The Texas Commission on Public School Finance Outcomes Workgroup met on July 3 to take up their white paper and vote on final recommendations that will be made to the full commission on July 10.
This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics the committee took up. This report is not a verbatim transcript of the hearing; 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.
Microsoft Word – Draft Outcomes Working Group White Paper v8.docx
- Recommendations approved will be presented to full commission on July 10
- Chair Todd Williams reviewed the white paper and began listing the incentives and all recommendations of the work group
- White paper summary shows cost of 1/8 of Texas economy in not getting students to 60×30 goal
- 65,000 students at bottom of levels of 3rd grade reading
- 8th grade reading and Algebra I levels are low
- 89,000 students need to increase to post-secondary credential to increase pipeline reaching towards 60×30 goal
- Where to focus investment?
- Growth in economically disadvantaged students, low-income students should be area highly focused on
- How to get more ELL to meet standards to overall meet 60×30 goals?
- Common themes: 1) early intervention is critical, meeting 3rd grade reading standard is critical; 2) teachers are the most important factor in terms of student meeting outcomes; 3) students need to know post-secondary credentials are necessary and they need assistance completing that; 4) stakeholders respond to incentives and make sure incentives are tied to achievements
- Three areas of focus on recommendations:
- Ready to Learn
- Ready to Teach
- Ready to Earn
Incentive 1 – Improving Third Grade Reading Achievement
- Receive incremental funding above the basic allotment for every 3rd grader achieving reading proficiency
- Focus on improving incentives for third grade reading achievement
- Killian – is this really just putting a band-aid on the situation
- Williams- a menu of options as they could offer full day pre-K, expand dual language, expand coaching or extend school year
- Bernal – districts receive an additional weight for certain low-income students but not tied to achievement, so only comp ed increase discussing is just for third grades vs one across the board?
- It was the Chair’s thought that the comp ed and incentive would be sufficient enough to provide full day pre-K if they wanted to
- Williams intend to increase comp ed adjustment K-3 or we could do just 3 but the amount needs to be enough to cover full day pre-K if they wanted to
- Bernal suggested language be clarified – that weight applied to whatever grades they are applied to is enough for full day pre-K
- Martin – is the funding enough for full day pre-K and dual language or will they have to choose which program?
- Williams – concept is that district will have the discretion to choose but open to suggestions. Key thing was that districts have a menu of flexibility
- Martin – if we have kids in pre-K then evidence shows we need dual language
- Hunter – would strike from every 3rd grade – propose an additional weight be applied to low income or ELL student that would be sufficient to cover full day pre-K
- Bernal – weight and incentive should not be separated, they should be one in the same program
- Hunter – Goal is for outcomes to present to full committee on July 10 and would need to make sure these are tied together in the report and will make a note that these things should be tied together
Incentive 2 – 8th grade meet standard in reading and Algebra 1
- Language in white paper notes there would be additional recognition in the accountability system and receive an incentive amount meaningfully differentiated for every 8th grader that “meets” standard
Incentive 3rd – Funding for every high school graduate that is college ready, enroll in higher ed or gain certificate
- Remediation efforts would be pushed into high school
- Taylor – counselor rate of 400-1 of 5 minutes a week and 20 minutes a month for every student seems like a good amount of time for academic counseling
- Williams – thinking 5 minutes is for everything including filling out forms and make sure they have all needed courses, refers back to charter schools have a much lower number
- Taylor – is 20 minutes a month really not the time they are spending, seems like that is quite a bit of time
- Bernal – assumes every student has same need
- Martin – counselors are not getting to spend time on students, getting pulled for testing
- Taylor – we should not have them running the test, they need to be counseling
- Killian – it is an all hands-on-deck mentality during testing, they have so many duties to do and it may not be 5 minutes a week
- Taylor – would like that detail clarified, does not think the 5 minutes language is helpful in the document
- Killian – not just going to be doing academic counseling, also social and emotional
- Williams – several types of counseling including helping students with vocational training
- Bernal – needs to make sure things are highlighted that cannot be changed
- Equity is a key component
Incentive 4 – Option ability to implement evaluation system and pay structure
- More of teachers come from top of graduating class, district ability to pay teachers more
- Could implement things like the ACE program
- Recommendation it be phased in over time, like 10 years
- Taylor – prioritize funding to those districts that need to get improvement up
- Killian – would you fund towards campuses because district may not quality
- Would go to the whole district
- Taylor – really good teachers coming from all over, noted alternative certification program may also produce good teacher but gets that teachers going through more rigorous background getting incentives (recommendation included signing bonuses for teachers that choose to attend preparation programs that feature more clinical residency requirements)
- Martin – likes the districts getting to decide, only concern is that evaluation may still have subjective nature so a bit torn
- Taylor – there has to be measures, a number of different measures need to be included with both objective and subjective measures in place and asked Martin for recommendations on CTE evaluations
- Martin – Notes CTE had certain UIL competition, teachers that teach electives sometimes feel like step-children
- Taylor – best leaving it to the locals, set out perimeters
- Martin – maybe when evaluations are developed, must include teacher input
Adjust Compensatory Education Funding – look at median household income, home ownership, parental education obtained noting not all poverty is the same so reallocate money
End EOC and replace with ACT/SAT/TSI assessments
- Williams – Seek additional testimony to get input from states that have gone this route
- Killian – shouldn’t we look at TEKS and see if they are aligned with ACT/SAT
- Taylor – do we know if they can be done online?
- Yes
Consider crediting for full-day pre-K
Incent the use of dual language strategies for ELL students
Align current CTE weight to CTE course needs in workforce area in high demand and/or which provides students with financial literacy skills
- Killian – would like to extend CTE weight to middle school
Failing campuses after three years to structure with ACE like programs
- Bernal – doesn’t have to be limited to Elementary schools, after multiple years of failing ACE could benefit all
- Taylor – asked Von for other options, language right now says this is the exclusive remedy
- Von Byer, TEA – turnaround plan must be accepted by the commissioner and then they implement it OR if the plan is rejected there are selected options – reviews steps available to districts
- Taylor – doesn’t want the recommendation to get in the way of the current IR structure
- Hunter – need to change “required” to “may” and will include middle school as well
- Byer – under current law after 2 year of IR then plan is developed in year 2 and 3 and after year 3 either the plan is implemented in year 4 and 5. In year 3 they are developing the plan.
To reduce prison recidivism and its associated costs to the state, TEA should amend the accountability system to incent school districts to help formerly incarcerated individuals receive their high school diploma or GED
- Taylor – students can get GED in Wyndham school, so wants to put students back into educational facility if they get out of prison
- Killian – Not going against schools accountability
- Taylor – not penalize school districts for helping students formerly incarcerated students
Blended Learning Model/Personalized learning pilots mean districts are incentivized to matriculate students faster
- There is a saving to the state
- Von Byer – pilot program in Dallas and then expanded to other areas where they can graduate students earlier and then put the funding towards pre-K
- Taylor- point of pilot is to see if they can expand it across the state, reallocation of resources
- Hunter – what details are they looking from TEA such as success rate, what funding was freed up and where it went, etc
- Killian – how many kids graduated early and what was the amount?
- Taylor – there are some reasons socially why students would not graduate early but some are ready
Took out recommendation 10 since covered elsewhere in the white paper.
Schools should be incentivized by the academic accountability system by creating a separate post-secondary readiness academic distinction. In addition, additional state funding should be awarded if the high school achieves the post-secondary readiness academic distinction.
Charter school recommendation struck and accountability system to recognize pre-K outcomes but did not want high stakes pre-K test so this item struck.
3 and 4-year-old children of existing teachers enrolling into pre-K
- Martin – numbers are based on half-day could cost between $45-65 million per year, would provide incentives to teachers and would add diversity to the program, adds parental oversight to boost the quality of pre-K students
- Williams – Plano ISD offers this as recruitment and retention but notes it would not work if they did not offer it for a full day
- Killian – concerned about drawing line at teachers, there are staff members as well so maybe extend this beyond the teaching staff
- Williams – agree to research cost but general consensus is to be supportive of this recommendation
Motion to approve recommendations of report as amended were unanimously adopted