Americans for Prosperity-Texas       gives kudos to Chairman Florence Shapiro We have several suggestions and are offering some support for her thoughtful language on instructional materials in the Senate Education Committee Substitute for House Bill 2, which will reach the Senate floor on Thursday, May 5. The Senate version of HB 2 needs to consider instructional costs as such, and "indirect instructional costs" are actually NOT instructional costs.  Let's not muddy the water.  Instructional costs which should be direct classroom-related costs and support services (not “non-instructional costs”) are all costs outside the classroom.  Taxpayers, parents and educators deserve transparency in financial accountability.  (An earlier version of the bill listed lobbyists as “non instructional costs”!!!) The Senate version of HB 2 needs to include the following from the House bill: Move election of school board members to uniform/November election dates.   Disclose ISD expenses for lobbying. Some of the current language whittles away at the control of the elected  State        Board of Education.  In order to provide oversight of textbook reviews, the Senate should strike definition of factual error which is in the bill language – Page 55, line 14…Strike “for” to the end of the graph and on Page 55, also strike lines 20-25. Sen. Shapiro’s bill keeps the good features of the current process while allowing the market to respond to the need for more technology in schools – all without forcing schools to implement technology when they’re not ready.  This is much better for our kids and schools than House Bill 4 as passed by the House, which basically could allow schools to teach through “Google” rather than through proven curriculum that’s structured to help kids learn. Chairman Shapiro’s CSHB 2 leaves in place the existing dedication for funding for instructional materials for children so that teachers and students can be assured of having access to quality content on a regular basis. The amount ($70 per actual student) is similar to the historical average amount for state-purchased materials to ensure continuity of quality materials. Note: HB 4 as passed by the House reduced (to $60 per average daily attendance) and un-dedicated these funds, allowing use for teacher training and equipment. This leaves children and teachers with no guarantee of ever receiving the materials they need to meet the state’s required curriculum. This funding under HB 4 could supplant existing teacher training or equipment funds, causing fewer dollars to ultimately reach the classroom at the end of the day. Ultimately, under HB 4’s short-shrift of funds for classroom materials, students might be forced to share books or not have materials to take home for homework. Students don’t experience this under the current system. Even though CSHB 2 gives school districts and charter schools an instructional materials allotment to purchase materials (instead of state directly purchasing), those materials must either be adopted by the State Board of Education or must be authorized by Commissioner waiver as under current law. That will keep the elected State Board with their important role of making sure the materials align with the state’s curriculum and are free of factual errors. Note: HB 4 did not require the state funds to be used to purchase materials that are state reviewed. Under that bill, school districts could use our state tax dollars for anything at all – with no review of the public, no guarantee that the materials are error- free, and no alignment to make sure our kids are learning the curriculum they’re required to know. Right now we know where all of our state textbook dollars are spent, down to the dime. HB 4 would create a system where we’ll never have accountability for those dollars. To ensure that our schools get the most up-to-date and aligned materials, under CSHB 2 the SBOE would ask publishers to produce new materials in a subject after the SBOE revises the curriculum for that subject, to keep the process open and competitive.   This cycle is important to ensure that the public can review materials in a subject and that teachers in all subject areas get the opportunity for new and updated materials for their students. Because there’s no cycle, under HB 4, it’s entirely possible for state money to be wasted on expensive software to improve wind sprints while leaving elementary kids without math materials. Under CSHB 2, publishers could put a material on the state adoption list at any time to allow more competition as publishers create new products. Importantly, the material would still go through the same review process as for other materials and would be on a state list eligible to be purchased under the instructional materials allotment. HB 4 allows new products – but does so at the expense of any kind of review. Publishers who want to update a product – for example, to include a new Pope in history materials – would be free to do so under CSHB 2. The updated content would still go through a review process, and the State Board could provide for an expedited review process to ensure alignment and no factual errors while allowing timely updates.  Also, publishers would be allowed to offer state-adopted electronic instructional materials on an annual subscription basis to allow districts more choices. HB 4 contains similar language. Technology allotment use is expanded under CSHB 2, but the amount does not rise as dramatically as it does in HB 4 in which it is doubled and then tripled. HB 4 more than doubles (to $70 per average daily attendance) technology money for the school year that starts in three months. Schools have not had time to plan for such a large windfall, and it could lead to waste and inefficiency. Instead of giving money for what schools haven’t planned for (technology), the Legislature should provide money for what the schools have already selected (new instructional materials due to schools in three months). In the second year of the biennium, HB 4 triples the existing technology money to $90 per ADA. Of this, $30 is spent on existing, budgeted technology allotment uses, and the other $60 would be for targeted technology programs as directed and overseen by TEA. Americans for Prosperity and AFP Foundation 807 Brazos St, #210, Austin, TX   78701-9996 phone: 512/476-5905; fax: 512/476-5906 email: pvenable@afptx.org; website: www.americansforprosperity.org Back to Legislation