So what can trustees do between now and the 85th Legislature?

If you’re like me, service as a school board trustee from 1995 until May of this year, I didn’t take full advantage of the opportunities to connect with legislators during the interim, the time between the close of the 84^th Legislature and the beginning of the 85^th Legislature in January, 2017.  But now is really a great time to initiate dialog with your representatives in Austin (with some caveats) now that they are “home” and spending more time in their district.

The main caveat is that there have been a number of key legislators across the State of Texas who have announced plans not to run for office in 2016.  In many cases, including Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock, chairman of the House Public Education Committee, this will have far reaching consequences for public education.  So you need to make certain that your advocacy efforts are clearly targeted.

 At the same time, open seats represent an opportunity for us to tell our story to a new potential audience.  The caveat here is that many announced candidates will have a primary opponent so it can be a challenge to figure out who will represent you in the 85^th Session.  Starting too early, unless you have no bounds on your time, may not achieve the results you desire.  This is not to discourage you from engaging candidates in dialog but to encourage you to focus your time, energy and messaging.

Especially for those incumbents who have already announced or are likely to run in 2016, now is a great time to sit down and talk with them about public education.  We can expect to see continued focus and discussion surrounding so-called school choice (remember that public education is school choice), vouchers, and other vehicles that will divert funds from public education, as we asl discussions regarding high stakes testing.  

I recently had the opportunity to meet with three key education advocacy groups in Austin, Texans Advocating for Meaningful Student Accountability (TAMSA), Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association (TEPSA), and Pastors for Texas Children.  Along with TASB, these organizations are working hard to have their voices heard in Austin.  

While I won’t pretend to know all of the advocacy groups that support public education, each of you has your favorites.  Stay in touch with them and make certain that you know their position and are able to succinctly tell your story, asking for their support of your position.  And if your district has a legislative platform, share it with everyone at every opportunity. 

Of course, the elephant in the room is the upcoming hearing by the Texas Supreme Court of the school finance case.  While difficult to plan for an unknown outcome, school board trustees should carefully watch the proceedings so that you are poised to respond to whatever decision is made.

The next 12-15 months represent a great opportunity for each of us as public education advocates.  Don’t sit idly on the sidelines thinking you cannot influence those who represent you.  You will find that just the opposite is true!

Thank you, Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock

Those of us involved with public education advocacy need look no further than the office of Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock (R-Killeen) to thank him for his support for public schools during his years of service as a school board trustee, member of the Texas House of Representatives, and most recently the Chairman of the House Public Education Committee.  The announcement by the Texas Schools Public Relations Association (TSPRA) that Chairman Aycock is the recipient of the TSPRA 2015 Key Communicator Award only underscores the value of the contributions he has made to public education in Texas.  Sadly for all of us, Chairman Aycock has indicated that he will retire from the House and not seek reelection in 2016.  His positive influence will be missed by all of us - especially by the 5 million plus students in Texas public schools.

Before lamenting his decision and applauding his contributions, I would like to acknowledge a former winner of the award and a dear friend of mine.  Bobby J Rigues, Aledo ISD trustee and the father of the Make Education a Priority (MEaP) grassroots movement, was named the winner of the TSPRA award in 2011.  Bobby J not only founded the movement but worked diligently to secure approval of a resolution supporting MEaP from a majority of school districts across the State of Texas.

As a former school board trustee in Carroll ISD (Southlake), it has been my honor for more than ten years to have served as an advocate not only for the students in my home district but across the entire state.  It has been equally rewarding to have worked with Bobby J, and with insight from Chairman Aycock, to have developed and delivered presentations at various conferences surrounding the passage of House Bill 5 and the need for effective school board governance.  Chairman Aycock was most gracious in answering questions we posed to him and readily provided his perspective on the challenges of public education.

One need only to watch the leadership he provided in the 84^th Legislative Session to truly appreciate his contributions.  He was a strong advocate of addressing funding challenges and not waiting for the Texas Supreme Court to act.  At the same time, he continued to keep initiatives related to House Bill 5 at the forefront of discussion among his peers in the House.  In recognizing his contributions, TSPRA made mention of Chairman Aycock’s efforts to not only improve the Texas public education system but to simultaneously defend it from the endless attacks by those who seek to undermine a system required under Article 7, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution.  For those not familiar with this, it states that “A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.”

Chairman Aycock consistently did his level best to ensure compliance with this requirement and for that we are all grateful.  As I reflected on his contributions, I read one quote that stood out among others.  James B. Crow, Executive Director of the Texas Association of School Boards, acknowledged the Chairman’s efforts very succinctly when he said, “His bravery in attempting to address school accountability, school turnaround measures and school finance in one session will not soon be forgotten.”  

We owe Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock a deep sense of gratitude for consistently keeping the discussion about public education policy as a priority.  He, perhaps more than any other person, demonstrated leadership to keep the focus on the more than 5 million students in the Texas public education system.  Thank you, sir, for your contributions and for making education a priority.

So what happens after NCLB?

As a ten-year former school board member in Carroll ISD (Southlake, TX), I watched with great interest as legislation that was supposed to ensure that kids in public schools had an opportunity to learn turned out to be pretty much the opposite.  Instead of focusing on creativity and learning in the classroom, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) passed in 2002 resulted in students having to take numerous high stakes tests.  And how did they prepare for them?  They took class time so that teachers could "teach to the test".  NCLB had a significant impact not just on the kids but on those who teach kids everyday.  Teachers and administrators found themselves having to do focus their energies toward student preparation to take these tests.

Finally, some sanity.  On July 16, the US Senate (by a vote of 81-17) passed the Every Child Achieves Act (ECAA), legislation that potentially alters the education landscape dramatically.  Among provisions incorporated were amendments that make career and technology education (CTE) a core subject, opportunities for districts to develop local policies regarding opting out of standardized tests, and a cap on the amount of time spent on tests.  Now that is real change.

The House passed similar legislation (Student Success Act) but only by a vote of 218-213.  It will now be up to a conference committee to define legislation that can be approved in both chambers and then sent on to the President.  There is clearly work still to be done.  What's not so clear is how this administration will respond to the legislation that is working its way through the process.

But why should we even care?  Whether you believe statistics that show the United States as significantly lagging in education compared to the rest of the world (and there is data that suggests just the opposite), it's critical that we get behind legislation that restores opportunities for creativity and real learning in the classroom.  Passage of this legislation could, in fact, stem the tide of an exodus of teachers from the profession, many because they had lost the autonomy and ability to truly impact education under NCLB.  At the core of those in the profession is a desire to make a difference in the lives of students; they now may have a renewed opportunity to achieve that.

Regardless of the data, it is time for us to step up and address the constraints that NCLB imposed on our educational system.  All of us have a responsibility to not only understand why the new legislation is important but to actively participate in an educational system that will create a foundation for the future of all of us.

Reflections on the 84th Legislature - Part Two

 Continuing from my last blog, let's continue to look at some of the hits and misses of this session.

There is no question that SB 149 (Seliger) was a significant hit for students.  Students who fulfill all of the graduation requirements but fail up to two EOC exams now at least have the hope that there is a way to graduate.  While not a "slam dunk" by any stretch of the imagination, this legislation does offer an alternative for these students. 

The validity and reliability of assessment instruments was a focal point, as were discussion about the length of time required for a test to be completed.  Specifically, 85% of students in grades 3-5 should take no more than 120 minutes; grades 6-8 should take no more than 180 minutes.  With the tests are still at the root of this discussion, there is at least a glimmer of hope that the dialog about testing that began in the 83nd session will continue to result in changes to philosophies and implementation of assessment tests.  My hat is off to TAMSA for continuing to push the “meaningful assessment” dialog.

The failure of supporters, despite a strong push from the Lt. Governor, to pass legislation in support of vouchers, taxpayer savings grants or similar proposals that would divert funds from public education, is a "hit" for public education.  I saw an editorial recently that provided a perspective that I had not seen addressed very much, namely that the shift of dollars toward private schools may not yield the results sought by those entities.  The point made was that, through a transfer of dollars, private schools open themselves to intervention from the very entities that fund them. 

With the lack of accountability in charters and private schools as one of the main criticisms, this may resolve itself.  Nevertheless, any program that diverts dollars most certainly represents a "miss" for public education.  Expect this to continue to be a major focus in the 85th session.

Parent trigger and opportunity school legislation discussions, while not moving forward this session, will remain discussion topics.  The real "miss" of each of these pieces of legislation is that they fail to put in place any plans to address the symptoms that result in failures on these campuses.  Much has been written about the fact that many of these campuses are predominantly minority students.  It's time to figure out how to provide these students with equal opportunity, not deny them.  You might look for a recent TED Talks presentation by a principal of a Philadelphia public school, found at http://bit.ly/1KfcRWM and how she chose to address issues on her campus.

Ultimately, and in the spirit of HB 2804, I would give this legislative session a grade of a C-.  Until funding is restored to an adequate level and as long as vouchers, among other damaging subjects, remain topics of discussion, it will be very difficult for the Legislature to ever earn anything higher than a C.  Is that what we want from our representatives in Austin? 

Anticipating that the Governor will not call a special session, now is the time for public school advocates to start the process of advocating for students across the state.  This is not the end of the road; it is the beginning of efforts on the part of trustees, administrators, businesses, pastor groups and many others to position public education at the forefront of discussions in the 85th Session.

Reflections on the 84th Legislature - Part One

As we look back on the 84^th Legislative Session, we can now assess whether this group of legislators focused on the needs of public education.  Sadly, what we find is that the House did, but the Senate seemed more preoccupied with issues that they considered of greater importance, including open carry, private schools, vouchers, etc.  And the actions of both Chambers are clearly a reflection of leadership.

Rather than continue to hammer away at how leadership supported or didn't support public education, I think it is time to reflect on some of the hits and misses of this session.  Among the hits was funding, although at a somewhat modest level, of pre-K education.  I know that some have questioned whether pre-K has merit, including challenges that ultimately offended pastors and clergy across the state.  Speaking on a personal level, as a grandfather of a 4 year old and a 6 year old, there is no question in my mind that both are and were far better equipped to enter kindergarten than if they had not experienced the many disciplines, including social interaction, that a pre-K program afforded them.

A second, although not an "out of the park" hit, is the recognition of the need for incremental funding of public education.  To their credit, both chambers recognized the importance of funding enrollment growth, although total funding may not keep pace with enrollment growth.  This benefits not only those who are a part of that enrollment growth, but also those who have been in the system since fewer resources have to be diverted or allocated across a larger number of students. 

Although the House, under the leadership of Chairman Jimmie Don Aycock, actually discussed legislation that would have significantly increased funding, the Chairman felt that the legislation (HB 1789) had little chance of passage in the Senate.  Sadly, the withdrawal of this bill left a void in what had been at least a modest hope for public school districts.  Nevertheless, additional resources approved as part of the budget will offer some opportunity beyond what public education had going into the session.  And now the courts await.

And what about another bill that fell short of what had been pushed by public education and other groups, namely to look at individual campus assessments and how those are derived?  On the positive side, HB 2804 did at least reduce the importance of STAAR test results to a point where the accountability tests account for only 55% of the overall rating.   But the negative for me is the imposition of an A-F rating at individual campuses.  See my prior blogs on this subject.

I could go on ... and will ... in a subsequent blog.

An Open Letter to Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock

Dear Rep. Aycock,

It is with great sadness that I heard the news yesterday that you do not intend to run for another term.  This truly is an announcement that will have far reaching potential implications over the next couple of years.  Thank you for your continued support of the 5.2 million public education students in the State of Texas.

As I reflect on the impact of your announcement, several things come to mind.  First and foremost is how you always kept the needs of all students as a top priority in your discussions.  Students, parents, educators and others who support public education truly appreciate your efforts in making certain that Texas has a sound public education system.  Your quote about the importance of focusing on good policy, not party extremes, is truly a reflection of your commitment to service. 

I think back fondly on a couple of meetings in your office.  During the 83rd Legislative Session, my fellow trustee Bobby J Rigues (Aledo ISD) and I were privileged to present at three Texas Association of School Boards (TASB) training sessions on the impact of House Bill 5, major legislation sponsored by you.  You were gracious enough to meet with us to provide the backdrop that led to this important legislation, focusing on the topics of curriculum, assessment, and accountability, as well as community and student engagement.  We walked away with a clearer understanding of the “why” behind the “what.”

Even more impactful to me personally was a meeting we had with you earlier this year as Bobby and I developed another TASB presentation to discuss the role and importance of governance in how trustees oversee district operations.  After a brief Q&A video session, your invitation to sit and talk for an additional 75 minutes was invaluable in understanding your views on public education.  I'm deeply honored to have had that opportunity to talk.

Your sponsorship of HB 1759 was an effort that was truly appreciated by advocates of public education.  Rather than wait for the courts to decide the public school funding issue, you made a sincere effort to address concerns addressed and now pending before the Supreme Court.  More importantly, your actions started the dialog and brought renewed hope among those of us in public education. 

Suffice it to say that public education will lose one of its greatest champions with your retirement.  Thank you, Chairman Aycock; I wish you the very best.  All of us who support public education are deeply indebted to you! 

Warmest regards,

Craig Rothmeier

Advocacy Advisor - Make Education a Priority

So an A-F campus rating system passes … what next?

With less than one week to go in the 84^th legislative session, it appears likely that HB2804, Chairman Aycock’s effort to reduce the impact and importance of standardized tests, will become law, pending signature by the Governor.  While not what trustees and administrators were hoping, the Chairman’s efforts on this bill at least bring about some element of balance to a flawed system.  What I disagreed with most in this debate was the Chairman’s comment that, “We have to call them something”.  Yes, we do have to call them something but assigning a letter grade doesn’t tell the entire story.

In fairness to Chairman Aycock, he has been an ardent supporter of public education over several sessions.  His leadership on the passage of HB 5 in the 83^rd Session set a tone across the State to focus more on career and technology and community engagement; that legislation has clearly impacted schools in a very positive manner.  And his sponsoring of HB 1759, an effort to move toward adequate funding of public education, was certainly noteworthy compared to the final funding that was approved.

Looking at HB 2804 a bit further, only 55% of the campus grade will be derived directly from STAAR and EOC test results.  The remaining 45% will be derived using other criteria.  As a plug for the efforts of Dax Gonzalez and TASB Governmental Relations, the following comes directly from Dax’s update on May 25.

“The first domain (55%) would be solely based on the test, while the second and third domains would be based on student growth and closing gaps between student groups. The fourth domain would consist of non-test measures, such as certifications students earn, military enlistment, advanced placement courses taken, and other items listed in the bill. The fifth domain would measure parent and student engagement.”  (source: Dax Gonzalez, TASB GR, May 25, 2015)

So where is the good news in this?  Quite simply, it’s the reduced impact of standardized testing.  And while I (and others) still argue that assigning a specific grade rating at a campus level creates a potential stigma for lower performing campuses (see my prior blog on HB 2804), the discussion regarding ratings at least got the dialog going and acknowledged the need to look at more than test scores.  And that can be a good thing!

Now that trustees and administrators know the ground rules (of course, pending finalizing of the legislation and signature by the governor), they can at least focus on how to manage those elements that impact the rating.  But rather than get caught up in the rhetoric about what a particular rating means, and thereby increasing the stigma of a low rating, they can focus on how to address the shortcomings that ultimately drive the campus grade. 

It’s easy to lay blame; the challenge now is to take steps to address the root cause and to find ways to improve across all five domains over time.  The students of these campuses are entitled to such an effort on the part of trustees and administrators (and parents!) alike.