You can’t adequately assess a legislative session unless you look at how your team played both on offense and on defense.  We have been highlighting the offense so far—some of the bills that have been passed. But school advocates also played defense this session. In fact, they played a lot of defense, and did it quite well. When you have a Lieutenant Governor being advised by people who think that Pre-K is a “godless environment” and a member of that Committee calling the public education system a “monstrosity” you need to play a good defense.

So here are some things that did not happen.  Vouchers did not happen.  Tax credit scholarships (aka “voucher lite”) did not happen.  The parent “trigger” law did not make it.  Nor did the so-called “Opportunity School District.”  The effort to tie test scores to teacher evaluation and compensation flunked, as did the effort to junk the minimum salary schedule.  District employees will still have the opportunity to have association dues deducted from the paycheck.  And homeschoolers will not be participating in UIL activities—the Tim Tebow bill was fumbled.

I noticed with interest that ESCs survived another session, but did not get a pay raise. They will be funded with $25 million for the biennium—the same amount as the last two years.  That’s $25 million for all 20 of them, and it’s for two years.  So that’s $12.5 million a year for 20 ESCs. That comes out to $625,000 per ESC per year.  In terms of the overall budget, that’s chump change. When you consider the great work and service that ESCs provide, that’s a terrific bargain for the people of Texas.

DAWG BONE:  WORKING WITH THE LEGISLATURE INVOLVES BOTH OFFENSE AND DEFENSE.

S.B. 66 is about anaphylaxis and epipens.  It does not require a school district to do anything.  The critical language in the new law says that “Each school district and open-enrollment charter school may adopt and implement a policy regarding the maintenance, administration, and disposal of epinephrine auto-injectors at each campus in the district or school.”  T.E.C. 38.208(a).  This is a law with a “may” not a “shall.”  Every mandate in the bill is contingent on the adoption of that policy. So you don’t have to do anything about this unless and until your board adopts a policy.

But it is likely that school boards will want to adopt a policy about this.  After all, anaphylaxis is a critical safety concern.  Certainly the parents of students with serious allergies will want to know that the district is doing everything it can to provide for student safety.

If your board adopts a policy, you will need to study the bill carefully. It requires training of personnel, compliance with regulations to be adopted by the Commissioner of State Health Services along with the Commissioner of Education, ensuring that you have at least one properly trained person on each campus “during all hours the campus is open,” reports on use of the epipens, and record keeping.

The law says that schools can accept gifts, grants and donations, along with local and/or federal funds to pay for this. This is a completely unnecessary provision, as the school districts already have that authority. But the real purpose of this provision is for the Legislature to once again wash its hands of any financial responsibility.  If school administrators complain of this being another unfunded mandate, your local rep is sure to point out that you are not required to adopt that policy.  Thus it may be “unfunded” but it’s not a “mandate.”  You don’t have to do this.

Right. Try telling that to the parent whose child went to the emergency room last week.

DAWG BONE: GET WITH THE PROPER MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN YOUR DISTRICT TO DISCUSS S.B. 66.

After much wrangling and politicking, the Lege did indeed pass a new law regarding Pre-K programs.  The headline on HB 4 is what it did not do.  It did not open the door to more kids to attend Pre-K.  Nor did it fund a full day Pre-K.  Eligibility for Pre-K is still limited to kids who meet certain criteria.  They must be three or four years old and 1) unable to speak English; 2) educationally disadvantaged; 3) homeless; 4) the child of an active duty military parent; 5) the child of a parent injured or killed in military service; or 6) a child who has been in conservatorship.  There were several bills introduced that would have kept these limitations in place for three-year olds, but opened Pre-K to all four year olds. None of those bills passed.

The new law provides Foundation School Program funding for a half-day program.  On top of that, there will be grant funding available for programs that meet certain standards. The grant funding is only available for four-year olds, and cannot exceed $1500/student. The specifics of the grant funding will be established by the Commissioner. The total funding available for this cannot exceed $130 million over the next two years. That would be $65 million per year; if funded to the max, this would help out 43,333 four-year olds.

There was some talk that districts would be required to impose an assessment of sorts on the kids in Pre-K, but that did not happen. The only reference to testing in the bill leaves it optional with the district.  It says that “If the district elects to administer an assessment” then it must include a description and the results of the assessment in its PEIMS data.

Another noteworthy provision creates a new credential: a Child Development Associate (CDA).  Service Centers are authorized to provide training for this.  Districts that seek the grant funding must employ certified teachers who also have a CDA or equivalent training and/or experience. No doubt we will see more rules on this.

Finally, the Lege took advantage of this new law to take another couple of shots at the Common Core. In two places HB 4 emphasizes that Pre-K programs in Texas may not use Common Core standards.  Of course there are no Common Core standards for Pre-K, but you know, we just want to be sure.

DAWG BONE:  WATCH FOR NEW RULES RE: HB 4 AND YOUR PRE-K PROGRAM.

The Texas Legislature has enacted a new law that will enable some kids to graduate this year, even though they came up short on an End of Course exam…or two.  Governor Abbott has signed SB 149 and it’s in effect NOW. This gives you a very short time frame to put this new provision in place.

It’s interesting to note that the same politicians who put the tough new standards in place change their tune when they see how individual students are affected.  Now, all of a sudden, they create a “pathway to graduation” for students who have met all the other requirements, but failed to perform satisfactorily on an End of Course exam.  It would be a good idea if our representatives would ALWAYS take into account how individual people will be affected by the law.

You need to get busy on this. The law deals with those students who would be graduating this year, but for their performance on EOC exams.  Each such student must have an “Individual Graduation Committee” (IGC) which will be required to consider a slew of information and factors and then decide if the wannabe graduate gets to graduate.  The kid doesn’t “walk” unless the IGC vote is unanimous.  I don’t envy those of you who will be serving on these committees.

The lawyers at my law firm are getting lots of questions about this, and we are happy to help. So give us a call at Walsh, Anderson, Gallegos, Green and Trevino, P.C.

Much more legislation is in the pipeline, but this is the first to hit the street.  Good luck.

DAWG BONE: GRADUATION JUST AROUND THE CORNER AND THE RULES CHANGE! YIKES!!

Here’s an interesting bill to keep an eye on: The Teacher’s Protection Act. It would permit any educator to use force—including “deadly force”—to protect the teacher, the teacher’s students, or school property. The standard the bill would apply would be “if, under the circumstances as the educator reasonably believes them to be, the educator would be justified” in using force or “deadly force” under various sections of the Penal Code. The educator who uses deadly force under these circumstances would be able to offer a defense to prosecution. Moreover, if the “deadly force” results in death or injury to someone, our force-using educator would be entitled to immunity from civil liability.

Headline writers are already having fun with this: “Texas Teachers Can Gun Down Kids Under Bill.”

This bill also includes a provision that would effectively override your school’s code of conduct. It says that a principal may suspend a student who engages in conduct that contains the elements of the offense of assault, under Texas Penal Code 22.01 against a school employee “regardless of whether that conduct is identified in the student code of conduct as conduct for which a student may be suspended.”

Hmmmm. After reading this statute, we are wondering about three things. First, is there any school code of conduct that does NOT call for a suspension (or harsher penalty) for kids who assault school employees? Second, are the teacher groups in favor of this “deadly force” provision? Third, this being the actual factual birthday of Abe Lincoln: what would Mr. Lincoln think of this????

The bill is H.B. 868, introduced by Rep. Dan Flynn, a Republican from Van. Keep an eye on it.

DAWG BONE: THE LEGISLATURE IS IN TOWN! STAY ALERT!!