regarding a facility where students are present it “shall provide notification of the threat as soon as possible to the parent….of each student who is assigned to the campus or who regularly uses the facility.”

Notifying parents of a bomb threat “as soon as possible” could make a bad situation worse.  If parents are notified before, or simultaneously with, law enforcement there will be a mad rush of parents to the school.  This might impede the efforts of first responders.  We need some clarification of what ASAP means in this context.

6. The Commissioner will adopt rules in consultation with TSSC regarding procedures for emergencies, including “designating the number of mandatory school drills to be conducted each semester of the school year not to exceed eight drills.”

Eight each semester?  Seriously????

DAWG BONE: TALK TO LOCAL FIRST RESPONDERS ABOUT THE MEANING OF “ASAP.”

Tomorrow: Final thoughts about SB 11

We’re talking about SB 11 all week.  Here are five more things you need to know about this comprehensive school safety bill.

1. If your district requires each educator to attend an approved school safety training course, you can get a waiver of the 75,600 minutes requirement.  The reduction in minutes is capped at 420—that’s one day.
2. The health curriculum in K-12 must emphasize physical and mental health, including instruction about mental health conditions, substance abuse, skills to manage emotions, establishing and maintaining positive relationships, responsible decision-making and suicide prevention. 
3. SBOE will require instruction in digital citizenship, including information about the criminal consequences of cyberbullying.
4. The SHAC’s duties (School Health Advisory Council) will now include recommendations about suicide prevention and strategies to increase parental awareness of risky behaviors, signs of suicide risks and behavioral health concerns, including mental health and substance abuse disorders. SHAC will make recommendations about policy concerning these issues.
5.  All schools that commission peace officers, or employ SROs must require them to complete the education and training program required by the Occupations Code.  Previously this only applied to districts with more than 30,000 students.

DAWG BONE: TRAINING. TRAINING. TRAINING.

Tomorrow: Still more about SB 11.

On Tuesdays we highlight the Toolbox—our firm’s all day training program dealing with students with disabilities who engage in disruptive or violent behaviors.  SB 11, the Legislature’s major response to the concerns over school safety, will impact this.  In particular, the new law outlines elaborate procedures for conducting a threat assessment.  All of them are laid out in a new statute, Texas Education Code 37.115.

Here are the highlights:

*It will require the Agency to adopt rules in consultation with TSSC (Texas School Safety Center).

*The school board must establish a “safe and supportive school team to serve at each campus,” along with policies and procedures for the teams. 

*The team must complete training done by the TSSC or an ESC. 

*Members of the team must have expertise in counseling, behavior management, mental health and substance abuse, classroom instruction, special education, school administration, school safety and security, emergency management and law enforcement. 

*Every campus must have a team, but teams can serve more than one campus.

*Superintendents may create an oversight committee for these teams. 

*Each team shall conduct a threat assessment that includes “assessing and reporting individuals who make threats of violence or exhibit harmful, threatening, or violent behavior.”   The team will gather and analyze data to determine the level of risk and appropriate intervention. 

*The team cannot provide a “mental health care service” to a student under 18 without parental consent. 

*If the team determines that a “student or other individual” poses a serious risk of violence to self or others, the team shall immediately report its determination to the superintendent.  If it involves a student, the superintendent will immediately attempt to inform the parent.

*If the team identifies a student at risk of suicide it will act in accordance with the district’s suicide prevention program.  If that student also makes a threat of violence, the team will conduct a threat assessment in addition to following the suicide prevention plan.

*If the team identifies a student using drugs, alcohol or tobacco it will follow district policy.

*The team must report to TEA in accordance with Agency guidelines. The report will include the number of threats, the outcome of each assessment, any action taken, a disaggregated report on the characteristics of students who were assessed, and other information.

These procedures apply to all students, but with students with disabilities there are additional procedures to think about.  The results of a threat assessment should be considered by the student’s ARD Committee. If the student does not have a BIP, perhaps one is called for.  If there is a BIP, it might need some tweaking.

We will be getting model threat assessment team policies and procedures from TSSC.  Look for lots of training about this section of SB 11.  And we will certainly incorporate it into the Toolbox trainings.

DAWG BONE: A THREAT ASSESSMENT TEAM FOR EACH CAMPUS.

Tomorrow: more on SB 11.

Happy Monday, Readers!  This week the Dawg will chew on a big bone from the legislative session—SB 11. This was the legislature’s major response to the massacre at Santa Fe ISD and other concerns over school safety.  This bill does many things, so we are going to chop it up and tell you about a few parts of it each day.  Let’s hope that by Friday, we will all have a better understanding of SB 11. At least that’s the goal. 

So here goes with the first four parts.

1. The Commissioner will adopt rules “to ensure that building standards for instructional facilities and other school district and open enrollment charter school facilities provide a secure and safe environment.”

Architects and building contractors will need to pay close attention to the rules we get from the Commissioner.  The term we have heard is “hardening” the facility, making it easier to secure all points of entry and more difficult for intruders to breach that security. 

2. The district improvement plan must include provisions for the “trauma-informed care policy required under Section 38.036” of the Education Code.

There are numerous references in the bills passed this session to trauma and grief, and how those experiences impact students.  We have many children who have witnessed or experienced violence in the home.  Many students have parents who have been, or currently are, incarcerated.  Many students have experienced at a young age the death of a close family member. 

3. Multiple sections of Chapter 37 dealing with safety are made applicable to open enrollment charters.

Every session the legislature makes more laws applicable to charters.  Chapter 37 as a whole does not apply to charters, but some of the sections of Chapter 37 do.  SB 11 lists nine sections that deal with school safety that will be applicable to open enrollment charters.  This will include the requirement to have a Multihazard Emergency Operations Plan (MEOP), certification by the Texas School Safety Center (TSSC), and a safety and security audit.

4. Continuing education for classroom teachers must include how grief and trauma affect students.

So there will be a lot of training going on about this.  Good.  

DAWG BONE: SB 11 IS THE MAJOR SCHOOL SAFETY BILL.

Tomorrow: Toolbox Tuesday and SB 11.

This week we’ve been looking at new legislation that will impact the day-to-day operation of your school. Let’s finish the week on a positive note—the new bill that makes character education mandatory.

This one is HB 1026. It requires the State Board to integrate certain positive character traits into the TEKS. The law previously permitted this, and identified nine traits. Now it’s mandatory and there are ten: gratitude made the list! The ten are:

1. Courage.
2. Trustworthiness, including honesty, reliability, punctuality, and loyalty.
3. Integrity.
4. Respect and courtesy.
5. Responsibility, including accountability, diligence, perseverance, and self-control.
6. Fairness, including justice and freedom from prejudice.
7. Caring, including kindness, empathy, compassion, consideration, patience, generosity, and charity.
8. Good citizenship, including patriotism, concern for the common good and the community, and respect for authority and the law.
9. School pride.
10. Gratitude.

As a concerned citizen, the Dawg is delighted to see this emphasis on good character. The ten traits are a good place to start. When the State Board “integrates” these into the TEKS, we think they may need to add some more specific indicators.

For example, the trait of RESPECT AND COURTESY might be displayed in the following ways: 1) using the turn signal; 2) putting that purse under the seat in front of you instead of clogging up the overhead bin; 3) if it says “12 items or fewer” don’t get in the line with 13. Sheesh.

Got other suggestions, Readers? Send ‘em to me at jwalsh@wabsa.com. HB 1026 will be located at Texas Education Code 29.906. It goes into effect with the 2019-20 school year.

DAWG BONE: HOW COME HUMILITY DID NOT MAKE THE LIST? BECAUSE WE ARE TEXAS????

The Dawg barks again next week, Readers. See you then.

It comes up every year. Mom and dad are divorced and they don’t get along well. Dad wants to join the kid for lunch at the school, but mom has let you know that this is not OK. What to do?

We now have a law that addresses this. HB 3145 amends the Family Code to say that a person appointed as a “conservator” of the child has the right, at all times “to attend school activities, including school lunches, performances, and field trips.” This is the default rule, but it can be limited by court order.

So what do you do? Ideally you have a copy of the Divorce Decree. Chances are very good that it appoints both parents as “conservators.” One of them may be the “managing conservator” while the other is the “possessory conservator.” Or it may identify both ex-spouses as “Joint Managing Conservators.” In any event, it’s usually the case that both parents are identified as a “conservator” of some sort.

So the default rule is that either parent can join the student for lunch. The exception would be if the Decree says something to the contrary. Keep in mind that the school can also impose rules that apply to all parents—such as a limitation on the number of times a parent can join the student for lunch. As long as rules like that are applied evenly, they can be enforced.

HB 3145 will be located at Texas Family Code 153.073(a)(6). It’s in effect now.

DAWG BONE: ALWAYS A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE THE DIVORCE DECREE.

Tomorrow: Character education!

Ms. Downyshanks is a promising young teacher, but in her first two years of teaching, there have been some issues with classroom management. The principal has the statistics to demonstrate the problem. In her first year of teaching, Ms. Downyshanks removed more students from the classroom than any other teacher. In fact it was not close. She had twice as many classroom removals as any other teacher.

Things did not improve in year two. Again, Ms. Downyshanks had twice as many office referrals as any other teacher. Moreover, the documentation that Ms. Downyshanks provides to justify these removals is pretty skimpy. The principal considers this to be good evidence of poor classroom management skills. What to do?

Before doing anything else about this, the principal should read SB 1451. This new law is designed to protect the right of that classroom teacher to order the removal of an unruly student. It says that administrators may not assign an area of deficiency to a teacher “solely on the basis of disciplinary referrals made by the teacher or documentation regarding student conduct.” The new statute confirms that a teacher “may document any conduct by a student that does not conform to the student code of conduct….and may submit that documentation to the principal.” The principal “may not discipline” the teacher based on that documentation.

Hmmm. So what to do? The principal will need to visit Ms. Downyshanks’s classroom. The principal cannot justify a deficiency in classroom management with “we’re getting too many referrals.” Nor can she rely solely on poor documentation. Instead, the law requires that any deficiency rating in the teacher’s evaluation be supported by documented evidence of a deficiency in classroom management obtained through “observation or a substantiated report.”

One more new wrinkle in this law. It tells us that the removal of the student from the classroom by a teacher does not have to be reported on PEIMS as a disciplinary removal. It may have to be reported depending on what the Campus Behavior Coordinator (CBC) does, but the teacher’s act of sending the student to the CBC is not a reportable event.

This one goes into effect with the 2019-20 school year. It will be found at Texas Education Code 21.351(a-1), 21.352(a-1) and 37.002(b-1) and (e).

DAWG BONE: YOU JUST HAVE TO GET INTO THAT CLASSROOM AND SEE THINGS FOR YOURSELF

Tomorrow: Dad wants to have lunch with the kid. Mom doesn’t want him to.

We continue our review of new legislation with HB 3012. This one requires that schools keep kids up to speed with their school work even while they are suspended. In Toolbox terminology, this has implications for the use of Tool #7—the FAPE-Free Zone. Under federal law, school administrators can order a short term suspension of a student with a disability with no services, if that’s how the general education students are treated. This authority is capped at ten days, cumulatively. So a CBC (Campus Behavior Coordinator) could order a three-day suspension of a student, and provide no services. Texas does not require services to the general education student who is suspended, so federal law does not require it for the student with a disability.

That’s how it was. HB 3012 changes it. Let’s consider Charlie, who has been suspended for three days, out of school. Charlie receives special education services due to his speech impairment. This is his first suspension of the year, so we are within the FAPE-Free Zone. The same goes for Charlotte, a student with a learning disability, who has been placed in ISS for three days. Both students are in the FAPE-Free Zone, and under federal law, they are not entitled to any educational services. But 3012 now tells us that the district must provide to both students “an alternative means of receiving all course work provided in the classes in the foundation curriculum…that the student misses as a result of the suspension.”

How to do this? The only guidance in the statute is:

The district must provide at least one option for receiving the course work that does not require the use of the Internet.

Beyond that, we have no guidance, nor does the law require the Agency to weigh in. So you are on your own. Huddle up, read the language of the law, and figure out how best to satisfy this new requirement. It will be in effect this school year.

HB 3012 will be found at Texas Education Code 37.005(e).

DAWG BONE: FAPE-FREE ZONE JUST GOT A LITTLE LESS FAPE-FREE.

Tomorrow: Do you have a teacher who sends too many kids to the office?

We’re going to spend this entire week on new legislation. The big headline this session is HB 3 and its changes to school finance. But the lege did a lot of other things that will have a direct impact on the day-to-day. This week we will tell you about one new bill each day. Let’s start with HB 2184, which addresses the transition from DAEP back to the regular campus.

Here’s how it works. Let’s assume that Angela is due to depart DAEP on November 10, going back to Serenity Falls High School. The DAEP administrator will need to give the parent and the SFHS principal written notice of the date of Angela’s return to the regular high school. Also, the DAEP administrator will need to provide the high school principal with an “assessment of the student’s academic growth” while in the DAEP and the results of any assessment instruments that were administered.

The SFHS administrator must then “coordinate the student’s transition to a regular classroom.” This must be done within five instructional days after Angela’s release from DAEP. This coordinated effort must involve assistance and recommendations from 1) school counselors; 2) school district peace officers; 3) SROs; 4) CBCs; and 5) classroom teachers who are or may be responsible for implementing Angela’s “personalized transition plan.”

Yes, there must be a “personalized transition plan.” The campus administrator is responsible for developing this document. It must include recommendations for the best educational placement of the student, and it may include 1) recommendations for counseling, behavioral management, or academic assistance for the student with a “concentration on the student’s academic or career goals; 2) recommendations for assistance in obtaining access to mental health services provided by the district, a local mental health authority, or another private or public entity; 3) information to the parent about how to request a special education evaluation; and 4) a regular review of progress toward academic or career goals. If practicable, the campus administrator must meet with the parent to coordinate plans for the transition.

HB 2184 will be codified at Texas Education Code 37.023.

DAWG BONE: YOU DIDN’T EXPECT LESS PAPERWORK, DID YOU?

Tomorrow: Toolbox Tuesday!

Dear Dawg: Snort, here, Rip Snort. Intrepid Reporter. Friend of the Truth.  Dawg, the two new board members here in Serenity Falls ISD continue to seek to disrupt, if not overturn, the existing order.  This time it was an attack on the “patriarchal system that has kept its foot on the neck of women from the beginning of time.” Those are not my words. That’s from the resolution drafted by board member Misty Hope.  She made a motion asking the board to adopt the resolution, which was promptly seconded by her sidekick, Heather Soft.

The resolution was full of “whereases” too numerous to repeat, followed by this:

Therefore, be it resolved, that in the Serenity Falls ISD, all officers and employees will be required to cease and desist from any reference to young females as “girls” and will instead, use the term “pre-women.”

The motion was defeated, 5-2, but not before one of the designated GOBs (Good Ole Boys) had a little fun with it by asking Ms. Hope if she would accept a friendly amendment to state that males in the district would henceforth be referred to as “non-women.”  Ms. Hope was not amused.

We will keep you posted on further developments.  SNORT.

DEAR SNORT: Thanks! 

DAWG BONE: SPEAKING OF WOMEN, HOW BOUT THAT USA SOCCER TEAM!!!

Back to the  Dawg House for the weekend, but we will bark again on Monday.