Print 🖨

The State Board of Education met on February 2 to discuss a number of items. The agenda and an archive of the meeting can be found here.

 

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight 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.

 

Public Testimony

Mohit Mehta, Center for Asian American Studies UT Austin

  • Request SBOE consider American Indian native studies for full adoption as a TEKS ethnics study course
  • Has been piloted in a school district for three years and TEA has approved it to an innovative course status
  • Social studies standards have not been undated since 2008; students need this course to be prepared in terms of the legal/social/political understandings of different groups
  • These types of classes improve literacy, sense of well-being, college readiness, critical historical analysis skills, etc.

 

Kenneth Romer, Self

  • Native literature professor; both native and non-native students benefit from reading native literature

 

Carol Anderson, Indigenous Institute of the Americas

  • Contributed to the core content team to create this course
  • Has been confusion why this has not been taken up by the SBOE; many of us thought this was an accident
  • Need help in understanding how this would be controversial; this course is an elective and requires parental consent
  • Recommend the board take this item on first reading during the April meeting

 

Steven Silva Brave, Self

  • Social work and leader in my community in Dallas
  • Look forward for the whole state to take this course
  • Just want students to get the whole picture of natives, not just a few historical points

 

Carl Kurtz, Self

  • The history of our continent and government is based upon native communities
  • Native history is overlooked in history class simply because there is no time
  • This is an elective course, let kids

 

Meggie Stern, Childrens Defense Fund

  • Urge this board to move this course to first reading at their next meeting

 

Marial Quezada, Indigenous Cultures Institute

  • This course allows for students to continue to build on Texas foundations and results in greater school/community engagement
  • Urge the board to put this on their April agenda for first reading

 

Leslie Reaves, Ethnics Studies for Schools Coalition

  • Multiple native nations and organizations are in support of this class
  • Agree course should be review, but in order to get this started, the board needs to bring this item up for first reading

 

Member Questions

  • Chair Kinsey – Know this has been a topic of discussion; progress continues on this offline; there is a standing item on the next agenda where we can discuss this without breaking the open meetings act
  • Davis – Are we going to have intentional discussion on this today? When can we discuss this?
  • TEA Staff – Cannot discuss further since it is not on the agenda; if you want further discussion, will need to be placed on the agenda of a future meeting
  • Chair Kinsey – Further discussion is out of order; she can bring up next steps when they report out things they are personally doing at the end of the day
  • Davis – I cannot ask questions concerning placing this on a future agenda?
  • Chair Kinsey – Not at this time
  • TEA Staff – Are only allowed to discuss whether you can place this on a future agenda, whether now is the right time for that I will defer to the chair/parliamentarian
  • TEA Parliamentarian – Appropriate step forward is to make a motion to place something on the agenda; the chair sets the agenda, but if there is a majority vote, the board can vote to place something on the agenda
  • TEA Parliamentarian – Operating rules encourage working with the chair first, but if that is not successful you can appeal
  • TEA Parliamentarian – There has not been a declination on part of the chair to place this on a future agenda
  • Davis – Do not intend to make that motion, I have had conversations with the chair, want people out there to know their work is not going down the drain; we still value the work they have done
  • Chair Kinsey – Would you be okay with having that discussion on the last agenda item
  • Davis – Yes
  • Bell-Metereau – What does declination mean in this context? Hope to have this course offered in the state
  • Chair Kinsey – The chair has not declined anything to be put on a future agenda

 

Item 2: Approval of Consent Agenda

  • Chair Kinsey – 8 and 12 removed from the consent agenda
  • Francis – Would like to remove item 5 from the consent agenda
    • Chair Kinsey – Removed and will be taken up on Committee on Instruction
  • Childs – Explain effect of moving item 6 from the consent agenda
  • Chair Kinsey – This is a PSF item
  • Chair Kinsey – Items 5, 8, and 12 are removed and will be taken up with their appropriate committee

 

Item 3: Proposed New 19 TAC Chapter 67, State Review and Approval of Instructional Materials, Subchapter B, State Review and Approval, §67.21, Proclamations, Public Notice, and Requests for Instructional Materials for Review; §67.23, Requirements for Publisher Participation in Instructional Materials Review and Approval (IMRA); and §67.25, Consideration and Approval of Instructional Materials by the State Board of Education, and Subchapter D, Duties of Publishers and Manufacturers, §67.81, Instructional Materials Contracts, and §67.83, Publisher Parent Portal

  • Little – Committee pushes for 2nd reading
  • Chair Kinsey – 2nd not required since it came from full board
  • Hickman – move adoption of purple language, read all clarifications, only substantive one I see is 67e
  • Francis – In E, does this trigger fines?
    • Staff – There is a requirement in C that publishers have a sign on capacity at the time of purchase and are given a grace period of 60 days; there is one exception if the agency determined failure
  • Young – Making a motion that word ‘charter’ is missing from C
    • Chair Kinsey – Motion approved
  • Pickren – TEA is responsible for “e”; So, if we are going to consider “e”, how would we report this to TEA?
    • Staff – We have staff verifying publisher portal exists and the single sign on is operational; we would rely on school district to let us know
  • Pickren – How can parents verify that they have a way to sign on to LMS?
    • Parents should always be able to access their children’s portals, including LMS
  • Francis – Where is language for Terms and Conditions?
    • Language in 67.81 would apply to any publisher, and it will restate to follow each statute and rule
  • Chair Kinsey – Motion to approve the recommendation
  • Motion approved (14 -0)


Item 4: Consideration for Approval of Instructional Materials Review Quality Rubrics

  • Childs – Wants to add language to section 3.1A
  • Wants to amend the language to the math K -12 rubric contained in section 3.1A; suggesting materials read “materials include teacher guidance activities ‘comma’ and/or paired lessons for students”; important to differentiate the student’s level of learning and to understand that students can take both
  • Young – Could you define paired lessons?
    • Childs – Lesson for learning the skill for those on a specific level of learning
  • Young – Where I am from it is called scaffolding
    • Childs – I would accept putting scaffolding in parenthesis for my amendment
  • Staff – Phrasing is important as it is an and/or situation when teachers are planning their lessons
  • One could receive it as supplement teaching, or they could receive it separately
  • Chair Kinsey – Amendment passes
  • Chair Kinsey – Back to main motion; no additional comments
  • Chair Kinsey – Motion passes

 

Item 5: Consideration for Approval of Instructional Materials Review and Approval Process

  • Hickman – 2 amendments
  • Red language in the after -action review, highlighted in red, needs to be struck
  • Pickren – Is this pertaining to discussion of amendment made in committee?
    • Hickman – This is based on staff feedback
    • Pickren – I do not think there was any negative feedback
    • Hickman – Their concern was the last step of EMRA review
    • Pickren – Could they review the action beforehand?
  • Maynard – Asks Hickman to restate his rationale
    • Hickman – Idea here is two amendments, step 37 and step 45, presented on Tuesday
    • EMRA reviews are being prepared for September; it would be difficult to review after -action while they are preparing the review for September; requests an amendment that would allow them to do last step at step 45
  • Chair Kinsey – Amendment passes
  • Hickman – Wants to amend step 37; In the SBOE column, the first column, add the word ‘after’ to what we adopted Tuesday; each member will provide an indictive rating for each material still eligible for adoption
  • Hickman – We are discussing the September meeting when we will receive the reports; the state board is first chance to provide feedback and that option is already specified in step 37, but want to amend step 37 to allow the board to provide feedback for items still available for adoption
    • This would provide 2 -months of collaboration with publishers to address shortcomings after the board has provided them an indicative rating
  • Francis – Does not support the amendment; It needs to specify what we are putting in the approved list
  • Chair Kinsey – Francis, what do you mean?
    • Francis – We should allow the members to indicate how they would rate the remaining materials
  • Hickman – Each member would give this indicative rating for all the remaining materials; idea here is to provide as much feedback as early as possible at the September meeting so the publishers would have time to correct mistakes
  • Pickren – I share concerns with Francis; it is sketchy to grant approval then change approval 2 months later; this would cause confusion for school districts
  • Recommends that Hickman discuss with the TEA staff, develop a process, and then bring back to vote for an amend
  • Perez -Diaz – Agree with Pickren, not in favor
  • Maynard – There should be a mechanism to provide feedback to publishers as they make textbooks; objective is not to have a ‘gotcha’ but to have high quality materials for students
  • Ok with using the word “feedback”, but is hung up on the rating; currently would not be in favor
  • Hickman – Restates the amendment, changing indicative rating to feedback
  • Not a soft approval, it is our current thought process that is shared with publishers
  • It enables 2 months for us to collaborate with publishers to get them in approval column
  • Francis – Still opposed, the word feedback makes it even broader; what kind of feedback are we giving, public or private?
  • If I am publisher and my only goal is to be on approved list, I would reach out to board members; we do not need a pre -approval process because publishers can reach out with questions regardless
  • The board’s default should be rejection
  • Metereau – Default being rejection is harsh; default should be neutral until ratings are given; they need to have reasoning behind rejection or approval
  • Pickren – Since there is no proposed process, I am not even sure what we are voting on
    • Chair Kinsey – Intent was to encourage everyone to provide feedback
  • Hickman – If we want to add something like this, today is the last chance
  • Staff – Having process solidified today would allow us to begin training so they can submit to EMRA; publishers might be reluctant to submit until process is solidified; giving publishers the full road map is our suggestion, this would need to occur today
  • Hickman – This would be an amendment releasing a public spreadsheet that TEA would monitor in which members would provide feedback in the sheet and publishers would be able to view
  • Strike ‘will’ and change that to ‘may’
  • Chair Kinsey – Amendment has been restated
  • Maynard – At September meeting, what will we have in our hands?
    • Staff – 2 -page executive summary report and a deep dive report to the factual error reports
  • Maynard – How long until the public will see feedback/materials?
  • Staff – Mid -May, but there will also be an opportunity for public hearing, feedback, and discussion in June
  • Maynard – Need to try to formalize and codify our intention of feedback
  • It is already the expectation that the board will hold a meeting and receive reports; struggling to understand necessity of adding language to direct board to give feedback, when it should be done anyway
    • Staff – We are happy to execute whatever the body decides
  • Maynard – We do not want to commit to something then change mind later
  • Our job to find errors and report on them, regardless of when we find them; we do not want to send false messages to publishers
  • Just because publishers have not heard anything does not mean they are in good standing; it means we are in the process of review
  • Pickren – Timing from members is an issue; some members might give more feedback than others, even though we are equal components
  • Need to relay whose comment is who for publishers
  • Staff – At that point, publishers should perceive feedback themselves as either negative or positive
  • Motion to pass Hickman’s amendment
  • Amendment fails (3-8)
  • Chair Kinsey – Motion to move the main question on the floor
  • Motion passes (12-0)

 

Item 6: Implementation of Instructional Materials Review Suitability Rubric

  • Reviewing the recommended changes from the Committee of the Full Board’s meeting Tuesday night
  • Childs – What will the process look like once the reviewers place the flags? Is there a certain threshold of flags that determine if an item fails/succeeds?
    • Chair Kinsey – Both red flags and green flags do not have a set threshold for what will cause failure/success; flags are for tracking and not decision making
  • Metereau – Is it possible for a particular material to have no flags?
    • Chair Kinsey – Flags are dependent upon the reviewer and the report they are reviewing
  • Metereau – What if all the flags come from one member? How do we not weigh one member’s viewpoint more than another?
    • Chair Kinsey – Members of this board will not be placing flags; we will be reviewing flags placed by reviewers
  • Hickman – How do we deal with the suitability flags once we review them?
    • Pickren – Are flags a scoring mechanism or are they just informative?
    • Chair Kinsey – They are supposed to serve as indicators
  • Childs – Does not have an amendment at this time, but will prepare one for April
  • Staff – In April, a new set of ch 67 rules will be brought forth to provide new guidelines on how to score materials; these new guidelines will be based upon the material standards that are being established by the board presently
  • Motion to adopt the EMRS suitability rubric
  • Motion passes (13-0)

 

Item 7: Proposed New 19 TAC Chapter 127, Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Career Development and Career and Technical Education, Subchapter C, Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources, §§127.30, 127.45 -127.58, 127.86, and 127.87; Subchapter O, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, §127.795 and §127.796; and Subchapter P, Transportation, Distribution, and Logistics, §§127.887 -127.890 and 127.920

  • Committee of the full board recommends the board submit for first reading and filing the proposed additions
  • Brooks – Proposes amendment to TEKE section (127.49d9D; this is a new D); wants to include “analyze the standards and guidelines of organic livestock and poultry production”
  • Chair Kinsey – Motion to move this amendment
    • Motion received
  • Brooks – Proposed this TEK because it gives students the opportunity to understand some of the organic livestock and poultry guidelines for USDA; its not extensive and would just be an introduction
  • Metereau – The exact wording is not clear, perhaps staff could look into the arrangements of the words
  • Maynard – allows students to explore a niche market in the industry
  • Staff – we see no problem with the language because it aligns with the language seen in the USDA guidelines
  • Call to question, seconded
  • Vote to call to question or continue debate
  • (10-1) call to question passes
  • Brooks’ amendment passes (10-2)
  • Bell-Metereau – Language should be checked by staff before we take this up again
  • Motion as amended passes (12-0)

 

Item 8: Update on Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) Review

  • Little – No business is presented under this item

 

Item 9: Committee on Instruction: Proposed Amendment to 19 TAC Chapter 74, Curriculum Requirements, Subchapter C, Other Provisions, §74.28, Students with Dyslexia and Related Disorders

  • Young – Committee decided to only make changes that HB 3928 requires; goal to get 2021 handbook compliant with law by June 30, 2024
  • SBOE will form a handbook committee this fall to make any additional changes
  • Francis – What was the scope of changes you had to make? When can the board preview these changes?
    • Young – Was a small portion we had to look over related to HB 3928
    • TEA Staff – Was less than 10%; two required changes, 1) to determine what the board considered to be the most advanced dyslexia certification
    • TEA Staff – 2) to determine training requirements for those who do not have that most advanced certification; have to complete certain TEA dyslexia academies among others
    • TEA Staff – Removes a type of instruction called standard protocol dyslexia instruction
    • TEA Staff – Will post the committee’s new draft posted as soon as possible; if that moves forward the public comment period will be from March 1-April 1
  • Francis – What is the difference between the initial draft and the new one?
    • TEA Staff – Initial was a significant rewrite to consolidate to nuts and bolts of what was required; not intended to change anything dramatically, after feedback, we just did the bill changes
  • Francis – Would be statewide committees?
    • TEA Staff – Yes, will put out applications across the state to get a diverse group
  • Francis – What is the timeline on this?
    • TEA Staff – Will be brought back for final adoption in April to review public comments, more complex changes will be dealt with in 2025
  • Francis – When the bill was initially passed, got calls that we needed to get this done; does the
    • TEA Staff – Bill is already in effect and TEA already released an FAQ on compliance with law; agency will continue to put guidance out
  • Francis – Most significant part of the bill SBOE discretion would be the qualified list?
    • TEA Staff – Yes
  • Young – Committee recommends first reading and filings authorization for this proposed amendment
  • Hickman – Did your committee amend the dyslexia packet between committee meeting and this meeting?
    • Young – Yes
  • Davis – Yesterday were upset parents who homeschool but wanted to take their kids to ISDs for services; is that required by law? Does this open up ISDs and charter schools to provide these services?
    • TEA Staff – Is a federal requirement to serve through proportionate share; requirements for ISDs coordinate with private schools, including homeschools, in their area to evaluate students who have disabilities
    • TEA Staff – Once evaluations are done, the school district shows this is what they would be able to provide if they were enrolled
    • TEA Staff – A student in homeschool/private school does not have the legal entitlement to the same as those in public school, but are dollars LEAs and private schools consider
    • TEA Staff – Are districts that open up funds for services that can be proportionate share, but this does not open up that option
  • Young – A year ago I made the following recommendation as there is inconsistency in evaluating those with dyslexia and related disorders; recommend we gather committees with those with academic or practical experience to make more changes to the dyslexia handbook
  • Young – Committees could share best practices from ISDs and to flush out problems
  • Motion passes (12-0)
  • Committee recommends the SBOE approves requests from McGraw Hill, McGraw Hill Texas Science Grade 6, and McGraw Hill Ciencias Para Texas Grade 6, Savves Learning Company LLC Texas Experience Science Grade 6, and Texas Experiencto La Cientes Grade 6 and some K-12 holdings Dynamic Science 6 Grade and Dynamic Science Spanish 6 Grade to update content in their adopted instructional materials
  • TEA Staff – Body decided to move the errant comma in grade 6 science 11a that separate global energy and poverty, offering opportunity for these publishers to cover this new breakout
  • Francis – After this body fixed that error, trigger a re-evaluation of the TEKS for all science materials?
    • TEA Staff – Only applied to grade 6 standard 11a
  • Francis – Thought more publishers were going to be affected by this?
    • TEA Staff – Believe Accelerate Learning submitted their change request HMH did not have to create new content, provided a new citation
  • Francis – We discussed other changes
    • TEA Staff – Publishers have until March to incorporate these changes and then will verify if those changes were made
  • Francis – When will that occur?
    • TEA Staff – Do not have a specific date, but will do it before the next school year starts; July/August
  • Francis – Is the same thing as the audit of corrections?
    • TEA Staff – Are not calling it an audit, is a confirmation of corrections
  • Motion passes (12-0)

 

Committee on School Finance and PSF

  • Maynard – Items were on consent agenda; correcting investment policy where part when to SBOE and the other part when to the PSF corporation intergenerational equity
  • Maynard – Updated certain publications concerning governmental accounting standards
  • Maynard – New CEO started December 1; approved a strategic plan and strategic asset allocation yesterday
  • Maynard – Is going to be significant work in terms of incentive compensation packages to be a competitive employer
  • Maynard – Suggest we bring the CEO Robert Borden to the board at our next meeting
  • Chair Kinsey – There is an appetite to bring him to the board, look forward to getting him in here
  • Maynard – Notes that at the PSF corporation has a lot of momentum; goal is to manage the fund like the private sector
  • Francis – Explain that intergenerational equity section?
    • Maynard – Is about funding students equally; in the founding of the PSF corporation, also took over the assets managed by the School Land Board
    • Maynard – SLB was sitting on $4b of uninvested cash since they were limited on what they could invest on, PSF corporation has the ability to invest in highly liquid things
    • Maynard – Fund operates like the private sector; guarantees local school district bonds; total result is we can significantly improve returns
  • Hardy – Maynard and Ellis did a great job in setting up the PSF corporation; is great talent there

 

Item 10: Committee on School Initiatives: Proposed Amendment to 19 TAC Chapter 157, Hearings and Appeals, Subchapter D, Independent Hearing Examiners, §157.41, Certification Criteria for Independent Hearing Examiners

  • Hickman – Recommends adoption of proposed amendment to 19 TAC 157 re: certification criteria for independent hearing examiners
  • Pickren – We’ve discussed this quite a few times in CSI & the need for this; particular problem in El Paso and Panhandle
  • Hickman – Lowering requirements for experience from 5 to 3 years & adding other specialists; originally member Childs’ idea about a year ago and now at the finish line
  • Motion to adopt 19 TAC 157 amendments passes (12-0)

 

Item 11: Committee on School Initiatives: Review of Proposed Amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 232, General Certification Provisions, Subchapter A, Certificate Renewal and Continuing Professional Education Requirements

  • Hickman – Other two items are SBEC items, CSI recommended taking no action; have option to take no action or veto by 2/3rds
  • Pickren – This is the one we discussed yesterday that had some counselor recommendations in it & staff was going to get back with us; is that today and next meeting?
    • Staff – April meeting
  • Pickren – There were some language differences in what was in here versus what was in statute
  • Chair Kinsey – What were those differences?
    • Staff – This item is legislative implementation removing req for 3 years, member Pickren did find item in statute requiring training for GT, but it is not in the item
    • Staff will be looking at rule history & happy to engage in additional rulemaking to update the list
  • Pickren – Statute says for GT & also special needs
  • Maynard – To clarify, the revision being proposed doesn’t touch those areas
    • Staff – Correct
  • Francis – What would the timeline look like to get this update
    • Staff – If SBOE takes no action, adoption of initial legislation would be complete, once that is done we could re-open to consider further action; could initiate this after SBEC’s Feb 16 meeting
  • Francis – How long would this take?
    • Staff – Very similar process to your rulemaking timeline, can take multiple discussions; if it is simple it is possible it could go straight to proposal of rules
    • Doesn’t appear to be complex, but need a little more time
  • Francis – So probably early 2026
  • Chair Kinsey – Vote to take no action, so those in favor of rule passing should vote yes
  • Motion to take no action passes (12-0)

 

Item 12: Committee on School Initiatives: Review of Proposed Revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 234, Military Service Members, Military Spouses, and Military Veterans

  • Hickman – Also an SBEC item implementing recent legislation, recommending taking no action on proposed amendments to 19 TAC 234
  • Pickren – Might benefit this body if chair of CSI could explain this a little bit & what’s been provided in testimony, changes in military appointments, etc.
  • Hickman – SBEC item implementing changes for military service members, spouses, veterans; happy to provide update when we’ve finished this item
  • Childs PI – If we take no action, do we lose right to amend this in April?
  • Staff – Correct
  • Kay Crews, Parliamentarian – Recommendations that come to you from SBEC are not presented for 1st and 2nd reading as with other rules; SBOE has opportunity to veto actions taken by SBEC, voting to take no action means they can start with implementation; never have a right to amend items from SBEC
  • Counsel – Required by statute, can only reject or take no action
  • Chair Kinsey – In order to reject we’d have to vote no on this motion, then there would have to be another motion
  • Pickren – We tabled items for future discussion, is that appropriate?
  • Chair Kinsey – We’ll finish this motion, then we’ll come back to the previous items pulled off the consent agenda
  • Staff – This item currently is an SBEC item done in response to 88th Legislature action for flexibility for service members; the item discussed yesterday was not an SBEC item
  • Pickren – So this is in reference to Sen. Huffman’s bill?
  • Staff – No, this was Sen. Paxton, Sen. Blanco, and Rep. Shaheen
  • Chair Kinsey – If you would like to take no action you should vote yes
  • Motion to take no action passes (12-0)
  • Hickman continues to review CSI activities from yesterday
  • Hickman – We just disposed of three of the items out of 11, also had a charter update & will have capacity interviews in May, school safety training was tabled but we should have postponed
  • What happened with school safety training, we were given a presentation in November, but didn’t have the link yesterday; asking for staff to send the link & we will likely get more instruction on what we would be acting on in April
  • Made a number of appointments to military ISDs, received an SBEC update; EdTPA is an option for anyone, TExTPA is in development, will get more of an update in April
  • Consent Item 12 re: changes to military ISD appointment rules was tabled, though we should’ve postponed; had testimony from two people about residency requirements and responses to constituent emails & weren’t ready to act on these issues yesterday
  • Want to have this back on agenda for April to implement HB 4210 and possibly make changes
  • Chair Kinsey – We were supposed to have action on those items, but they’ve recommended to be postponed?
  • Hickman – Yes, school safety we’d like to have back in April to give chance to review materials, for military appointments members wanted opportunity to create amendments
  • Maynard – This is more significant than what people read, issue is they have a board that is not elected and so not accountable to voters; question is how we’re going to make sure constituents are represented
  • Hickman – This is the issue, had a witness who couldn’t get the Board to call her back; question of do we want accountability of appointed school boards; making this a bigger issue, charter schools are in the same bucket; if we do want to act on accountability of appointed boards I would recommend we bring it to full SBOE rather than CSI
  • Pickren – Are you suggesting that we separate this issue out where Boys Ranch ISD is treated differently than other military ISDs?
  • Maynard – this is my initial reaction, as Boys Ranch ISD is essentially the family, dorm parents are employees & is a different dynamic
  • Pickren – Reason why our ISD Boards are elected is they are taxing entities
  • Counsel – This is the differentiation in statute
  • Pickren – Is there anywhere in statute, hearing from HISD families that Board members don’t respond; anything SBOE can do to force trustees to respond?
  • Counsel – We can’t speak of trustees in general because different entities have different structures; ISD Boards are controlled in a different part of the code & the legislature has set out grievance processes
  • Chapter 12 controls charter schools, not familiar with SBOE authority to compel members there
  • However, Board does have powers concerning special purpose districts in Section 11.352 of Education Code
  • When you do not weigh in on an issue, rules applicable to ISD apply to a special purpose district
  • Pickren – Do we have authority to say how they respond?
  • Counsel – Interesting 1st Amendment issues in making that kind of req, would really need to research if you can make a trustee respond in a certain way
  • As of now, rules don’t say anything about a grievance process so standard process does apply
  • Statute requires ISDs to have a grievance process, but does not provide an immense amount of details and ISDs have considerable flexibility to design this
  • Generally ISDs have adopted a 3 tier structure, but this isn’t a requirement of statute & unsure if special purpose districts have followed this
  • Pickren – Can special purpose district parents file a TEA grievance like a public school parent can
  • Counsel – Yes, they can file a complaint with TEA
  • Davis – In regular ISD people have remedy via not voting for members, but there is no remedy in special purpose districts?
  • Counsel – SBOE appoints those members; presumably an upset parent could come to SBOE & you could consider this in confirmation of appointees

 

Members Provide Closing Comments

 

Adjournment