Print 🖨

Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath spoke before the State Board of Education (SBOE) on September 9 concerning reading academies, charter school funding, and new charter applications. Commissioner Morath also took questions from SBOE members.

This HillCo report below is a summary of remarks intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics discussed. This report is not a verbatim transcript; it 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.

 

Mike Morath, TEA Commissioner

  • Reading Academies
    • Provides an update on reading academies, 38 authorized providers, 700+ cohort leaders, 500+ cohorts launched, 20k teachers active
    • Started with HB 3 in 86th, formed a Reading Advisory Council that informed structure of the academies, moved through research and content development
    • Reading academies designed to improve literacy through evidence-based instruction, have built the TEKS tree to show how interwoven the different parts of the new ELAR TEKS are, large emphasis on ELPS
    • Current version of reading academies is bigger and better than forms done before, huge focus on biliteracy and simultaneous language development for English and Spanish
    • Gathering real time assessment data from students, also have survey data from cohort participants
    • Barbara Cargill, SBOE – Have thoroughly enjoyed the reading academies, programs have been trying really hard to keep cohort participants engaged, teachers are excited to participate; staff has done an excellent job putting these together
    • Mike Morath, TEA – This is a very big deal, every K-3 teacher going through this extreme focus on literacy instruction aligned to the TEKS and cognitive science on literacy
  • SBOE has veto of charter recommendations on the agenda, Comm. Morath wants to provide info on charters to inform the Board’s decision
  • Provides background on charters, roughly 13% of applications are approved, charters must perform or they are closed; charter sector performance continues to improve over time
  • Charter vs. ISD funding – legislature designed these to generate largely equivalent levels of funding, differences come from lack of tax base for charters
    • Charters are funded at the average of Tier 1 and the average of Tier 2, charters do not generate I&S funds, not eligible for facilities funding through IFA or EDA, certain high-performing charters qualify for facilities funding, charters do not qualify for fast growth allotment, receive state average for small/mid-sized allotment
  • New mechanisms in HB 3 also fund based on high performing teachers, incentive funds, etc. that apply equally regardless of entity type
  • Provides example of how funding works if students move from school type to school type; needs based funding follows the student, but entity or cost level adjustments do not happen
  • Current cycle of charters is generation 25, started this year with 27 applicants
  • Reviews contingency review items and process for correcting issues with charter applications without veto; examples of corrections including retooling boards in minor ways, fixing contracting issues, etc.
  • Recommended charter entities this year: Brillante Academy (McAllen), CLEAR Public Schools (San Marcos), Doral Academy (Buda), Heritage Classical Academy (Houston), Learn 4 Life (Austin), Prelude Prep (San Antonio), Rocketship Education (Fort Worth), Royal Public Schools (San Antonio)

 

Questions

  • Tom Maynard, SBOE – How many additional campuses have been approved through the Commissioner-based process?
    • Morath, TEA – Don’t have these approvals, but in 2017 there were 484, 2018 there were 521, 2019 there were 553
  • Maynard – Study showed $1,500/student greater cost for a charter student than a traditional ISD student, but this doesn’t include local funding?
    • Morath – Difficult to answer, $1,500 number seems a little high
    • Funding differences include: large ISDs do not receive small/mid-sized allotment, charters receive the average regardless of size, also the fast growth allotment
    • Some sources of LEA funding favor ISDs, varies with some ISDs drawing more funding per student and some less
    • Bulk of the money is entirely student-based and is funded regardless of if the student is at a local ISD or charter
  • Maynard – Sent this study to Leo Lopez, asking essentially if there is a fiscal note attached to charter approval?
    • Morath – I don’t believe so, legislature would’ve attached this if it existed
    • Possible that this could be true, but also could be untrue; undoubtedly not true in the first year as charters do not open with full enrollment
  • Matt Robinson, SBOE – Issue is not to do with ISDs and whether they get enough money, issue is how much money the state gives to charters vs. ISDs
  • Robinson – Charters get anywhere from $1,000-$1,500/student than the ISD does via the state, does not count facilities revenue
    • Morath – Spot on with this, tax system was created by the legislature
    • Technically you have a mix of revenue sources for an ISD, where you don’t have a mix for a charter
  • Robinson – Therefore it does cost the state more for the charter school as they are dependent on the state
  • Robinson – Regarding low approval vs. applications, this is true, but it is kind of the tip of the iceberg of charter campuses active in the state; expansions need to be considered in the discussion on new approvals, expansion approvals outpace denials
  • Robinson – Learn4Life’s parent organization has a history of litigation, my understanding is we are not allowed to grant an application to an entity affiliated with an organization that had action taken against in another state
    • Morath – Wouldn’t propose a charter that could not be approved, ultimately the nature of the underlying claims were resolved or weren’t relevant in the Texas context
    • Team will be available to discuss
  • Robinson – Given the cost of charters & the coming budgetary deficit, wonders why we can’t wait a year for the economy to improve; recommended number is also higher than last year
    • Morath – One interesting thing given the context of HB 3 is that total education spend has increased
    • Assuming worst-case cost scenarios are true, approving these charters is $18 million out of $340 million; not a massive concern given legislative increase to public education spending
    • No immediate financial concerns, none of the schools start immediately and would be positioned in the same timeframe as potential economic recovery
    • Financial arguments have never been particularly compelling to me, schools are a good opportunity for kids and drive results up
    • Legislature can change the funding system if they see this as a priority
  • Patricia Hardy, SBOE – With several schools being out of state and 15% going to that state, how do we talk to taxpayers about that?
    • Morath – I think this is a valid concern for folks to raise, not limited to these out of state charters; school districts across the state pay out-of-state entities for construction, IT, etc.
    • Charter partnerships could also have employees in Texas
  • Hardy – Whenever we decide on expansions, are we going with just the top performers?
    • Morath – Recently tightened the threshold, no longer allow D or F schools any replication or expansion
    • When the legislature set up expansion, has to be expedited approval for A and B, C is currently under discretionary Commissioner review
  • Hardy – Would encourage you to knock C out of the discretionary range and make it only the top schools
  • Ruben Cortez, SBOE – Why put us into a situation where we spend 10s of millions of dollars that could potentially reach 100s if capacity enrollment is reached? Why wasn’t there a moratorium in this cycle
    • Morath – Distributing $800 million in additive CARES money to school districts
    • Unlike about a dozen other states, there aren’t any teacher layoffs or public education cuts, legislature has put roughly $2 billion more into public education in the last 100 days
    • We were asked to do a moratorium on charters for a similar reason on the back of a $3.4 billion infusion; key question is if this is likely to lead to better outcomes for kids
    • Now is definitely time to see some more innovation, should look at whether these applicants provide better outcomes
  • Robinson – Also concerned about putting students and teachers back in buildings when TEA isn’t fully staffed, won’t have a choice on in-person instruction based on TEA guidelines; some asking why TEA is insisting teachers and students are in-person when agency staff are not
  • Robinson – Don’t want to be a member that advocates for opening up schools, kids may not be as susceptible, but can infect other staff at schools; Question is why not allow waivers for A and B across all grades, not just high school
    • Morath – No good choices in the middle of a pandemic, have a number of schools that are open and allowing in person instruction, but flexibility for the school system can in some cases mean less flexibility for parents
    • This is the set of tradeoffs that we’ve recommended
    • Huge number of agency staff are parents, with schools closed makes it difficult for them to come back into the office; when schools are open for instruction then staff will come back into the office
    • Schools have flexibility to do A and B schedules top to bottom, key is that they have to be able to serve parents in some fashion, need to let parents take advantage of the public school system
    • The fact that in-person instruction is not available to million is a pretty significant educational harm that has public health concerns with depression, increases in abuse, lack of nutrition, etc.
  • Georgina Perez, SBOE – Regarding the statement that only A,B, and Cs were granted expansions this year, is that correct?
    • Morath – Changed the rule 9 months ago
  • Perez – When was International Leadership of Texas granted their new schools? They have 8 schools with Ds and Fs, were these granted before the rule change?
    • Morath – Might have been
  • Perez – LBB did issue an added cost analysis to the state of $882 million more; as HB 3 goes into effect we’re looking at increase of $3.4 billion, charters cost the state $3.29 billion in 19-20 and in 2021 this will be $3.8 billion
  • Perez – Kind of like adding funding, but not putting it into existing schools; LBB did assess a cost to the state and we are granting expansions for low performing schools
  • Perez – While we’re watching the slides, we’re not getting the whole story, it’s one-sided and misleading; I think we should bring in the LBB, should talk about charters granted, should bring these facts in particularly during a pandemic and a shortfall
    • Morath – Which LBB report are you referencing?
  • Perez – I can email it to you
  • Pam Little, SBOE – Have had superintendents with concerns over discipline issues where charters send students with discipline issues back to ISDs, but the money with the student stays with the charter?
    • Morath – This can be true, one of the provisions allows charters to indicate in the charter agreement that they will look at disciplinary history when considering enrollments; some do and some don’t
    • Money comes down on a daily basis, as soon as the student switches to districts the funding should switch
  • Little – Heard there is a cut-off date where students transferred after will have their funding stay with the charter; have heard this from several superintendents
    • Morath – There are differences between cashflow and total funding, districts put together prospective enrollment every two years and there is a settle up process every year based on actual enrollment; effectively could have had an ‘interest-free’ note at the snapshot, difference between when funding transfers and when it is paid
  • Little – Would like an explanation I can share with my superintendents
  • Lawrence Allen, SBOE – Would like to know if your office is collecting data on teacher retention? Had some cases where single mothers in my district resigned to care for their children, are there any efforts to collect data on this or ensure we are keeping teachers?
    • Acutely aware of the childcare issue where schools not being available leads to significant labor problems at the schools; some areas where Health Departments are preventing kids from coming and essentially preventing schools from running
    • Data on teacher placement lags significantly
    • For teachers with Chapter 21 contracts, past the no-fault resignation provision and we understand that many teachers are struggling with this; in most cases teachers wouldn’t have any penalty