The State Board of Education met on September 1 and heard from Commissioner Mike Morath regarding COVID-19 response in public schools, accelerated learning supports for students impacted by COVID-19, and implementation of remote learning.
This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.
Commissioner Mike Morath, Texas Education Agency
- Seeing a significant surge in COVID infections with Delta, having a significant operational effect on schools; rate of community infection means people are walking in with active infections
- ISDs are required to keep those with active infections off campus
- Have deployed 1.5m rapid tests to ISDs to help with this
- ISDs are wrestling to provide in person instruction, which needs to happen given the results from last year
- Have been trying to improve level of academic support provided in schools, especially for struggling students
- Highlights COVID impact on student achievement, saw large decreases in reading and math
- HB 1525 had Texas COIVD Learning Acceleration Supports (TCLAS), optional system for SIDs to access additional state support; roughly $1.4b in supports, grants closed about a week ago & saw 729 LEAs apply
- Key components of TCLAS
- Largest part of the support is planning
- High-quality instructional materials
- Support for teachers
- More time via tutoring, additional instruction time
- Holistic school redesign via innovative school models
- With tutoring, roughly $15b in new federal resources in ISD budgets usable for a number of things & tutoring is a strong practice; TEA supports via tutoring pipeline, instructional materials, and curriculum-embedded tutoring platform
- When tutoring systems are set up effectively, generate roughly 5 mos. of extra learning in a 12 month period
- HB 1525 also changed funding structure for CTE classes; previously CTE was changed under the Perkins Four Year Plan, incl. definitions of programs of study
- CTE courses are now weighted under HB 1525 scaling based on level and status in an approved program of study
- 1 for courses not in approved program of study
- 28 for level one or two CTE courses
- 47 for level three and four CTE courses
- TEA has published a resources detailing where courses fall within the programs of study definitions (link)
- Georgina Perez, SBOE – Are we holding schools to enrollment from 2021 for virtual school, or is it based on who tested and who did not test
- Morath – SB 15 passed both chambers, TEA is rapidly digesting, will be going over in more detail with superintendents on Thursday
- Bill does not restrict eligibility, bill controls funding for ISDs; to some extent eligibility determinations will be made at the local level
- Bill does have guardrails, cannot admit for funding any more than 10% of ADA, anything above is paid for by the school
- Similar funding restrictions based on a child’s performance records
- Perez – How would this impact ILT charters and ability to expand into virtual?
- Morath – If a district admitted more than 10% of their kids from outside their geographic boundaries, they are not subject to total cap on enrollment for the virtual program
- We’re aware of 5 systems we believe that applies to, incl. ILT and Roscoe
- Perez – And waiver approval despite D and F rated campuses?
- Different question, this is whether ILT meets the standards for charter schools
- ILT did pass the 4-part test, there is another tiering system that could lead to expedited approval or commissioner approval
- Will Hickman, SBOE – Is funding back to kids in seats? Hold harmless?
- Morath – In person funding never changed, still the ADA model
- Also set up a mechanism for schools to get funding on a short-term basis under the remote conferencing model; also on an ADA basis
- With SB 15 there will be funding for remote instruction far more broadly, both synchronous and asynchronous; will be rulemaking to clarify what asynchronous means
- Large number of kids who are temporarily out of school due to COVID and ISDs with lower than average attendance; TEA is monitoring, but TEA no longer has ability to issue hold harmless funding
- TEA does have low attendance waivers that can remove days from calculation of ADA
- Hickman – So last year you would ignore the WADA and use the previous year’s average?
- Morath – In a manner, yes; TEA no longer has the legal authority to do this
- Examining low attendance waivers and how they can be used to stabilize districts
- Virtual does count for ADA, remote requires staff for this; if we had been planning since March or April of last year it would be easier, but had to turn around in 15 days due to Delta
- Matt Robinson, SBOE – Have spoken with districts that are seeing higher infection rates than ever, some have reached 7%; if this stretches out through the whole semester, districts will be worried about funding and accountability
- Morath – Have some tools to resolve funding concerns, understand superintendents will continue to worry until we make a full announcement
- Law changes mean no districts can get a D or F this year, this factors in
- Audrey Young, SBOE – Familiar with remote conferencing, this seems to move it into something similar to homebound services
- Morath – Homebound services are seeing increased demand, but wouldn’t characterize it similarly as remote conferencing; remote conferencing is only available while a student is in the exclusion or contact period for COVID, generally about 10 days
- Students are eligible for homebound services with a doctor’s note stating that they are confined to the home and the condition lasts longer than 4 weeks
- Young – We have many homebound parents who don’t want same homebound teacher entering every home, would remote conferencing be a supplement?
- Morath – Homebound generates funding with 4 hours face-to-face, remote after that would be up to district
- Concurrent instruction is prohibited as it might harm in person kids
- Tom Maynard, SBOE – Masking seems to be a bit of an issue, one concern is that TEA communication seems to be at odds with Gov’s orders and is creating confusion; second concern is with dyslexia services and a platform we paid $1m to dev but don’t actually own
- Morath – On masking, TEA hasn’t issued anything inconsistent with Gov’s order, media reports would lead me to a different conclusion, but can’t control media
- There are active court cases and injunctions, so as TEA is enjoined we do what the injunction says; this is the only thing TEA has communicated about
- Have created a pretty awesome tool for dyslexia instruction, roughly 10k students being supported using this platform and this tool is brand new
- Supports both remote and in person dyslexia using trained dyslexia interventionists, designed to automate all of the documentation and has automated recording of student’s vocalization
- 787 trained dyslexia interventionists on the tool, preliminary evidence shows 50% more progress for dyslexia students
- New service that could be game changing for rural districts, can use this to access talent not in the building or when you
- Maynard – Do we own it or not?
- Morath – No, we license it; caused it to come into existence
- Fee is the licensing fee, paid pennies on the dollar for the creation of this tool
- Pat Hardy, SBOE – 1.47 funding for CTE is lucrative, but wondering how this will affect electives like music, fine arts, etc.; could there be any way to encourage ISDs to use funding to create summer practicums and not affect other school programs
- Morath – There is a grant program also to support summer CTE work, part of HB 3
- First year this was to take effect was the first summer of COVID, but has been delayed
- Legislature also discussed creating a funding weight for fine arts, but there was a kerfuffle over this
- Hardy – When you approve of charter expansions, we always get info; for ILT it said they had a number of C and D campuses, guessing average makes it a C, but I feel charters with an F shouldn’t expand; what are we doing about this?
- Morath – 4 part test says 90& of campuses need to be rated acceptable, for small charters of 7 or less, one F campus would trigger this, but if you have 20 one F does not
- Whether this should be changed is a worthy policy conversation
- ILT has a D rating overall, fewer than 10% of campuses were rated unacceptable and so did not trigger the 4 part test
- SB 1365 redefined the system
- 4 part test is in statute, so we need a legislative change
SBOE took a shot break to reboot the microphone system
- Aicha Davis, SBOE – There are zero special education teachers in TAPR reports for generation 22 and 23, but heard there were verified staff; was there research to see if the staff members had special education cert?
- Morath – Yes, the report data did not detail special education certifications on campuses, definitions are programmatic
- Followed up with campuses
- Davis – So were the inclusion teachers conducting the functions of special education teachers?
- Morath – Don’t know the answer to this question, would do this during special education monitoring cycle as it moves through LEAs
- Charters do in fact employ special education teachers
- Davis – Concern is more if students are receiving special education services; not clear that inclusion teacher would be able to provide all services
- Morath – Don’t know answer, no reason to believe there is a compliance problem; will get answers during normal monitoring process
- Davis – ARPA gave authority to districts to come up with safety plans and funding was tied to districts being able to come up with the plan
- Morath – We don’t think any of the funds are at risk
- Davis – Spoke with people at Dept. of Education
- Morath – Dept. announced 5 investigations in 5 states, TX is not one of them
- Davis – Yet
- Davis – For tutoring under HB 4545, says that students cannot be pulled from fine arts courses, is there a trigger to ensure this doesn’t happen
- Morath – This would be through the grievance process through the ISD or agency
- Sue Melton-Malone, SBOE – IF schools have to start closing, what is the contingency for STAAR this year?
- Morath – We don’t think there will be any disruptions to accountability given the experience we had last year
- Jay Johnson, SBOE – How do we use the STAAR results data and who gets to see and use this?
- Morath – Statute sets up a minimum threshold that STAAR items must be released every 3 years; TEA has released every year and will continue to do so
- Highlights https://www.texasassessment.gov/
- Ruben Cortez, SBOE – Teachers are dying in our schools, don’t want children to be next; sent a letter to Dr. Hellerstedt on Monday asking to add COVID vaccine to list of required vaccinations; Gov has abandoned COVID response, but DSHS has authority to add this to the list; have you spoken to DSHS about vaccines & would you consider joining me in this request?
- Morath – Speak with Dr. Hellerstedt regularly and vaccines are incredibly useful tools, virtually no one vaccinated sees severe outcomes so encourage as many individuals as possible to get vaccinated
- Working with DSHS to create a vaccine campaign and working with LEAs to stand up vaccine clinics to provide with parent permission
- Cortez – But haven’t discussed adding it to list of required vaccinations?
- Morath – Not in my authority to make that kind of public health policy for Texas
- Cortez – Regarding SB 15, why are they making ISDs go through so many hoops when the Gov has the authority to give you the ability to fund virtual options?
- Morath – No easy answers to these questions, legislature has deliberated extensively
- Marisa Perez-Diaz, SBOE – Is enrolling in statewide grandfathered programs akin to ILT and Roscoe an option for parents?
- Morath – Before COVID, there were 8 full-time enrollment programs and families have access to those
- With SB 15 you will see a number of districts stand-up virtual programs, familiar with at least one that stood up a program without state funding
- Perez-Diaz – Do the virtual programs have same accountability expectations as traditional ISDs and charters, what impact does this have given all the reqs?
- Morath – Exact same accountability as everyone else, e.g. A-F, STAAR, etc.; a few programs have been shut down or have discontinued due to poor performance as virtual doesn’t work for a lot of kids
- Perez-Diaz – In HB 1525, “certified” language was removed in recognizing teachers as master, recognized, or exemplary; have accountability concerns in removing this req
- Morath – Designation is made by ISDs, must follow a framework with guardrails; this change was made because some ISDs employ non-certified teachers that have reached this status
- TEA is working on a mechanism to track designations
- Perez-Diaz – And those with this designation of non-certified teachers are charters?
- Morath – No, there is a basic certification framework, but there are many ways to opt out
- Rebecca Bell-Metereau, SBOE – Anything we’re doing better during this surge, or are we abandoning measures that could be improved and work during this surge?
- Morath – Don’t know that I followed the question
- Bell-Metereau – During the first surge, had virtual learning for the first time and would be expected to not perform as well, but possibly could improve now
- Morath – Very big proponents of improvement through iteration, based on evidence we believe there are many structures that are superior to what happened last year
- Hopeful that ISDs continue to improve as they invest in virtual instruction
- Bell-Metereau – Anything we’re doing right now that is better? Seems like we’re doing less with a more severe surge?
- Morath – SB 15 codified prohibition on concurrent instruction, seemingly a good change
- Bell-Metereau – What are we doing this time that is an improvement
- Morath – Programs that seem to have some evidence that they were effective were specialized, not concurrent
- Pam Little, SBOE – Regarding HB 4545, have heard of complaints of amount of tutoring needed and of students being removed from electives; is there a mechanism in HB 4545 where a parent can present their case? Also hearing that tutoring is a generic approach and not tied to student needs
- Morath – Removing students from electives is essentially unlawful, formal grievance process that a parent can go through
- For students in special education you have ARD committees where tutoring is approved, can also discuss this there
- Little – Can you refer me to where the parents could go to get more info? According to parent the ARD committee was out of the process
- Morath – This is also deeply problematic, would encourage the parent to file a formal grievance
- Would also encourage them to use dispute resolution rights under the ARD
- Little – Cookie-cutter approach?
- Morath – Evidence behind tutoring suggests 3 sessions/week for about 30 minutes each, e.g. 90 minutes times 30 weeks
- If you do follow this, it generally leads to 5 mos. worth of learning gain