Tag Archives: LEGISLATION 2017

Dawg Bones

SB 748 on Transition

SB 748 deals with transition.  The transition provisions do not go into effect until the 2018-19 school year. They are:

1. Districts are required to be sure that parents and students are aware of “supported decision-making agreements” that are now available under the Texas Estates Code. This is a form of assistance many families will be interested in, as it is easier and less costly than obtaining guardianship or limited guardianship;

2. Issues to be discussed in conjunction with transition will include the use and availability of appropriate supplementary aids, services, curricula and other opportunities to help in developing decision-making skills. “Supported decision-making agreements” come up again in this context.

3. The Transition and Employment Guide is to be updated “in plain language” and parents and students must be notified of its availability. By the way—this Guide is supposed to be available on your district’s website. Is it?

4. State law now spells out the notice requirements for parents and students one year prior to age 18. TEA is to develop forms for this, and remember—all of this goes into effect in 2018-19, not this year.

DAWG BONE: MAY ALL STUDENTS MAKE A SMOOTH TRANSITION!

 File this one under: Legislation 2017

Dawg Bones

New legislation re: special ed due process hearings

We normally declare Tuesdays to be Toolbox Tuesdays around here, and we write about the Toolbox. But we are now inundated with new legislation that needs to be ‘splained. So we’re taking a break from the Toolbox Tuesday routine.

But this is at least somewhat related because it’s about what happens when you get completely crosswise with the parent of a student with a disability. You end up in a special ed due process hearing!  And it may be that the parent will be represented by a self-proclaimed “advocate” who is not a lawyer, but acts kinda like one. Well…there is a new law that applies to those situations.

SB 2141 will require non-lawyer advocates who receive monetary compensation for representing parents in due process hearings to abide by a “voluntary code of ethics.”  The Commissioner is required to develop rules about this, so presumably, that’s where the “voluntary code of ethics” will be.  Moreover, such advocates must have a written agreement with the parent that includes a method for resolving disputes between parent and advocate.

School lawyers have sometimes complained about the behavior and tactics of non-lawyer advocates because there is no way to hold them accountable.  A lawyer is subject to the ethical standards of the legal profession and may be called to account before the State Bar. No such mechanism exists with the non-lawyer advocate. That’s why we got this bill.

Some have wondered out loud how a code of ethics can be simultaneously “voluntary” and “required.” We’ll let Commissioner Morath figure that one out.

DAWG BONE: SB 2141: CODE OF ETHICS FOR PARENT ADVOCATES WHO ARE PAID.

File this one under: LEGISLATION 2017 and SPECIAL EDUCATION

Dawg Bones

No more 8.5%!

We knew this one was coming.  SB 160 tells the Commissioner that he must never again implement a system of monitoring schools by measuring how many, or what percentage, of students in the district are receiving special education services. Thus we mark the end of the controversy about the PBMAS indicator that targeted any district that identified more than 8.5% of its kids.

Thus we return to a fundamental principle of special education law: eligibility must be decided case-by-case, ARD meeting by ARD meeting, based exclusively on the evaluation data pertaining to that child. There should be no pressure, direct or indirect, from the district administration or from the state agency to make a particular child eligible, or not.

No one makes a child eligible for special education but the members of the ARD Committee. Not the parent. Not the principal. Not the president. Not the pope.

DAWG BONE: SO LONG, PBMAS INDICATOR #10!

 File this one under: SPECIAL EDUCATION and LEGISLATION 2017

Tomorrow:  A new and important decision about transgender students

Dawg Bones

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE NEW LAW ON CAMERAS IN THE CLASSROOM

The legislature passed two bills dealing with cameras in the special education classrooms—SB 1398 and HB 61.  We don’t know which one the governor will sign, but it doesn’t make any difference. As to cameras in the classroom, the two bills are identical. The difference in the two bills is that HB 61 includes some other provisions as well.

So even though we don’t know which one Governor Abbott will sign, we are pretty sure he will sign off on one of them. So here is a quick summary:

  1. Installation of cameras is triggered only by a written request.
  2. Cameras only get installed in self-contained classrooms and other special education settings in which a majority of students in regular attendance are assigned to that setting for at least 50% of the day. This is not new.
  3. A parent’s request applies only to the classroom in which the parent’s child is served—not the entire campus.
  4. The only staff members who can make a request are the principal, the assistant principal, and others who are assigned to work in the self-contained classroom or other special education settings.
  5. Only the board as a whole—not individual board members—can make a request.
  6. If the request comes from the board, the principal or an assistant principal, the requestor may limit the request to specific classrooms or settings.
  7. The district must designate a central office employee as the coordinator for the provision of equipment. (Camera Coordinator?)
  8. Parents, teachers, aides and the assistant principal file their request with the principal, or designee, who forwards it to the Camera Coordinator. A request from the principal or the board goes directly to the Camera Coordinator, who sends a copy to the principal.
  9. Once installed, the camera stays in place for the rest of the school year, and for ESY, as long as the classroom continues to qualify as a setting in which cameras can be placed, unless the requestor withdraws the request in writing. However, the camera need not operate when students are not present.
  10. If the district discontinues operation of the camera during a school year it must give five days’ notice to each parent in that classroom; at least 10 school days prior to the end of the year, the school must give notice to each parent that the cameras will not operate next year unless a new request is filed.
  11. Cameras must capture video and audio for the entire classroom, including any attached setting used for timeout.
  12. The inside of a bathroom or changing area may not be visually monitored, except for “incidental coverage of a minor portion” due to the layout of the room.
  13. As a general rule, videos must be retained for three months. Previously this requirement was for six months.  However, if a request to view the video is made, then the video must be retained “until the person has viewed the recording and a determination has been made as to whether the recording documents an alleged incident.”  If the recording documents an alleged incident, the  recording must be retained “until the alleged incident has been resolved, including the exhaustion of all appeals.”
  14. An employee or the parent of a student “who is involved in an alleged incident” may view the recording upon request.
  15. Among the others who may have access the bill adds contractors or employees who incidentally view the recording while performing tasks relative to installation, operation and maintenance of the equipment.
  16. School policy must 1) include information about appealing district decisions; 2) call for a seven business day timeline for responding to a request for installation of a camera; 3) specify that if the request is denied, the response must explain why; 4) call for timelines for installation of cameras upon proper request (45 school business days); and 5) set timelines for installation based on parent requests for the following school year.
  17. A district, parent, staff member or administrator may request an expedited review by TEA if a request is denied. This could be a request for installation of cameras, a request to view the recording, or a request for an extension of time for activation of the equipment.
  18. The Commissioner is to adopt rules regarding expedited reviews.
  19. “A video recording under this section is a governmental record only for purposes of Section 37.10 Penal Code.” This is the section that makes it a criminal offense to tamper with a government record.

This is one of the new laws I will be featuring in my annual Back to School Tour this fall. We are bringing the BTS to nine locations in September and early October. You can register at www.legaldigestevents.com.  Hope to see you there.

DAWG BONE: BE GRATEFUL: IT’S AN IMPROVEMENT. 

 File this one under: SPECIAL EDUCATION and LEGISLATION 2017

Tomorrow: new law orders TEA to never again use that 8.5% indicator.

 

Dawg Bones

What you need to know about David’s Law—the new anti-bullying bill.

“David’s Law”—S.B. 179—is one of the new laws that will have a major impact on the day-to-day operation of your school.  Here are several things you need to know about this new law, which will go into effect on September 1, 2017.

1. It makes it clear that bullying does not have to involve a pattern of repeated behavior.  “A single significant act” might be sufficient to meet the definition of “bullying.”

2. Our definition of bullying has always required that there be an effect on the target. That effect could be physical harm, or the threat of it; or damage to property; or an “intimidating, threatening, or abusive educational environment.”  The new law adds to this, by stating that it is “bullying” if the behavior “materially and substantially disrupts the educational process or the orderly operation of a classroom or school; or infringes on the rights of the victim at school.”

3. Cyberbullying off campus is expressly included in the definition of bullying if it “interferes with a student’s educational opportunities” or “substantially disrupts the orderly operation of a classroom, school, or school-sponsored or school-related activity.”

4. Notice of alleged bullying must be given to the parent of the target on or before the third business day after the incident is reported. The alleged bully’s parent is to be notified within a “reasonable time.”

5. Your school policy must include a method for students to report bullying anonymously.

6. Chapter 37 is amended to allow for expulsion or DAEP for a student who 1) engages in bullying that encourages suicide; 2) incites violence through group bullying; or 3) releases or threatens to release “intimate visual material” of a minor or an adult student without consent.

7. After an investigation is completed, the principal may report to law enforcement if the principal has reasonable grounds to believe that a student has engaged in assault or harassment. “Harassment” in this context means sending repeated e-communications in a manner likely to “harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass or offend another.”  Principals enjoy immunity from liability and from disciplinary action when making such a report. This duty can be delegated to another staff member, but not the school counselor.

8. Open enrollment charter schools must adopt anti-bullying policies and can enact the disciplinary penalties called for in the law for bullying.

9. TEA will create a website providing resources for educators working with students with mental health conditions, and continuing education for teachers and administrators may include information about how grief and trauma affect students.

10. School counselors’ duties will include serving as an “impartial, nonreporting conciliator for interpersonal conflicts and discord involving two or more students arising out of accusations of bullying.” “Nonreporting” in this context means that the counselor does not report to law enforcement. Other reports, such as for suspected child abuse, may be necessary.

11. Parents or students can obtain injunctive relief to stop and/or prevent cyberbullying of a minor. This relief could be against the student bully, or the parents of a bully who is under 18.  Forms in plain language will be readily available in English and Spanish to enable people to seek this relief. Plaintiffs can obtain injunctive relief by proving that cyberbullying has occurred—they will not be required to prove all of the elements normally required to obtain an injunction.

12. The Health and Safety Code is amended to authorize schools to develop practices and procedures regarding mental health, including “grief-informed and trauma-informed” practices, and skills related to managing emotions, establishing and maintaining positive relationships, and responsible decision-making.”

13. Criminal penalties are enhanced for harassment by e-communication that is done with the intent that the target will commit suicide or engage in conduct causing serious bodily injury to self.

This is one of the new laws that we will explore in detail at my annual Back to School tour this fall.  We are scheduled to do the BTS in nine locations in September and early October. Go to www.legaldigest for more information.

DAWG BONE: WE CONTINUE TO WORK TOWARD ELIMINATING BULLYING.  LET’S HOPE THIS NEW LAW HELPS!

File this one under: LEGISLATION 2017

Tomorrow: Toolbox Tuesday!!

Dawg Bones

Thinking of boycotting Israel? Think again!

Dear Dawg: Reviewing recent activity in the Texas legislature I found myself once again dismayed. Funny….I seem to feel that way every year about this time.  In this case, the proximate cause of my dismay is the passage of HB 89.  This bill requires that every contract my school district enters into must include a provision stating that the other party “does not boycott Israel; and will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract.”

Yikes! Is this going to show up in my teaching contract for next year?  If so, I guess I need to know what exactly “boycott” means.  The truth is that my husband and I were planning a vacation next year during the Christmas break.  My husband suggested that it would be a great time to travel to Israel, go to Bethlehem, see the Holy Land. We’ve never been, and we thought it would be a great educational experience for our kids.  But I nixed the idea.  I thought it was too expensive for us, and besides, traveling in that part of the world can be dangerous.  So I suggested that we go to Oklahoma instead, and my husband ultimately agreed to that.

I promise I was not wanting to “boycott” Israel!  I have nothing against Israel. But if I have to sign a contract that includes that language, is our private husband-wife conversation going to come back to haunt me.  Truth is, my husband and I are not getting along so well these days. What if we split up? Will he be able to use this against me, accusing me of being the one who boycotted Israel after signing a contract that said I wouldn’t?  Help!  DISMAYED INDEED.

DEAR DISMAYED: Not to worry.  First of all, we don’t think your decision about your vacation amounts to anything close to a “boycott.”  Second, this provision is not going to be in your teaching contract.  The bill requires this provision in any contract “with a company for goods or services.”  You are not a “company.”  School districts will need to include this provision in contracts they enter into for goods and services with “companies” but not with individual teachers.  Rest easy and enjoy your trip to Oklahoma.  As for the sense of dismay—we share that.  It’s a seasonal thing.  You will get over it soon. DAWG.

DAWG BONE: DON’T CONTRACT WITH A “COMPANY” THAT IS BOYCOTTING ISRAEL!  NEW LAW!!

 File this one under: LEGISLATION 2017

Tomorrow: Have you seen the movie “Desert Hearts”?

Dawg Bones

More Incorrect Test Answers….

Do you know that there is a bill making its way through our legislature that would require students to pass a civics test as a graduation requirement? The civics test would be based on the test that immigrants must pass to become a citizen. Sounds like a good idea to me.  The Texas Tribune just published a sample of that test—ten questions. I’m pleased to report that I passed!! Whew!

So that got me to thinking about some of the creative answers that kids have given to test questions in Social Studies.   For example:

Q. What people lived in the Po Valley?
A. Po’ people.

Q. What did Paul Revere say at the end of his famous ride?
A. “Whoa!!”

Q. How many wars were waged against Spain?
A. Six.

Q. Enumerate them:
A. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

 DAWG BONE: JUST SEEMS RIGHT THAT A HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE SHOULD KNOW AT LEAST AS MUCH AS A NEW CITIZEN.

File this one under: LEGISLATION 2017

Dawg Bones

First major piece of legislation: Sanctuary Cities

Governor Abbott has signed into law SB 4, the first significant piece of legislation to emerge from the 2017 session—the so-called “Sanctuary Cities” bill.  This bill authorizes employees of “campus police departments” and “local entities” to inquire into a person’s citizenship status when making an arrest or a “lawful detention.”  Importantly, however, this will not affect the conduct of employees of school districts or open enrollment charter schools.  The term “campus police departments” is limited to higher education; and the term “local entity” does not include school districts.

Moreover, the bill includes a very specific exclusion of K-12 entities:

 This subchapter does not apply to a school district or open-enrollment charter school, including a peace officer employed or contracted by a district or charter school during the officer’s employment with the district or charter school or while the officer is performing the contract. This subchapter does not apply to the release of information contained in education records of an educational agency or institution, except in conformity with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (20 U.S.C. Section 1232g).  Texas Government Code 752.052(d).

Our immigration laws are enforced by the federal government.  SB 4 now empowers state and local officials to assist with this.  But it conspicuously leaves public schools out of the picture.  All students residing in Texas have a constitutional right to attend the public school, regardless of citizenship status or the legality of their entry into the country.  This was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).  In order to safeguard that right, it is important for public school employees to refrain from making inquiry into these matters.

SB 4 seems to recognize this.  This law does not empower or encourage school employees, including SROs, to assist in enforcing our immigration laws.  All employees should comply with school district policy on the matter.  Furthermore, if the school receives a request for records pertaining to a student, the release of those records can only occur in conformity with FERPA.

This fall I will be conducting my annual Back to School tour, which will feature a comprehensive review of new legislation.  No doubt we will be talking about this bill and its implications for public school educators.  Registration for the BTS  program is now open at www.legaldigestevents.com.

 DAWG BONE: SB 4 IS ALREADY BEING CHALLENGED IN COURT BEFORE IT GOES INTO EFFECT ON SEPTEMBER 1. STAY TUNED!

 File this one under: LEGISLATION: 2017

Dawg Bones

Cyberbullying bill deserves your review.

SB 179, if enacted, will require major changes in your school’s response to bullying.  Here is a quick list of some of the major features of this lengthy and important piece of legislation:

1. It makes it clear that “a single significant act” can be “bullying.”

2. It defines bullying to include behavior that causes a student “to experience substantial negative mental health effects.”

3. It defines “cyberbullying” to include off-campus conduct in certain instances.

4. Requires notice to the parent of a bullying incident “not later than the next school day.”

5. Requires procedures for handling anonymous reports of bullying.

6. Calls for DAEP or expulsion for students who engage in bullying that encourages a minor to commit or attempt to commit suicide, incites violence against a minor through group bullying, or releases or threatens to release “intimate visual material” of a minor.

7. Requires reports to law enforcement relating to assault or harassment.

8. Requires counselors to serve as an “impartial mediator for interpersonal conflicts” involving bullying or cyberbullying.

9. Allows for the issuance of a subpoena prior to filing a suit to investigate “an injury to or death of a minor.”

10. Imposes liability for engaging in “actionable bullying”—directing “bullying communication” toward a person younger than 18.

11. Includes the parents of a student who has engaged in “actionable bullying” as potential defendants in a suit seeking civil damages.

12. Makes it a criminal offense to “intentionally and with malice” direct communication to a minor which is “harassing, extreme and outrageous” and which causes the suicide of the minor, or an attempted suicide that results in serious bodily injury; or doing so in concert with two or more other people.

13. Makes it a criminal offense to “intentionally and with malice” direct communication toward a person younger than 18 that threatens to make available to a third party “intimate visual material” of the child, and which causes the suicide of the child or an attempted suicide that results in serious bodily injury.

This one is called David’s Law. Keep an eye on it.

DAWG BONE: WE CONTINUE TO LOOK FOR WAYS TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE BULLYING.

File this one under: LEGISLATION 2017

Tomorrow: Tossed into the windshield—who is liable?