Research
Legislative Report Card for the 83rd Texas Legislative Session
Prepared for
Texas Kids Can’t Wait
By the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor Doctorate in Education Program
Randy Hendricks
Anne Balou
Adam Benthall
Robert Glinski
Randy Lamb
Rossee Nava
Christine Nemetsky
The Legislative Report Card for the 83rd Texas Legislative Session provides an objective measure of each state legislator’s support for Texas public schools. Twenty-one bills and one amendment related to UIL, curriculum, accountability, funding, vouchers, and charter schools were utilized in this analysis. Table 1 provides the legislation number, a brief description, and the advocacy position of Texas Kids Can’t Wait for each bill and amendment.
Table 1
Legislation Analyzed
|
Legislation
|
Description |
Texas Kids Can’t Wait Position |
| HB 5 | Public school accountability, assessment, and curriculum requirements |
Supported |
| HB 300 | Creation of an alternative governance system (Texas Education Choice Division) and Family First Schools |
Opposed |
| HB 1025 | Supplemental appropriations to the FSP ($201.7 million) |
Supported |
| HB 1175 | School choice program for students with disabilities |
Opposed |
| HB 1850 | Private and homeschool eligibility for full-time enrollment in the Texas Virtual School Network |
Opposed |
| HB 1926 | Add nonprofit and private entities to the list of eligible course providers for the Texas Virtual School Network |
Opposed |
| HB 1957 | Establishment of the Recovery School District |
Opposed |
| HB 2836 | Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills and state testing |
Supported |
| HB 3497 | Taxpayer Saving Grant Program for private school tuition reimbursement |
Opposed |
| Amend. 95 | House anti-voucher amendment to SB 1 |
Supported |
| SB 1 | Additional $3.2 billion to the FSP above the 2011 appropriations |
Supported |
| SB 2 | Increase in the number of open-enrollment charter schools |
Opposed |
| SB 23 | Texas Equal Opportunity Scholarship Program for students to attend private schools, public afterschool programs, or tuition-based pre-k programs |
Opposed |
| SB 115 | HB 1175 Companion Bill |
Opposed |
| SB 573 | Private and Parochial school participation in UIL for activities other than football and basketball |
Opposed |
| SB 1015 | Tax credit for taxable entities that make contributions to scholarship funds for non-public schools |
Opposed |
| SB 1263 | Modify the parent trigger provision to allow take over after 3 consecutive years of unacceptable |
Opposed |
| SB 1298 | Broaden Texas Virtual School Network course providers to include nonprofit and private entities; eliminate requirement that students be enrolled in a public school |
Opposed |
| SB 1302 | Applicability of certain public school requirements (accountability, open meetings, and availability of information) to private schools that accept vouchers, tax credit scholarships, or other public funds |
Supported |
| SB 1407 | Establishment of the Recovery School District |
Opposed |
| SB 1575 | HB 3497 Companion Bill |
Opposed |
| SB 1718 | Establishment of the Texas Achievement School District |
Opposed |
Of the 22 separate pieces of legislation analyzed, only 9 advanced to a floor vote in the House or Senate. The nine pieces of legislation that advanced to a floor vote are delineated in Table 2.
Table 2
Bills and Amendment Advancing to a Floor Vote
|
Legislation |
Chamber Vote |
Legislative Outcome |
| HB 5 |
House and Senate |
Enacted into law |
| HB 1025 |
House and Senate |
Enacted into law |
| HB 1926 |
House and Senate |
Enacted into law |
| HB 2836 |
House and Senate |
Vetoed by the Governor |
| Amendment 95 |
House |
Passed in House; Died in Conference Committee |
| SB 1 |
House and Senate |
Enacted into law |
| SB 2 |
House and Senate |
Enacted into law |
| SB 1263 |
Senate |
Passed by the Senate; Died in House Committee |
| SB 1718 |
Senate |
Passed by the Senate; Died in House Committee |
For the nine pieces of legislation advancing to a floor vote, each legislator was awarded one point for voting with the Texas Kids Can’t Wait position. In addition, authors and sponsors of all favorable legislation were awarded an additional point and authors and sponsors of unfavorable legislation received a one-point deduction. Coauthors and cosponsors received a half-point or a deduction of a half-point for favorable or unfavorable legislation respectively. Table 3 details how points were distributed for each piece of legislation.
Table 3
Point Distribution by Legislation
|
Legislation |
Floor Vote |
Authors / Sponsors |
Coauthors / Cosponsors |
| HB 5 |
1 for “yes” vote |
1 |
0.5 |
| HB 300 |
No floor vote in either chamber |
-1 |
-0.5 |
| HB 1025 |
1 for “yes” vote |
1 |
0.5 |
| HB 1175 |
No floor vote in either chamber |
-1 |
-0.5 |
| HB 1850 |
No floor vote in either chamber |
-1 |
-0.5 |
| HB 1926 |
1 for “no” vote |
-1 |
-0.5 |
| HB 1957 |
No floor vote in either chamber |
-1 |
-0.5 |
| HB 2836 |
1 for “yes” vote |
1 |
0.5 |
| HB 3497 |
No floor vote in either chamber |
-1 |
-0.5 |
| Amend 95 |
1 for “yes” vote |
1 |
0.5 |
| SB 1 |
1 for “yes” vote |
1 |
0.5 |
| SB 2 |
1 for “no” vote |
-1 |
-0.5 |
| SB 23 |
No floor vote in either chamber |
-1 |
-0.5 |
| SB 115 |
No floor vote in either chamber |
-1 |
-0.5 |
| SB 573 |
No floor vote in either chamber |
-1 |
-0.5 |
| SB 1015 |
No floor vote in either chamber |
-1 |
-0.5 |
| SB 1263 |
1 for “no” vote |
-1 |
-0.5 |
| SB 1298 |
No floor vote in either chamber |
-1 |
-0.5 |
|
Legislation |
Floor Vote |
Authors / Sponsors |
Coauthors / Cosponsors |
| SB 1302 |
No floor vote in either chamber |
1 |
0.5 |
| SB 1407 |
No floor vote in either chamber |
-1 |
-0.5 |
| SB 1575 |
No floor vote in either chamber |
-1 |
-0.5 |
| SB 1718 |
1 for “no” vote |
-1 |
-0.5 |
The final value for each legislator was determined by summing the points earned for each piece of legislation. Tables 4 and 5 delineate the final value, numerical rank, and percentile rank for each member of the House and Senate respectively.
Table 4
House of Representatives Final Value, Numerical Rank, and Percentile Rank
|
Representative |
Final Value |
Numerical Rank |
Percentile Rank |
| Collier; Farias; Munoz (3) |
7.5 |
1 |
98.6 |
| Herrero; Martinez Fischer; Pitts; Reynolds (4) |
7.0 |
4 |
95.9 |
| Allen; Canales; Cortez; Huberty; Longoria; McClendon; Moody; Patrick; Price; Rodriquez, E.; Rodriquez, J.; Vo (12) |
6.5 |
8 |
87.8 |
| Alonzo; Ashby; Burnam; Callegari; Dukes; Farrar; Giddings; Gonzales, M.; Gutierrez; Howard; Martinez; Miles; Nevarez; Oliveira; Perez; Phillips; Rose; Sheffield, J.D.; Thompson, S.; Turner, S.; Walle (21) |
6.0 |
20 |
73.6 |
| Alvarado; Bonnen, D.; Cook; Darby; Farney; Guerra; Kacal; King, K.; Lozano; Menendez; Otto; Paddie; Perry; Ratliff; Raymond; Sheffield, R.; Stephenson; Turner, C.; Villalba; White; Wu; Zerwas (22) |
5.5 |
41 |
58.7 |
| Anderson; Coleman; Crownover; Davis, S.; Davis, Y.; Deshotel; Eiland; Frullo; Geren; Gonzalez, N.; Harless; Hernandez Luna; Hunter; Johnson; King, T.; Kuempel; Lewis; Marquez; Naishtat; Orr; Pickett; Raney; Smith; Strama; Villarreal (25) |
5.0 |
63 |
41.8 |
| Aycock; Dutton; Gonzales; Guillen; Keffer; King, S.; Kleinschmidt; Larson; Miller, D.; Murphy; Workman (11) |
4.5 |
88 |
34.4 |
| Anchia; Bell; Bohac; Burkett; Button; Clardy; Craddick; Elkins; Flynn; Gooden; Harper-Brown; Lavendar; Riddle; Sheets (14) |
4.0 |
99 |
25.0 |
| Bonnen, G.; Dale; Davis, J.; Hilderbran; Kolkhorst; Morrison (6) |
3.5 |
113 |
20.9 |
| Fletcher; King, P.; Klick; Parker; Ritter; Simpson; Smithee; Springer; Thompson, E. (9) |
3.0 |
119 |
14.8 |
| Branch; Fallon; Miller, R. (3) |
2.5 |
128 |
12.8 |
| Carter; Goldman; Leach; Taylor (4) |
2.0 |
131 |
10.1 |
| Creighton; Hughes; Krause; Laubenburg; Sanford; Schaefer; Zedler (7) |
1.5 |
135 |
5.4 |
| Lucio III; Stickland (2) |
1.0 |
142 |
4.0 |
| Capriglione; Frank; Isaac; Turner, E.S. (4) |
0.5 |
144 |
1.3 |
| Simmons; Toth (2) |
0.0 |
148 |
0.0 |
Table 5
Senate Final Value, Numerical Rank, and Percentile Rank
|
Senator |
Final Value |
Numerical Rank |
Percentile Rank |
| Rodriquez (1) |
8.0 |
1 |
100 |
| Garcia (1) |
7.0 |
2 |
96.6 |
| Deuell; Nichols; Uresti; Watson (4) |
6.0 |
3 |
83.3 |
| Davis; Ellis; Seliger; Williams; Zaffirini (5) |
5.0 |
7 |
66.6 |
| Nelson; Schwertner (2) |
4.5 |
12 |
60.0 |
| Carona; Duncan; Eltife; Estes; Fraser; Hancock; Hinojosa; Huffman; Van de Putte; Whitmire (10) |
4.0 |
14 |
26.6 |
| Lucio (1) |
3.5 |
24 |
23.3 |
| Birdwell; Taylor (2) |
3.0 |
25 |
16.6 |
| West (1) |
2.5 |
27 |
13.3 |
| Hegar (1) |
2.0 |
28 |
10.0 |
| Paxton (1) |
-1.0 |
29 |
6.6 |
| Campbell (1) |
-1.5 |
30 |
3.3 |
| Patrick (1) |
-3.0 |
31 |
0.0 |
Money Still Matters: Investing in Texas Kids and Our Future (2012)
by Bonnie A. Lesley http://www.equitycenter.org/
Money Does Matter: Investing in Texas Children and Our Future (2010)
by Bonnie A. Lesley http://www.equitycenter.org/
Research Reports on Doing More With Less? by Children at Risk, Houston
http://childrenatrisk.org/research/education/more-with-less This page has links to the following reports:
What You Need to Know: A Parent’s Guide to the Impact of the Public Education Budget Cuts (Jan. 2013)
Doing More with Less: Public Education in a New Fiscal Reality–Statewide Assessment (Jan. 2013)
Doing More with Less: Looking Beyond Public Schools (Oct. 2012)
Doing More with Less: Public Education in a New Fiscal Reality (Sept. 2012)
Research Evidence vs. Soaring Ideology: School Vouchers and Achievement by Julian Vasquez Hellig, Jan. 7, 2013
Gates Report on Using Student Surveys in Teacher Evaluations Based on Flawed Research
http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=b4ad2ece093459cbf2afb759f&id=7a95459398&e=27d10af50f
Faulty Premises and Methods Used in Research on Staffing “Surges”
http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b4ad2ece093459cbf2afb759f&id=bc2d65fbbf&e=27d10af50f
Research on the Benefits of Preschool
http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b4ad2ece093459cbf2afb759f&id=15807656c4&e=27d10af50f
Research on Newark, NJ, Charter Schools
This posting by Dr. Bruce Baker of Rutgers University and one of our expert witnesses in the Texas school finance case shows very clearly how difficult it is to conduct education research. Isolating all the variables that may affect education outcomes is in itself difficult. But note also how Baker lays out the ways that findings can be misconstrued by not digging deeply into data to see the differences between kids receiving “reduced-price lunch” programs and kids who are eligible for “free” lunches. Important! Also, see how important it is to isolate for testing all the different classifications for special education. Many, many children identified for special education have physical disabilities that do not affect the functioning of their brains. Others, like those in speech therapy programs, can be highly successful academically, while those with severe mental disabilities are not. Baker demonstrates that when you do this digging, the Newark Charters do not seem nearly as successful. All “research” is not equal.
AISD: Inequitable Funding and Vestiges of Segregation
This report, published by the Texas Civil Rights Project, examines the inequities in funding between and among different schools in Austin ISD. There are many references to the report Money Does Matter: Investing in Texas Children and Our Future (2010) by Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D., written for the Texas Equity Center, a consortium of property-poor school districts. The full report can be read or downloaded from this site: http://texascivilrightsproject.org/docs/hr/tcrp_2012_hr_aisd.pdf
Privatization Agenda of ALEC
We hear all the time about various strategies to privatize public schools–everything from home schools, distance learning (virtual schools or online schools), charters, vouchers for designated populations, universal vouchers for all school-age children, education savings plans, and parent triggers. The organization behind all of them is called ALEC. Their goal is to use public money and channel it into private entities–not good for kids, nor taxpayers, nor democracy. Go to this site to see their strategies exposed: http://alecexposed.org/wiki/Privatizing_Public_Education,_Higher_Ed_Policy,_and_Teachers
Demographic Characteristics of Texas
(by Joe Smith, TexasISD.com via State Demographer Steve Murdoch)
Oct. 26, 2010
I often see lists of various characteristics of the state of Texas. There are several floating around that quantify and rank Texas education which I think are very helpful in determining the priorities of our state and Texans. Mr. Murdock, former Texas demographer, provided a well sourced and documented list regarding education in his presentation to the court in the school funding lawsuit. I appreciate his willingness to share it. Now we have a credible source to use in presentations.However, I will add one item when I use it in a presentation: Texas is America’s Top State for Business 2012. This chart is the rankings used for determining that Texas is the top state for business, yet it shows Texas to be number 26 in education which presents numerous interesting questions. — If we create a more educated workforce, will the cost of doing business go up or down? Are we cutting education to pay businesses to come to Texas? Will we lose businesses if we don’t improve education funding? This article highlights the 51 metrics used to rank the states.I have the complete PowerPoint Dr. Murdock presented in Judge Dietz’ Court. If you desire a copy, send me an email – It is large (98 slides), give me a few days to respond. -js – [email protected]Selected Characteristics of Texas Education – Steve Murdock Ph.D. – Director Hobby Center for the Study of Texas – Rice University
NEPC Policy Brief: Democracy Left Behind: How Recent Education Reforms Undermine Local School Governance and Democratic Educationhttp://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/democracy-left-behind Review of Class Size: What Research Says and What It Means for State Policyhttp://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-class-size-what-research-says-and-what-it-means Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card, June 2012http://www.schoolfundingfairness.org/ia_reports.htm Breaking Rules, Breaking Budgets: Cost of Exclusionary Discipline in 11 Texas School Districts, October 2012, published by Texas Appleseed:http://www.texasappleseed.net/index.phpoption=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=848&Itemid= |
@txkidscantwait