Print 🖨

The Texas Commission on Virtual Education met on November 30, 2022, to discuss the draft report of recommendations of statutory changes regarding virtual education. An archive of the meeting can be found here.

 

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

 

Item 1: Opening Comments

Chair Gore

  • Will discuss the draft report and finalize
  • Need to ensure there is increased access to high quality virtual education in Texas

 

Objective A: Full Time Virtual/Hybrid Schools Discussion

  • A1: Ensure long-term provision of full-time virtual and hybrid schools beyond SB 15 with one unified policy framework
  • A2: Conform student and LEA eligibility requirements so they are consistent with in-person learning

 

Megha Kansra, TEA

  • Chair Gore- Currently have multiple different areas of statue that govern virtual learning; should have one unified policy and contemplate fast tracking existing providers with strong performance to operate seamlessly in new structure
  • West- What does it mean to include a zero-planning year for new providers?
    • Strongest virtual and hybrid schools have one year of planning before they launch; idea is to support a year of intentional planning
  • West- So schools that have been in the space would not have to have a year of planning?
    • Thinking about three groups:
      • 1- pre-SB 15 approved providers that have already went through a strong vetting process; might set one simple criteria around current performance academically
      • 2- Any providers that came into existence during SB 15 would have a fast-track process; verify academic performance threshold and they have been in existence for over 1 year
      • 3- Any new remote learning providers would go through a planning year and need to meet a rubric for approval
    • West- Would like to see more than one full year because that time doesn’t show us everything we need to see in terms of performance; would leave exact timing to providers and TEA
    • Chair Gore- For those that have operated for a year would it make sense to have them count that as their year-zero planning, but have an additional level of accountability in the first year after this legislation?
    • Taylor- Have schools that have students in their program and if we send them to planning it will cause them to stop their program
      • That is some of the thinking for why it should be one school year evaluation; moving up to two years evaluation may reduce the number of providers; might be some options around providing a second provisional year and using that performance
    • West- Do we have the personnel to do that?
      • Current personnel are funded by ESSER dollars
    • Chair Gore- We will give funding recommendations for additional FTEs; imagine the agency would keep existing staff and begin process of hiring new staff
    • West- Theoretically, but it isn’t that way; need to stand system up based on reality and budgetary priorities may not include this program
    • Smith- What could be included in the readiness criteria?
      • Designated school year is key; looking at appropriate staffing levels and if the teachers are bringing the appropriate level of experience; look at curriculum and instruction to make sure they align with TEKS
    • Lovett- Should the school leader be Texas certified?
      • I think yes
    • Commission members voice agreement
    • Tamarez- Are students in the classroom during year zero?
      • No, just a year to plan without students
    • Taylor- There are some well-established providers that have a good reputation in other states; would there be a different process for them that may be quicker?
      • Chair Gore- My guess is that they couldn’t get their curriculum TEKS aligned and approved in less than a year
    • Smith- Should use harmonize or ensure in A2 wording instead of conform
    • West- What is thinking on A2 wording?
      • Reflection of testimony and conversation around SB 15 student requirements; have to meet key criteria if they learned virtually for most of the year for ADA funding
      • These requirements may have restricted access to students and should be the same as in-person learning
    • West- Does this open the door for a voucher?
      • I’m not sure
    • West- Next time we meet I need to make sure there is no voucher language in these recommendations; need agency to scrub these recommendations
    • Bettencourt- Would like report to remain agnostic on the opinion of vouchers; understand that everyone has a strong opinion; my opinion differs from yours
      • Language is responding to SB 15 language around district only being able to receive ADA funding for students who meet prior year requirements; heard those eligibility requirements may be restricting access to students
    • Smith- Is the restriction of one year in person learning for a student in this report?
      • Have not stipulated in this report
    • Chair Gore- Trying to make sure students can receive virtual learning in all districts; intent is to make eligibility for in person and virtual consistent
    • West- Purpose of being in person was to reduce the chance of it being a voucher type program; will be discussed in legislative session so should address it now
    • Taylor- District weren’t getting paid by the state for some students so want to eliminate criteria that makes it to where districts don’t have funding
    • Chair Gore- Shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against students who failed requirements for STAAR by one point and situations like that
    • West- Can’t allow work we have been doing to be put on the shelf because of wording that could make it into a potential voucher program or not
    • Taylor- I agree with you even though I’m pro parental choice
    • Chair Gore- Concern is heard and require TEA to review and certify that there’s no trojan horse
    • Chair Gore- Don’t want to take a stance on 1 year requirement because it takes a side

 

Objective B: Supplemental Course Catalog

  • B1: Ensure long-term provision of high-quality options through supplemental course catalog
  • B2: Establish course and provider reporting mechanisms to inform choice making
  • B3: require LEAs to create mechanism for informing students and families of opportunities
  • Chair Gore- Final two recommendations relative to funding; have funding covered under section F; recommend limited discussion of funding in this section
  • Lovett- Appreciate inclusion of meeting the needs of special populations and parent notification requirement; can we put in there what the requirement is?
    • Kansra- That would be what meets the threshold of communicating these opportunities; F3 refers to funding section specific recommendations
  • Kansra- Thinking on F3 is to support potential providers of supplemental courses in initial years of providing course; upper limit of cost is $400 per course
  • Kansra- Thinking it could be a supportive incentive to provide districts with cost reimbursements with dollar per course amounts for the first three years after bill passes to open up supply
  • Discussion of size of ELA numbers possibly off by a zero, 4,000 instead of 40,000
  • Chair Gore- Idea of saying up to this many courses being paid for; really just arbitrary numbers; clarify that this is for the total number of courses available
  • Smith- On B2, remember discussing parallel measures so parents can see ranking in same measures for in person and virtual; can we include that?
    • Kansra- Yes, can be explicit about performance ratings, STAAR, accountability
  • Taylor- At-risk kids may not have same attainment level, so need to know what achievement goals are if they serve a particular population
  • Chair Gore- Intent is for parents to be able to look at aggregated performance of vendor in school and statewide; need enough data to see if programs are significantly higher in certain demographics
  • Lovett- Difficult to get comparison for an asynchronous program and should think about that
    • Kansra- Can include info about synchronicity
  • Tielle- A lot of parents might not understand how different synchronous and asynchronous are
  • Chair Gore- Should expand definitions and provide examples of difference
  • Bettencourt- Need positive statement that they are two different modalities

 

Objective C: Emergency/Stopgap Virtual Learning

  • C1: Revise existing statute to enable clarity and flexibility for LEA to temporarily deliver instruction in key circumstances
  • West- Want to make certain that LEAs are not just being asked to answer surveys but asked to be a part of workgroups in developing these recommendations; hearing answering survey is the extent of their participation; should heavily involve LEAs
  • Tielle- In remote conferencing, doesn’t specify, so is it inferring that a student could be remote conferencing in to an in-person classroom?
    • Kansra- Not inferred here, would like perspective on degree of flexibility in delivery; heard concurrent instruction is really challenging but also heard that it is has been difficult for small districts when it is not allowed
  • Tielle- Flexibility is the key; being too rigid will be limiting to some school districts
  • Smith- Instances of when district has used a robot during a medical emergency and that it was critical to use those services
    • Kansra- Agree, can adjust to make sure this is clear

 

Objective D: Teacher Preparation and Support

  • D1: Offer research-based professional learning opportunities for existing teacher
  • D2: embed a framework for virtual and hybrid learning into educator preparation
  • D3: Create micro-credential program to incentivize and recognize virtual/hybrid expertise
  • Gore- Summary for D1 doesn’t include point that we want teachers to have flexibility to take these courses, has to be voluntary; might be worthwhile to include language of voluntary
  • Tielle- Need to include that if there is an emergency situation, then teachers are required to take these courses
  • Taylor- Agreed, should be a transition period during an emergency to do this learning
  • Chair Gore- Would need to task TEA with identifying training materials that are condensed for emergency situations
  • West- Make sure there is conforming language between D1 and D4
  • Chair Gore- Should we use the word required under D4 in place of coerced?
  • Agreement from members
  • Tamarez- For teachers that are teaching only virtually there should be a requirement for them to take extra training?
  • Agreement from members
  • Kansra- Would you see the mini course are required in that situation or the micro-credential?
  • Smith- Should allow teachers to teach and get the micro-credential at the same time
  • Bettencourt- Is there a career path incentive from classroom to virtual?
    • Chair Gore- Haven’t addressed here but implied that there will be teachers transitioning to that direction as more programs pop up; sense that there is a demand for teachers to move into that modality
  • Chair Gore- My sense is that is a desirable enough alternative that schools didn’t need to provide any particular incentive; should let the market address this
  • Lovett- Important to not force someone to teach virtually but if they chose to do so we expect them to get the training they need to be an effective instructor
  • Chair Gore- Anticipate that a few established programs may deem the micro-credential redundant and may want to make exceptions for established programs with a good track record?
    • Lovett- Don’t know how doable that is; someone is going to have to approve their success
  • Tielle- Is there an assessment for the micro-credential so that there could be some way to just take an assessment?
    • Kansra- Haven’t included a test in the micro-credentials but could be included
  • Taylor- Could say if they have significant years of experience of doing this as another way to verify
  • Bettencourt- What is the distinguishing criteria between in person and virtual teaching?
    • Lovett- Modality lends itself to some people being really good at it and others struggling; best case it to find an avenue where teachers can go into the modality, they are most effective in
  • Lovett- If we make it equally accessible the market will determine, and people where go where they are most successful
  • Chair Gore- Think the TEA will chose programs and would like to address that there at least a competency-based option
    • Kansra- Can rewrite this section to stipulate that
  • Morales- Causing some issues in the unfunded mandate; are they expected to this teaching at work or after?
    • Chair Gore- Recommending there be a stipend with the micro credentials; idea to get teachers to start doing this quickly

                                                  

Objective E: Creating aligned and appropriate accountability and planning expectations across schools regardless of modality

  • Kansra-Can make sure to shift the wording we talked about earlier into this section as well
  • Chair Gore- As long as we incorporate what we have already talked about, I don’t see anything new here
  • Tielle- Would it be important to make sure there is clarifying language to stipulate the online campus is not part of the main campus with identification number?
  • Chair Gore- Might make sure virtual has its own campus id to address that; in majority of situations that’s what LEAs would prefer
  • Taylor- Recommend we leave it up to the districts; some districts designate their elementary and high schools under one campus
  • Taylor – Concern that school could pick how they want to do it and make a bad decision
  • Chair Gore- Thought was that the district would have the accountability
  • Kansra- Providing a view for the legislature into implementation progress in new accountability system is thinking there
  • Chair Gore- Part of thinking was to provide flexibility for innovation and would learn a lot in a few years; anticipating we will need to look at this down road
  • Smith- What would we include in wording for what we want to see in the years before looking at this again?
  • Taylor- Will be an interim charge to assess this; need to include details for at risk students in this section; consumers need to know that this is a different type of program
  • Chair Gore- Should be specific about TEA having a funding structure to make this user friendly
  • Taylor- Will take account of type of students in the accountability system; should look at growth of student
  • Bettencourt- Very important; outcomes of growth measurements are important; good measuring tool that we know works for the statewide accountability system, so should be reflected here
  • Chair Gore- Want a parent to be able to look at a potential provider and make an informed decision about what the providers track record is and the kind of students they serve and all performance indicators
  • Chair Gore- Argument made that it’s difficult for some LEAs to determine who to partner with because no data on the potential partners and their prior or current LEAS they are serving

 

Objective F: Establi

  • Taylor- Under first bullet on page 40, can you describe the process again and how the funding works?
  • Chair Gore- Small districts sometimes not aware of this or don’t want students taking supplemental courses because it is affecting their budget
  • Chair Gore- If there’s an increase in demand due to the state making an investment then more high-quality providers would work to conform to TEKS and provide these courses
  • Tielle- Are we saying that the funding for the course follows the student from the state?
  • Chair Gore- A lot more students in small schools that should be taking these supplemental courses, so question why the uptake isn’t there; think the districts aren’t promoting it because it could take away from budget too much
  • Taylor- Costs more to hire a teacher than enroll students in supplemental courses
  • Tielle- Had conversation about district paying the provider instead of the funding coming straight from the state
  • Lovett- Paying state to hire a teacher costs most than a school hiring face-to-face; in some cases districts might want the money to come into the district and then have a choice
  • Tielle- As we plan the budget and look at the projection of number of students it would be efficient for districts to know the budget we are planning on so they can determine how much needs to be budgeted
  • Chair Gore- For districts that aren’t well run, school leader may not want to spend any funding from state for the supplemental courses; utilization even after the pandemic of supplemental courses is small
  • Tielle- Think districts didn’t know how to access these courses
  • Taylor- We put a bonus for college career and military readiness and these supplementals will bring in money to the school districts from the bonuses
  • Tielle- In districts’ best interest to do this; would advocate for districts to be able to make determination to partner with virtual academy for $400, give them funding and then spend that funding
  • Taylor- Why does TEA collect funding from district and pay provider; shouldn’t be done in this way
  • Debra Dorman, TEA – Not all providers have capacity to do billing with different districts across the state; districts also didn’t want to receive bills from different providers; centralized catalog billing function useful
  • Dorman – 70% payment of funding if a student’s fail has been in place to incentivize students to be successful for both providers and districts
  • Taylor- Anything in current system that prevents districts from doing the billing themselves?
    • Dorman- Benefits of current catalog is students can learn off campus and at home; have the option to partner with provider directly as well
  • Taylor -So districts can use this or do direct route; when does TEA get money from the district?
    • Dorman- After course is completed and student receives successful or unsuccessful rating
  • Taylor – Need to clarify in language that they get paid on completion, alter the first paragraph
  • Bettencourt – How many payments or transactions are you dealing with now, how can you handle on upscale?
    • Dorman- Will need to get back to you on both answers, don’t have the transaction number
  • Chair Gore – Concept behind 70% in terms of ISD offering support makes sense, elsewhere we’re trying to treat brick-and-mortar and virtual the same; are we good with this? Brick & mortar have full funding for attendance
  • Taylor – In this case we’re talking about catalogue issues, incentive in there to help students succeed
  • Tielle – One issue left is accountability and where it goes? Goes with ISD? Provider?
    • Taylor – I think it goes with both
  • Smith – Students are not fully virtual or fully in-person
  • Chair Gore – As long as accountability exists in how students are classed, then the exceptions don’t matter
  • Taylor – Want to know how providers and ISDs are doing
  • Tielle – Comfortable with ISDs, they are choosing the providers
  • Lovett – On (f)(1), asynchronous was a little bit of the problem here, ADA rate covers both students who take longer than a school year to complete and those that take less
  • Chair Gore – If there are enough students potentially completing high school in 2 years, may need to look at this
  • Taylor – Small number, not going to have millions of kids graduating in 2 years
  • Francis – Has been a lot of discussion about local control; is this an opportunity to have a 2-tier system where virtual is state run and everything else is local?
  • Chair Gore – There is an opportunity, but my sense is that the vast majority of virtual will be offered by LEAs and majority of growth will be LEAs creating hybrid or full-time virtual themselves; general tenor of the discussion today has been to maintain local autonomy and control
  • Francis – What if state ran virtual as a service offering to districts and separate the modalities?
  • Chair Gore – FL and AZ have done some version of that, my sense is that many of these programs are being done at the local level; not that the state couldn’t, but not what we’re looking at recommending at this point
  • Lovett – Local control means local choice, currently they have the option of doing it internally or farming it out
  • Tielle – Agrees
  • Smith – Agrees, allows local districts to tailor to student needs
  • Francis – I see it as a step back for local authority, state could have responsibility for virtual and districts do everything else, wouldn’t be the rub of one playing in the other’s sandbox
  • Chair Gore – If most delivery would be fully virtual, then would agree, but with hybrid would run into issues
  • Taylor – You’d also likely have a political firestorm
  • Chair Gore – Giving it one more pass; doesn’t seem to be much appetite for supplemental courses to catalyze the growth
  • Bettencourt – Have had a fundamental growth curve leading to more students, in a phase where we may have less in the future, but clear that virtual is the future & will be a big growth area
  • Smith – Had questions last time about privacy concerns and data protection, don’t see this in the draft; Need to think about how to embed procedural and substantive safeguards
    • Kansra- Part of support in the planning year could be to ensure the right legal protection, IT professionals, etc. in a way that protects student data
  • Taylor – Important work, Sen. Bettencourt, Chair Gore & others have worked hard; ending on the future

 

Teacher Stipend

  • Chair Gore – Left some of the more detailed financial projections out to accommodate changes and figure out the unknowns; will be able to come up with updated financial applications within the next week or so
  • Chair Gore – Open question is teacher stipend, have heard LBB looks at fiscal note assuming every teacher would be interested in training, so discussing a possible cap
  • Taylor – Should say we recommend having a cap on teachers participating in training each year, but leave the percentage to the legislature after LBB starts presenting numbers
  • Bettencourt – Need a scalability factor, real question is the workforce needed to get the job done, but could be an increment on what it costs
  • Chair Gore – Makes sense conceptually, what would the recommendation be?
  • Taylor – Recommendations would be to include a cap to avoid budget issues; also concerned about the cost of the course, especially if TEA is putting the course together, should not cost $1,500
  • Chair Gore – Referring to teacher stipends to encourage participation
  • Bettencourt – Top-down guideline is the right answer, we don’t have granularity on course details; want to give an outline on what could occur
  • Taylor – Really don’t need to address this because the legislature will have to, but helps us to show that we’ve considered this
  • Tielle – I don’t know a stipend is as necessary as just covering the cost of training; it is a choice to teach in a virtual setting
  • Taylor – Two types of teachers, might want a stipend for emergency back-up teachers
  • Chair Gore – Part of the thought was to have a critical number who have training for emergency purposes
  • Bettencourt – Better answer may be to have TEA look at this like a block grant; may be one way to get the report and a recommendation out
  • Chair Gore – Your idea would be anticipate an aggregate amount rather than setting X many teachers with Y stipend?
  • Bettencourt – Yes
  • Tamarez – Incentives exist for virtual teachers, like no need to pay for gas, etc.; important to clarify that micro-credential is optional and incentive is for certain teachers

 

Closing Comments

  • Lovett – On (f)(5), one of the best things we’ve done for kids, addresses needs of parents
  • Chair Gore – Wondering if it makes sense to have presumption you have permission to do it as opposed to a waiver?
  • Lovett – We have a form to do this if state of disaster is declared, could be similar to that
    • Kansra- Can take that back
  • Chair Gore – By early next week can discuss the format & can look that all comments are reflected in the document; will be meeting again in 2 weeks essentially to approve
  • Next meeting December 14th, 2022