Some say that SB 1716 is a voucher bill. It does provide money to parents to use for educational purposes. That might include tutoring, or computer hardware or software, or related services.  Unlike most true voucher bills, however, this one is only available to students who are enrolled in a public school.  It’s further limited to students with disabilities, and will be further limited by T.E.A. criteria to ensure that the amount of money appropriated will go to those in most need.

The bill charges the Commissioner with developing rules by December 1, 2021 for a “supplemental special education services and instructional materials program” whereby an account can be set up for each eligible student to provide access to $1500 in services and/or materials, at parental request. “Services” are defined as “additive” services that provide an educational benefit, including OT, PT, speech, private tutoring and other supplemental private instruction.  Providers must be approved by TEA.  “Materials” includes textbooks, computer hardware and software, other tech devices and other suitable materials.

Members of ARD Committees will need to remember that these services are “supplemental” to what the student is entitled to as per the IEP and the requirement to provide FAPE. So the ARD should not, for example, refuse to put OT into the student’s IEP because the parent is already obtaining OT services through this grant program.  If the student needs OT to receive FAPE, the IEP should say so and the school should provide it. If the parent chooses to access this grant money to provide additional OT over and above what the IEP calls for, that’s fine. 

DAWG BONE:  SB 1716: LOOK FOR COMMISSIONER’S RULES.

Got a question or comment for the Dawg?  Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com. 

Tomorrow: more immunity

We’ve been revising our firm’s Model Student Code of Conduct, and the process brings back memories for me.  Like most Codes of  Conduct, we include a lengthy list of possible consequences for bad behavior.  Campus administrators like to have lots of options so we plugged in everything we could think of. 

Well….all but one thing.  We didn’t include:

Hand writing long sentences containing many large words hundreds of times.

I thought it should be included, but my colleagues disagreed. OK.  I’m OK with that. But hear me out: I am a better man today because of what Father McGlinchey made me do when I was a sophomore in high school.

I wrote the following two sentences 500 times:

This stupid assignment, which is a monumental waste of time, should be a reminder to me that I lack respect for the rights of others.  Furthermore, as a result of this stupid assignment, when I am called upon to perform duties in the kitchen in the future, I will endeavor to do so in a more gentlemanly fashion.

It was a boarding school, you see, and so we had occasional duties in the kitchen.  I was part of the dishwashing crew and we were being too loud and rowdy, thus showing a lack of respect for the Good Sisters who cooked for us. Thus we all had to write these two sentences 500 times, which took about two weeks.  Did I mention that we had to write it 500 times?

It made me a better man.  It improved my vocabulary and my cursive.  And I am very gentlemanly in the kitchen these days.  Mrs. Dawg will verify. 

And I write. A lot.  You are reading my writing at this very minute!  So I don’t buy this theory that writing assignments as punishment will always have a damaging effect.

What’s that got to do with Toolbox Tuesday?  Just a reminder that the law is concerned with disciplinary actions that amount to a change of placement, or a removal from the classroom.  The law has little to say about the many other disciplinary techniques that teachers use.  So a lengthy writing assignment like the one I did back in the day is not going to be considered illegal.  But it would be considered unwise and disproportionate by most people.  Too bad. 

DAWG BONE: FATHER McGLINCHEY HAD A GOOD VOCABULARY, BUT “DISPROPORTIONATE” WAS NOT PART OF IT.

Got a question or comment for the Dawg?  Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com. 

Tomorrow: SB 1716

We’re Zooming with the Dawg this Friday at 10:00. Hope to see you there!

I’m glad to be back at it after a two-week break! We still have legislation and court cases to talk about, and the next school year is drawing near.  So set down that trashy beach novel for a bit, turn off Netflix, and let’s turn our attention to the law!

Speaking of legislation, tomorrow I will be doing an audioconference along with Andrea Gulley to give you a review of all of the major pieces of legislation from this past session. It’s not too late to sign up. Go to info@wabsa.com, or just go to the firm’s website at www.walshgallegos.com. 

Then this Friday it’s time for Zooming with the Dawg again! We’ll be up at 10:00 and hope to see a bunch of your happy faces.  The main topic will be the Supreme Court decision that combines  social media, F-Bombs, the First Amendment, and extracurricular activities.  That provides plenty of grist for the mill.  That case will be the subject of Friday’s Daily Dawg, and then we’ll go into more detail on Friday on the Zoom call.   You might want to invite your A.D. to join us. 

DAWG BONE: AUDIOCONFERENCE! ZOOMING WITH THE DAWG!! OPPORTUNITY ABOUNDS!

Got a question or comment for the Dawg?  Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com. 

Tomorrow: Memories of a writing assignment.

We’re Zooming with the Dawg at 10:00 this morning. Hope to see you there!

Today’s entry is about retired people. I’m not about to join your ranks, but the Dawg is ready for his two-week summer break. So this will be the last Dawg Bone until July 12^th. 

SB 202 is short but strong, and may make life more challenging for TRS-retirees looking to return to work and for schools needing to hire retirees for hard-to-fill positions.  The basic rules for the hiring of retirees remain the same.  Those who retired after September 1, 2005, can return to full-time work for a school district after a full 12-month break.  If the retiree comes back before that long break, the retiree is limited to substitute service, or halftime employment.  A new bill passed this year permits the retiree to tutor a student in an approved program (see HB 1525).  

Current law (Government Code 825.4092(b) requires the employer of a retired/rehire to make a contribution to TRS equal to the sum that would go to TRS if the person was still contributing to that system. According to the bill this amounts to 15.7% (effective September 1, 2021) of the person’s salary.  The employer is also required to contribute a “healthcare surcharge” of $535 for those retirees who participate in TRS Care.  These surcharges together cost school districts between $14,000 and $20,000, depending on what the district pays for the higher steps on its salary schedule.   

Bottom line: it costs the school district more to hire the retired teacher.  Let’s consider a teacher who works for a District that pays the statutory minimum for teachers with 20 years + of experience, which is $54,540. If that teacher is contributing to TRS as an active member, the cost to the school district is $54,540.  TRS rules require the teacher to contribute a percentage to TRS, while the employer pays a lower percentage, passed through from the state after the first 90 days of employment.

If the district employs a TRS-retiree at the same salary, as of September 1, 2021, the district is required to pay the full contribution of 15.7%, plus the health insurance surcharge (if the teacher is a member of TRS Care), with nothing coming from the teacher. Cost to the district, therefore, is about $68,453 (base salary of 54,540, 15.7% surcharge, plus $5350 health insurance surcharge).  And this number is for districts who do not pay more than the minimum salary schedule for teacher with more than 20 years of experience – costs will rise significantly for higher paying districts.  

Some districts have charged the TRS-retiree some or all of this difference.  SB 202 is designed to put the kibosh on that.  The bill analysis puts it plainly: “SB 202 clarifies that employer contributions are just that, a burden on the employer, not the retired teacher.”

Here’s the language of the bill itself:

A reporting employer is ultimately responsible for payment of the amounts required to be contributed under Subsections (b) and (c).  The employer may not directly or indirectly pass that cost on to the retiree through payroll deduction, by imposition of a fee, or by any other means designed to recover the cost.”

Will that make districts less inclined to hire TRS-retirees?  Sure it will.  Districts are required to be prudent with their finances.  If you were deciding between two qualified applicants, one of whom will cost the district $20,000 more than the other, what would you do?

OK, that’s it for awhile, folks.  I’m off to the Dawg House. Hope to see you on the Zoom at 10, and then we’ll be posting again on July 12^th. 

DAWG BONE: IT’S NOT PERSONAL.  IT’S BUSINESS. 

Got a question or comment for the Dawg?  Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com. 

This bill allows parents of students in traditional or open enrollment charter schools to elect to have their child 1) repeat pre-k; 2) enroll in pre-k if the student would have been eligible in the previous year as a three-year old, and has not yet enrolled in kindergarten; 3) repeat kindergarten; 4) enroll in kindergarten if the student could have enrolled in kindergarten the previous year and has not yet enrolled in first grade; or 5) repeat any grade from 1^st to 8^th. 

In high school, the parent can choose to have the student repeat any course, unless the school determines that the student has met all graduation requirements.  Think of what a powerful weapon this is for parents in a power struggle with an adolescent:

Parent: You’re going to repeat Biology next year!    

Kid:  But I already passed it! I got a B+!! and I hate Biology!

Parent: Too bad, kid. I’ve got the power.  I’m going to use it.

Sheesh!

The provisions regarding students from 4^th grade and up expire on September 1, 2022.  As to the earlier grades, this is permanent.

How it works: parents must make their election in writing.  If the school disagrees with the parent, it must convene a “retention committee” consisting of the principal or designee, the parent, the teacher of the grade or course, and other teachers at the principal’s discretion if multiple courses are at stake.   The committee must meet in person unless an alternative is acceptable to the parent.  The student may not be retained or retake the course if the parent does not meet with the committee, but if the parent does meet with the committee the parent gets to decide about retention or retaking of the course, and the school “must abide by the decision of the parent.” Parent Power.

If a student receives a passing grade or earns credit for a course, and is then retained, the student must get the original grade assigned unless the district adopts a policy to a different effect.

Retention by parental option is treated as retention by the school for purposes of PEIMS and accountability.

This parental option transfers to the student who is 18 years old, or has the disabilities of minority removed.

The Commissioner will adopt rules about this. Those rules must address whether a student who is retained by parental option should be considered “at risk.” Students retained for pre-k are not “at risk.”  Those rules must also allow for ADA funding for a grade or course that is being repeated due to parental option.

Administering this one will be interesting,

DAWG BONE: THE BILL SAYS NOTHING ABOUT SPECIAL ED.  HMMMM.

Got a question or comment for the Dawg?  Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com. 

Tomorrow: Retired and then rehired?  News for you….

As we have reported many times here in the Daily Dawg, school districts have liability for the sexual misconduct of their employees only if somebody higher up knew what was happening.  Of course the person who engaged in sexual misconduct faces liability, but the school district will not unless somebody else “knew.”  So how do you prove that?

In a recent case from Illinois the court tossed out the plaintiff’s lawsuit because it failed to allege “facts” which would show that somebody important knew what was happening.  Here’s the weird thing: the plaintiff did allege that high ranking officials “knew” that two security officers had been “grooming” and then molesting high school students. But the court labeled that allegation as a “conclusion” rather than a “fact.”  The court pointed out the absence of any allegation that 1) these officials witnessed the abuse; or 2) were told about it.

OK—so that’s what it takes to prove that someone “knew.”  It’s not good enough to say that they knew.  You have to allege how they knew—they were told, or they saw. They heard it with their ears or saw it with their eyes.  Anything other than that is “conclusory” and won’t get you to first base in a federal court suit.

So the court dismissed constitutional and Title IX claims against the district, the board, the superintendent and the principal.  None of them were told.  None of them saw. 

You may be wondering what happened to the security officers. They were fired, but the court did not disclose the reasons.  You have to think that the sexual misconduct must have been the reason.  It’s Sterling v. BOE of Evanston Township  High School District, decided by the Northern District of Illinois at 78 IDELR 134.

DAWG BONE: IT’S TOO HOT: THAT’S A CONCLUSION.  IT’S 98 DEGREES IN THE SHADE: THAT’S A FACT.

Got a question or comment for the Dawg?  Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com. 

Tomorrow: Parent Power.

One of the reasons our firm does a Toolbox Training is to help you avoid litigation over matters involving the discipline of students with disabilities.  If you do get sued over something, the school’s lawyer might assert the statute of limitations as a defense.  We have a one-year statute, meaning that the parent must seek a due process hearing within one year of the time the parent knows, or should know, that there is something to complain about.

HB 1252 doubles the length of that timeframe.  However, the bill does not take effect until September 1, 2022, and until that time, Texas will retain its one-year statute.

I thought you’d like to know about this, but let me also remind you that “statute of limitations” is lawyer talk.  There is no reason for this to come up in an ARDC meeting.

DAWG BONE: STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROWS BY A YEAR.

Got a question or comment for the Dawg?  Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com. 

Tomorrow: Sorting out facts from conclusions.

Zooming with the Dawg is this Friday at 10:00! Hope to see you there as we review what the legislature did.  Lots to talk about!

The legislature passed three laws designed to improve our services to students for whom English was not the first language learned.  SB 2066 requires that we change our terminology.  Out with “limited English proficiency.”  The new term is “emergent bilingual student.”

We need more teachers. And so SB 560 calls for TEA to work with higher education and the Workforce Commission on a strategic plan with tangible goals to produce more bilingual teachers, increase the number of dual language programs, educate families and school employees on the importance of bilingual education in early childhood, and adopt a uniform process for identifying and monitoring progress for students with “limited English proficiency.”  This bill continues to use the term LEP. Someone needs to tell SB 560 about SB 2066. 

Some emergent bilingual students have special needs.  So HB 2257 bill requires SBEC to develop a certification for bilingual teachers of students with disabilities.

DAWG BONE: EMERGENT BILINGUAL STUDENT—GET USED TO IT.

Got a question or comment for the Dawg?  Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com. 

Tomorrow: Toolbox Tuesday!

I thought I knew quite a bit about American History.  I majored in History at UT many years ago, and have enjoyed reading biographies and historical accounts ever since.  But I was stunned when I read Grant by Ron Chernow.  It wasn’t the part about General Grant and the Civil War that stunned me. It was Grant’s presidency, (1869-77) when southern resistance to the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th Amendments turned to violence and ruthless power grabs.

I was stunned again when I read The Warmth of Other Suns by Isabel Wilkerson. This book tells the story of the Great Migration of African-Americans from the rural south to the cities of the north and west in the decades following World War I.  The book focuses on three people, one of whom moved from Mississippi to the South Side of Chicago, not far from where I grew up.  Where my grandmother was the last white person to move out of the neighborhood. 

I’ve listened to a good bit of the 1619 Project podcast produced by the New York Times.  Our legislature has dictated that this cannot be discussed in our classrooms, but I found it to be thought-provoking and original in its perspective. I know that there are reputable historians who have cast doubt on a few of its assertions, but I haven’t heard anyone question one of its main points: that the institution of slavery was a foundational pillar for the country’s economic success.  Many Americans profited because so many other Americans were forced to work for nothing. And that was not limited to southern slave owners.  Northern businessmen and institutions also reaped the benefits of slave labor. I’m embarrassed to admit that I’d never thought about all those connections.

I lived in Tulsa from 1962 to 1966 and never heard a word about the 1921 massacre and destruction of Black Wall Street.

Our new law about the social studies curriculum is built on a fear of “whiteshaming.”  We don’t want white kids to feel “anguish, distress or anxiety” when they learn about some of the darker chapters in the American story.  I get that.  Shame doesn’t do any good, and certainly there is no reason for me or you or our children to feel shame for something that happened long before we were born.

But we should know about these things. We should think about them. We should consider the connections between things that happened in the past and the way things are today.  We can’t be fearful about learning about the past, or hearing the perspectives of people whose life experience is different from ours.   If we refuse to do those things, then that’s on us—not our ancestors. 

On that note I will just add that I’m pleased to let you know that Juneteenth is now an official holiday at the law firm of Walsh Gallegos Treviño Kyle & Robinson P.C.  The three white guys who started the firm in 1983 never even thought about that. But times change. And so have we. 

DAWG BONE: LET US ALL CELEBRATE JUNETEENTH!

Got a question or comment for the Dawg?  Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com. 

SB 797 requires that public schools display the national motto (In God We Trust) in a conspicuous place in each building of the school, if the motto is 1) in a durable poster or frame; 2) donated to the school or purchased from private donations; 3) the poster or framed copy also includes the U.S. flag, centered under the motto, with the Texas flag displayed as well; and 4) it does not contain any other words, images or information.

DAWG BONE: NO PUBLIC MONEY INVOLVED IN THIS.  WILL THAT MAKE IT CONSTITUTIONAL?  STAY TUNED!

Got a question or comment for the Dawg?  Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com. 

Tomorrow: Juneteenth.