Research

 

Legislative Report Card for the 83rd Texas Legislative Session

Prepared for

Texas Kids Can’t Wait

By the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor Doctorate in Education Program

Randy Hendricks

Anne Balou

Adam Benthall

Robert Glinski

Randy Lamb

Rossee Nava

Christine Nemetsky

The Legislative Report Card for the 83rd Texas Legislative Session provides an objective measure of each state legislator’s support for Texas public schools. Twenty-one bills and one amendment related to UIL, curriculum, accountability, funding, vouchers, and charter schools were utilized in this analysis. Table 1 provides the legislation number, a brief description, and the advocacy position of Texas Kids Can’t Wait for each bill and amendment.

 Table 1

Legislation Analyzed

Legislation

 

Description

Texas Kids Can’t Wait Position

HB 5 Public school accountability, assessment, and curriculum requirements

Supported

HB 300 Creation of an alternative governance system (Texas Education  Choice Division) and Family First Schools

Opposed

HB 1025 Supplemental appropriations to the FSP  ($201.7 million)

Supported

HB 1175 School choice program for students with disabilities

Opposed

HB 1850 Private and homeschool eligibility for full-time enrollment in the Texas Virtual School Network

Opposed

HB 1926 Add nonprofit and private entities to the list of eligible course providers for the Texas Virtual School Network

Opposed

HB 1957 Establishment of the Recovery School District

Opposed

HB 2836 Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills and state testing

Supported

HB 3497 Taxpayer Saving Grant Program for private school tuition reimbursement

Opposed

Amend. 95 House anti-voucher amendment to SB 1

Supported

SB 1 Additional $3.2 billion to the FSP above the 2011 appropriations

Supported

SB 2 Increase in the number of open-enrollment charter schools

Opposed

SB 23 Texas Equal Opportunity Scholarship Program for students to attend private schools, public afterschool programs, or tuition-based pre-k programs

Opposed

SB 115 HB 1175 Companion Bill

Opposed

SB 573 Private and Parochial school participation in UIL for activities other than football and basketball

Opposed

SB 1015 Tax credit for taxable entities that make contributions to scholarship funds for non-public schools

Opposed

SB 1263 Modify the parent trigger provision to allow take over after 3 consecutive years of unacceptable

Opposed

SB 1298 Broaden Texas Virtual School Network course providers to include nonprofit and private entities; eliminate requirement that students be enrolled in a public school

Opposed

SB 1302 Applicability of certain public school requirements (accountability, open meetings, and availability of information) to private schools that accept vouchers, tax credit scholarships, or other public funds

Supported

SB 1407 Establishment of the Recovery School District

Opposed

SB 1575 HB 3497 Companion Bill

Opposed

SB 1718 Establishment of the Texas Achievement School District

Opposed

Of the 22 separate pieces of legislation analyzed, only 9 advanced to a floor vote in the House or Senate. The nine pieces of legislation that advanced to a floor vote are delineated in Table 2.

 

Table 2

Bills and Amendment Advancing to a Floor Vote

Legislation

Chamber Vote

Legislative Outcome

HB 5

House and Senate

Enacted into law

HB 1025

House and Senate

Enacted into law

HB 1926

House and Senate

Enacted into law

HB 2836

House and Senate

Vetoed by the Governor

Amendment 95

House

Passed in House; Died in Conference Committee

SB 1

House and Senate

Enacted into law

SB 2

House and Senate

Enacted into law

SB 1263

Senate

Passed by the Senate; Died in House Committee

SB 1718

Senate

Passed by the Senate; Died in House Committee

 

 

For the nine pieces of legislation advancing to a floor vote, each legislator was awarded one point for voting with the Texas Kids Can’t Wait position. In addition, authors and sponsors of all favorable legislation were awarded an additional point and authors and sponsors of unfavorable legislation received a one-point deduction. Coauthors and cosponsors received a half-point or a deduction of a half-point for favorable or unfavorable legislation respectively. Table 3 details how points were distributed for each piece of legislation.

 

Table 3

Point Distribution by Legislation

Legislation

Floor Vote

Authors / Sponsors

Coauthors / Cosponsors

HB 5

1 for “yes” vote

1

0.5

HB 300

No floor vote in either chamber

-1

-0.5

HB 1025

1 for “yes” vote

1

0.5

HB 1175

No floor vote in either chamber

-1

-0.5

HB 1850

No floor vote in either chamber

-1

-0.5

HB 1926

1 for “no” vote

-1

-0.5

HB 1957

No floor vote in either chamber

-1

-0.5

HB 2836

1 for “yes” vote

1

0.5

HB 3497

No floor vote in either chamber

-1

-0.5

Amend 95

1 for “yes” vote

1

0.5

SB 1

1 for “yes” vote

1

0.5

SB 2

1 for “no” vote

-1

-0.5

SB 23

No floor vote in either chamber

-1

-0.5

SB 115

No floor vote in either chamber

-1

-0.5

SB 573

No floor vote in either chamber

-1

-0.5

SB 1015

No floor vote in either chamber

-1

-0.5

SB 1263

1 for “no” vote

-1

-0.5

SB 1298

No floor vote in either chamber

-1

-0.5

Legislation

Floor Vote

Authors / Sponsors

Coauthors / Cosponsors

SB 1302

No floor vote in either chamber

1

0.5

SB 1407

No floor vote in either chamber

-1

-0.5

SB 1575

No floor vote in either chamber

-1

-0.5

SB 1718

1 for “no” vote

-1

-0.5

 

 

The final value for each legislator was determined by summing the points earned for each piece of legislation. Tables 4 and 5 delineate the final value, numerical rank, and percentile rank for each member of the House and Senate respectively.

 

Table 4

House of Representatives Final Value, Numerical Rank, and Percentile Rank

Representative

Final Value

Numerical Rank

Percentile Rank

Collier; Farias; Munoz (3)

7.5

1

98.6

Herrero; Martinez Fischer; Pitts; Reynolds (4)

7.0

4

95.9

Allen; Canales; Cortez; Huberty; Longoria; McClendon; Moody; Patrick; Price; Rodriquez, E.; Rodriquez, J.; Vo (12)

6.5

8

87.8

Alonzo; Ashby; Burnam; Callegari; Dukes; Farrar; Giddings; Gonzales, M.; Gutierrez; Howard; Martinez; Miles; Nevarez; Oliveira; Perez; Phillips; Rose; Sheffield, J.D.; Thompson, S.; Turner, S.; Walle (21)

6.0

20

73.6

Alvarado; Bonnen, D.; Cook; Darby; Farney; Guerra; Kacal; King, K.; Lozano; Menendez; Otto; Paddie; Perry; Ratliff; Raymond; Sheffield, R.; Stephenson; Turner, C.; Villalba; White; Wu; Zerwas (22)

5.5

41

58.7

Anderson; Coleman; Crownover; Davis, S.; Davis, Y.; Deshotel; Eiland; Frullo; Geren; Gonzalez, N.; Harless; Hernandez Luna; Hunter; Johnson; King, T.; Kuempel; Lewis; Marquez; Naishtat; Orr; Pickett; Raney; Smith; Strama; Villarreal (25)

5.0

63

41.8

Aycock; Dutton; Gonzales; Guillen; Keffer; King, S.; Kleinschmidt; Larson; Miller, D.; Murphy; Workman (11)

4.5

88

34.4

Anchia; Bell; Bohac; Burkett; Button; Clardy; Craddick; Elkins; Flynn; Gooden; Harper-Brown; Lavendar; Riddle; Sheets (14)

4.0

99

25.0

Bonnen, G.; Dale; Davis, J.; Hilderbran; Kolkhorst; Morrison (6)

3.5

113

20.9

Fletcher; King, P.; Klick; Parker; Ritter; Simpson; Smithee; Springer; Thompson, E. (9)

3.0

119

14.8

Branch; Fallon; Miller, R. (3)

2.5

128

12.8

Carter; Goldman; Leach; Taylor (4)

2.0

131

10.1

Creighton; Hughes; Krause; Laubenburg; Sanford; Schaefer; Zedler (7)

1.5

135

5.4

Lucio III; Stickland (2)

1.0

142

4.0

Capriglione; Frank; Isaac; Turner, E.S. (4)

0.5

144

1.3

Simmons; Toth (2)

0.0

148

0.0

 

 

 

Table 5

Senate Final Value, Numerical Rank, and Percentile Rank

Senator

Final Value

Numerical Rank

Percentile Rank

Rodriquez (1)

8.0

1

100

Garcia (1)

7.0

2

96.6

Deuell; Nichols; Uresti; Watson (4)

6.0

3

83.3

Davis; Ellis; Seliger; Williams; Zaffirini (5)

5.0

7

66.6

Nelson; Schwertner (2)

4.5

12

60.0

Carona; Duncan; Eltife; Estes; Fraser; Hancock; Hinojosa; Huffman; Van de Putte; Whitmire (10)

4.0

14

26.6

Lucio (1)

3.5

24

23.3

Birdwell; Taylor (2)

3.0

25

16.6

West (1)

2.5

27

13.3

Hegar (1)

2.0

28

10.0

Paxton (1)

-1.0

29

6.6

Campbell (1)

-1.5

30

3.3

Patrick (1)

-3.0

31

0.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Money Still Matters:  Investing in Texas Kids and Our Future (2012)

by Bonnie A. Lesley        http://www.equitycenter.org/

Money Does Matter:  Investing in Texas Children and Our Future (2010)

by Bonnie A. Lesley        http://www.equitycenter.org/

Research Reports on Doing More With Less? by Children at Risk, Houston

http://childrenatrisk.org/research/education/more-with-less   This page has links to the following reports:

What You Need to Know:  A Parent’s Guide to the Impact of the Public Education Budget Cuts (Jan. 2013)

Doing More with Less:  Public Education in a New Fiscal Reality–Statewide Assessment (Jan. 2013)

Doing More with Less:  Looking Beyond Public Schools (Oct. 2012)

Doing More with Less:  Public Education in a New Fiscal Reality (Sept. 2012)

 

 

Research Evidence vs. Soaring Ideology:  School Vouchers and Achievement by Julian Vasquez Hellig, Jan. 7, 2013

http://cloakinginequity.com/2013/01/07/research-evidence-vs-soaring-ideology-school-vouchers-and-achievement/

 

Gates Report on Using Student Surveys in Teacher Evaluations Based on Flawed Research

http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=b4ad2ece093459cbf2afb759f&id=7a95459398&e=27d10af50f

Faulty Premises and Methods Used in Research on Staffing “Surges”

http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b4ad2ece093459cbf2afb759f&id=bc2d65fbbf&e=27d10af50f

Research on the Benefits of Preschool

http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b4ad2ece093459cbf2afb759f&id=15807656c4&e=27d10af50f

Research on Newark, NJ, Charter Schools

This posting by Dr. Bruce Baker of Rutgers University and one of our expert witnesses in the Texas school finance case shows very clearly how difficult it is to conduct education research.  Isolating all the variables that may affect education outcomes is in itself difficult.  But note also how Baker lays out the ways that findings can be misconstrued by not digging deeply into data to see the differences between kids receiving “reduced-price lunch” programs and kids who are eligible for “free” lunches.  Important!  Also, see how important it is to isolate for testing all the different classifications for special education.  Many, many children identified for special education have physical disabilities that do not affect the functioning of their brains.  Others, like those in speech therapy programs, can be highly successful academically, while those with severe mental disabilities are not.  Baker demonstrates that when you do this digging, the Newark Charters do not seem nearly as successful.  All “research” is not equal.

 

AISD:  Inequitable Funding and Vestiges of Segregation

This report, published by the Texas Civil Rights Project, examines the inequities in funding between and among different schools in Austin ISD.  There are many references to the report Money Does Matter:  Investing in Texas Children and Our Future (2010) by Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D., written for the Texas Equity Center, a consortium of property-poor school districts.  The full report can be read or downloaded from this site:  http://texascivilrightsproject.org/docs/hr/tcrp_2012_hr_aisd.pdf

Privatization Agenda of ALEC

We hear all the time about various strategies to privatize public schools–everything from home schools, distance learning (virtual schools or online schools), charters, vouchers for designated populations, universal vouchers for all school-age children, education savings plans, and parent triggers.  The organization behind all of them is called ALEC.  Their goal is to use public money and channel it into private entities–not good for kids, nor taxpayers, nor democracy.  Go to this site to see their strategies exposed:  http://alecexposed.org/wiki/Privatizing_Public_Education,_Higher_Ed_Policy,_and_Teachers

Demographic Characteristics of Texas

(by Joe Smith, TexasISD.com via State Demographer Steve Murdoch)

Oct. 26, 2010

I often see lists of various characteristics of the state of Texas. There are several floating around that quantify and rank Texas education which I think are very helpful in determining the priorities of our state and Texans. Mr. Murdock, former Texas demographer, provided a well sourced and documented list regarding education in his presentation to the court in the school funding lawsuit. I appreciate his willingness to share it. Now we have a credible source to use in presentations.However, I will add one item when I use it in a presentation: Texas is America’s Top State for Business 2012. This chart is the rankings used for determining that Texas is the top state for business, yet it shows Texas to be number 26 in education which presents numerous interesting questions. — If we create a more educated workforce, will the cost of doing business go up or down? Are we cutting education to pay businesses to come to Texas? Will we lose businesses if we don’t improve education funding? This article highlights the 51 metrics used to rank the states.I have the complete PowerPoint Dr. Murdock presented in Judge Dietz’ Court. If you desire a copy, send me an email – It is large (98 slides), give me a few days to respond. -js – webmaster@texasisd.comSelected Characteristics of Texas Education – Steve Murdock Ph.D. – Director Hobby Center for the Study of Texas – Rice University

  • 2nd in Total Student Enrollment [4.9 million students (2010-11)]
  • 1st in Total Student Enrollment Growth [1998-99 to 2008-09 (806,781)]
  • 1st in Hispanic Student Enrollment Growth [1998-99 to 2008-09 (752,272)]
  • 42nd in Instruction and Instruction-Related Expenditures per Pupil ($5,443)
  • 43rd in Total Per Pupil Expenditures ($8,350)
  • 28th in Pupils per Teacher (14.7)
  • 28th in Average Freshman Graduation Rates for public secondary schools, 2008-09 (75.4%)
  • Ranked Last in the Percent of People 25 years and over Who have Completed High School [81.1% (including Equivalency)]
  • 30th in Percent of People 25 Years and Over Who Have Completed a Bachelor’s Degree (26.4%)
  • 12th in Percent of People below Poverty Level in the Past 12 Months (18.5%)
  • 10th in Percent of Children below Poverty Level in the Past 12 months (26.6%)
  • 41st in Percent of 18- to 24- Year Olds enrolled in Colleges and Universities (39.6%)
  • 46th in the Percent of Public High School Teachers Teaching with a Major in their Main Assignments (71.9%)
  • Between 2000 and 2010, Texas Student Age Population (Ages 5-17) Grew by a 67,522 People Per Year (or 675,220 between 2000-10)
  • In 2010, 4,937,351 children were of school age (Age 5-17), up from 4,262,131 (a 15.8% increase)
  • Between 2010 and 2050, Texas Student Age Population (Ages 5-17) is Projected to Grow by 4.5 million people (or 91.5%)

NEPC Policy Brief:  Democracy Left Behind:  How Recent Education Reforms Undermine Local School Governance and Democratic Education

http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/democracy-left-behind

Review of Class Size:  What Research Says and What It Means for State Policy

http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-class-size-what-research-says-and-what-it-means

Is School Funding Fair?  A National Report Card, June 2012

http://www.schoolfundingfairness.org/ia_reports.htm

Breaking Rules, Breaking Budgets:  Cost of Exclusionary Discipline in 11 Texas School Districts, October 2012, published by Texas Appleseed:

http://www.texasappleseed.net/index.phpoption=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=848&Itemid=


Comments & Responses

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *