Tired of those school district letters saying “there is no opt out” for accelerated instruction under HB 4545? Me too. Because it’s not only a lie, it’s deliberate ignorance. A minute of reading makes it clear. They’ve got me ranting tonight.
We’ve recently seen a number of communications from schools indicating that they cannot “permit” a parent to opt out of Accelerated Instruction under HB 4545 because it is subject to compulsory attendance. In this brief video, we look at the actual words of the opt out and compulsory attendance statute and consider an uncontroversial example that demonstrate how this claim is legally untenable and, if true, would render the opt out statute a complete nullity.
This video is a wide ranging discussion of the scope of HB 4545, the provisions regarding accelerated instruction, the limits placed on schools and the parental right to refuse/opt out of AI under Education Code sec. 26.010.
Ok, I’m lying. It is a ridiculous and an incredibly stupid piece of legislation, thrown together and pushed down onto schools with no grassroots input or support by a bunch of knee jerk politicians in thrall to for profit tutoring, software, and publishing companies. It reinforces both the idea that STAAR is a valid measure of anything, and that raising performance on STAAR is of vital import to the state. It furthers the transfer of needed education dollars from the classroom to the hands of political cronies. Business as usual in #TxEd.
But that’s not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about whether – from the perspective of the parent – HB 4545 makes things better or worse, and more specifically whether it should have any impact at all on the decision to opt out of assessment. I am going to say right up front, it is a net positive for parents and should make the decision to opt out easier, rather than harder. How do I come to this conclusion?
1 – HB 4545 Eliminates STAAR Based Promotion and Retention
The greatest deterrent that schools ever held over Opt Out parents was the threat of retention in 5th and 8th grade. Of course, it was really just a threat as we never saw a single Opt Out student retained. In fact, the very few instances of a retention based on STAAR that we were familiar with involved students who actually attempted but failed the assessment. For students that were absent or refused, we never saw a single student retained. But now, even that threat is gone, eliminated by HB 4545. Now some schools are pointing to TEA and Education code guidance the STAAR results must be “considered” as part of promotion, and that language does exist, but we have to dwell in reality. When STAAR WAS a promotion requirement, nobody with passing grades was being retained over STAAR. Now that it is no longer a requirement, that simply isn’t going to change. All districts have a promotion policy, and as the policies are amended to reflect HB 4545, I do not expect to see STAAR mentioned explicitly in any of them. Moreover, if you do not take it, or refuse it without answering, there really is no data to “consider.” This is another reason we do not recommend choosing all one answer or random bubbling. Those tactics do create data. Particularly in random bubbling, it will be exceedingly difficult to disavow your data.
2 – The Accelerated Instruction (AI/Tutoring) Has Always Existed
Amazingly, as HB 4545 came into play, I have seen parents come into an anti-STAAR group and bemoan how much they would like to opt out, but they just cannot fathom their child having 30, 60 or even 90 hours of tutoring to complete. But this complaint just shows how easily swayed parents are by the rhetoric of these schools. The schools warn “HB 4545 TUTORING!” as if the sky is falling, but any parent who has opted out in the past will tell you that the schools have always tried to impose accelerated instruction on Opt Out kids and STAAR failers alike. And they have done it in the summer. And they have done it in the school year. They’ve done it outside school hours. And yes, it was and always has been “subject to compulsory attendance.” There is nothing new here from HB 4545. The only thing new here is that HB 4545 has put a number of hours on it. Now, in a sense that is a step backwards, because the previous statute did not specify an amount of AI to be completed. The SSI manual confirmed this and said the school could tailor it to the needs of the students. Many parents were successful in arguing that they could meet the requirements with a 15-minute online worksheet. So, in a sense the 30-hour mandate is a step backward. But in reality, it is MUCH BETTER than what students often faced. Especially as we hit middle school and high school, the standard approach of the schools was to conduct AI by taking away electives from kids and sticking them into full year, full class period STAAR prep “classes”. The state even tacitly encouraged this by providing a pot of money for these AI classes that schools could use to cover portions of their teacher salaries. Consultants would advise districts on how to maximize their funds with these STAAR prep classes, so you can imagine schools were reluctant to let kids escape them. So rather the 30 hours of AI per subject, students might see 175 hours per subject, but it was hidden as a “class.” What we do know is that almost every opt out was followed by a fight over preserving electives and declining AI. So, while HB 4545 has put numbers to this tutoring requirement, it really has not added anything new. And I think most students who were stuck in a STAAR prep class would have happily traded that for 30 hours of tutoring.
3 – It is Easier to Decline the AI
So, having accepted that one concrete downside of HB 4545 is a set number of hours for AI, why does this not bother me more? Simple. The TEA has given us a gift. Now, we have always held that opt out applies to accelerated instruction. We have authored multiple articles and form letters for this purpose. But this year, the TEA actually examined the issue. More importantly, they did so in a way that makes clearer what they believe. TEA guidance is always very murky and equivocal. When they first put out their HB 4545 FAQ, they already anticipated our opt out approach and advised that “NO” a parent cannot opt out of HB 45454 AI. But then something happened. They went back and rethought that answer. And while their analysis of the question is not as sharp as it should be, it does recognize that HB 4545 AI falls into the same category as almost every other opt out situation – no language that removes it from opt out, and no specific opt out written into the bill. What they do not say is that when this is the case, we apply the general opt out rule of 26.010 — which means you can definitely opt out. And the TEA communicates this in two ways: first, the FAQ no longer says “NO.” Granted it is about three paragraphs of equivocation, but at the end it notes that schools can accommodate these parental decisions via INFORMAL process. This means you do not have to file an appeal or a grievance. There is not a hearing process. You can simply give your notice; the school can remove the child from AI, noting your opt out, and all parties will have followed the law. We never had this with AI under the Student Success Initiative. So, while the length of AI floor is higher under HB 4545, the ability to remove your student from it is now affirmed by the TEA.
4 – Students Are Not Subject to Losing Electives
Finally, one of the true fears that parents used to have over opting out was that as a result of AI, their student would be denied electives. If the kid was an artist, athlete or just in need of an enriching curriculum, opting out threatened to interfere with those objectives. Now most parents could usually negotiate some kind of compromise; but not always. We dealt with some stubborn and punitive districts. Thankfully, they were the exception and not the rule. But there was almost always a process and a negotiation. Under HB 4545, a school is forbidden to remove a student from foundation or enrichment curriculum or PE to administer tutoring. So, loss of electives should no longer be an issue.
As I look at HB 4545 from a parent’s perspective, while I find it annoying, I also find that on balance the situation is far, far better for parents. Worse for schools to be sure; worse for teachers also. But I am here from the parent perspective. Does HB 4545 make it harder or easier to fight STAAR by opting out and refusing to be part of the data collection for the TEA? It clearly makes it easier. It clearly lowers the stakes. And this is true from both a theoretical and practical standpoint. Any parent who raises HB 4545 as a reason not to opt out has not studied either the history of AI or the full scope of HB 4545 and its implementation. As opt out parents, HB 4545 is a mere annoyance at worst, and a help at best.
From the earliest days of the Opt Out movement, the TEA has carved out a dichotomy between Opt Out and parental refusal that has confounded and frustrated parents and, indirectly, led to increased conflict between parents and schools. However, as time has passed, the TEA’s outlook has become increasingly more realistic and focused on de-escalating conflict while still insisting upon participation. For years, we have argued against the scoring of refused assessments. One reason for this is that the practice of scoring refused assessments led to bizarre behavior by schools. While some schools adopted parent friendly approaches like permitting the child to refuse assessment with the parent present, other schools insisted that a child refusing the assessment must be placed in a room, read all the instructions, instructed to begin work, and not released until the full time to complete the assessment passed. Still other schools felt it was fair game to try to trick the students into taking the assessment, leading to predictable ploys like “Your mother just called” and requiring parents to implement password systems to thwart these childish games.
For several years, we have pushed back against those who lay all the blame for bad STAAR behavior on the TEA and pointed out that districts have broad authority to work with parents. In fact, most of the “bad behaviors” we experience due to STAAR are the result of local decisions. When the TEA has acted reasonably, we have applauded them and put the responsibility for bad conduct where it truly belongs. Today is another one of those days. Following several reports of students who stayed off campus for an entire assessment window being scored as having refused, we began to hear rumors that the TEA had told schools that if the parents indicated a refusal, the schools could submit the blank assessment for scoring, even if the student never set foot on campus.
This was a tidal shift, because for years the party line of the school has been “If the student is on campus, we must put the assessment in front of them and tell them to take it.” No more. In response to a recent Public Information Request, TPERN has received documents that confirm that “If the student/parent has refused to test during a particular testing window, the district . . . is not required to put the student in front of the test or a make-up test.” The district need only maintain local documentation of the refusal. This gives the Opt Out letter new importance. Under the guidance of the TEA, the letter now constitutes sufficient evidence to permit the school to submit a blank assessment. The student does not need to be absent for an entire administration window, or even for a single day. And explicitly, the school is not required to put the assessment in front of the student for refusal. As it should be, the word of the parent is sufficient.
Notably, this response was made directly to a district that was asking if it was permissible to not pull a student for makeup testing if they were absent on the assessment day and had a parent note of refusal. Julie Cole made clear, that even if they are there on the assessment day, the school does not have to put the student in front of a test. Similar guidance was given to ESC 14 when a school sought approval of instructions to parents that they must stay home the entire assessment window or take a makeup.
These communications should put to rest any school claims that they are “required” to present the assessment to the student. They aren’t. They never have been. This common sense approach permits schools and parents to work together. It de-escalates needless conflict and permits the viewpoints of both sides to be heard. We applaud the TEA for clarifying this matter once and for all.
For our parents, we suggest:
(1) Use the new opt out letter which contains the refusal language;
(2) Verify with the school that your child will not be presented with the assessment. Use these emails if needed.(Full Copy Lozano Email; Full Copy Wilson Email)
(3) We still suggest being willing to keep the student home for the main assessment days, as the schools are unlikely to be able to accommodate them with any normal learning activities.
In a YouTube video released today, Peaster ISD superintendent Lance Johnson called out the hypocrisy of Gov. Abbott’s political theatre ploy of announcing his fealty to the so called “parents’ rights” movement that is gaining political currency amongst the Republican electorate. After focusing on the school shutdown and mask mandates that came from the Abbott administration, Supt. Johnson then moves to the issue that motivates us at TPERN: the right of parents to refuse their child’s participation in the STATE STAAR accountability assessments. Johnson correctly notes that Abbott has never voiced support for parental rights in this area. And he points out that we haven’t heard STAAR opt out mentioned by Abbott in his latest “parents rights” speechmaking. Supt. Johnson labels it for what is is: political grandstanding that has no real basis in reality when you look at Abbott’s actual beliefs as evidence by his governance of the state, his appointees at the TEA, and his non-mentions of STAAR in any of these speeches. And he closes by arguing for the complete abolition of STAAR. Superintendent Johnson, whether our supporters agree about masks and school closures is unimportant. We thank you for standing up for parents rights and for the kids on the issue of STAAR and parental opt out.
This PDF contains the questions and answers from our weekly “Basic Questions” thread on the TxEdRights Facebook Page.
When the Texas legislature imposed EOC graduation requirements on Texas students, they threw out a very important bone that Opt Out parents utilize to their advantage: the right to use substitute assessments to satisfy graduation requirements. This is a legislative determination and can’t be restricted by local schools or the TEA. The TEA is charged with making rules to determine qualifying assessments and scores and the process (consistent with the statute) to use them.
In fall 2019, the TEA proposed a rule that would have required a student to sit for and fail an EOC examination before using a substitute assessment to meet graduation requirements. Long story short, the rule was an ill advised attempt to address the federal Dept. of Education decision to no longer accept substitute assessments as meeting the federal assessment requirements. Of course, this has nothing to do with graduation, but the TEA thought by requiring the EOC before approving a substitute assessment for graduation, they would increase EOC participation.
We immediately fought back against the rule, because it dangerously conflated federal accountability requirements (that have never been tied to state graduation policies) with our own state law graduation requirements which expressly allow the use of substitute assessments. Based on TPERN’s call to action, parents, teachers and other activists flooded the TEA with comments against the rule. Most obviously, we pointed out that there is no need to restrict graduation access based on EOC attempts just to meet federal accountability. The proposed rule already said that a student who uses a sub assessment to graduate must still take the EOC for accountability purposes. There was no need to add a hammer by saying “and if you don’t you can’t graduate.”
When this was announced, we were up against the wall. The TEA had already started telling districts that this would be the rule and training them to enforce it. We immediately told parents to submit all qualifying sub assessment scores before the rule went into effect. That drove the districts crazy. They actually thought they could deny complying with the current law on the basis that it would change in the future. It was like talking to children who had never taken a civics class. We wrote nasty letters. We ended up getting school district lawyers writing us letters telling us not to contact their counselors! We responded of course that their counselors should not give false information if they did not want to be contacted. It was a done deal we were told over and over. But the letters our members sent got their attention.
A public hearing was held and several parents testified making these same points. Nobody showed up to defend the test first requirement. And when the new rule was published, the TEA agreed with us! They struck the language from the rule that said a student must attempt the EOC before being eligible to use a substitute assessment to meet graduation requirements.
Note where this language appears. This is the section of Commissioner’s Rule 100.4002, which sets out when a student is eligible to use a substitute assessment to satisfy EOC graduation requirements. They removed the language that says the student had to take the EOC at least once to be eligible. That’s gone. And no other language anywhere in the rule is tied to eligibility to use the sub assessment to satisfy graduation requirements. Everything else has to do with federal accountability, which is completely unrelated to state level graduation requirements. The rule on eligibility is unchanged from prior years.
(Source: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter101/ch101dd.html)
The removal of the prior attempt requirement was no mistake. The TEA recognized that they could simply ask sub assessment students to take the EOC for accountability reasons only regardless of the acceptance of the sub assessment for graduation purposes. They explicitly agreed that there was no need to add a prior attempt requirement when a different part of the rule (related to accountability not graduation) provided a means to assess students who have already met their graduation requirements by substitute assessment.
Source: https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/20_02_101-4002.pdf
Not clear enough? In the section titled Reasoned Justification, this same adoption document is explicit:
The subsection that would have “require[d] students to take an EOC assessment . . . prior to being eligible to use a substitute assessment to meet graduation purposes” was “removed at adoption” because it was “not needed.” Simple enough, right? The TEA agreed with the parents, dropped the rule change and told the schools to handle accountability on the back end by giving the EOC to everyone, but that using substitute assessment for graduation was pretty much unchanged. What could be difficult about that?
Well as it turns out, almost everything. Because the TEA had spent much of the fall preparing districts for the new requirements (you know, the ones that were removed), the districts simply did not believe they had really gone away. Almost immediately, they began to deny acceptance of substitute assessments on the baseless ground that the student had to first sit for the EOC.
This situation was aggravated by the fact that the TEA failed to update it’s slide show on the new rule even after the amendments were made. We pointed that out to the TEA and they corrected that omission.
Note what is also clearly stated in this email. “[S]tudents are NOT required to take a STAAR EOC assessment prior to using a substitute assessment to fulfill graduation requirements. That requirement was removed from the rule during rulemaking.” This clear statement expresses precisely what happened with the rule and the current state. Unfortunately, this kind of clear information is foreign to the TEA in its official communications.
Schools continued to insist that the proposed, rejected and outdated version of the rule was in force. There never was any such rule, there was only a failed proposal.
To address this, the TEA issued a “clarification” to the schools. While the clarification accurately states that “Based on public comment, the proposed requirement to take an EOC assessment prior to using a substitute assessment for graduation purposes was removed,” it does not state the obvious corollary: “students are NOT required to take a STAAR EOC assessment prior to using a substitute assessment to fulfill graduation requirements.” So many schools continued to insist that such a requirement existed. Some even said “still” existed, though no such requirement ever existed before, during or after rulemaking. It was proposed; it was rejected; it doesn’t exist and never did exist.
So the confusion continued. Just days after the clarification, we see this:
Again, a lack of clear direction led to an inability of the district to understand that graduation purposes and accountability requirements are decoupled. They always have been in Texas. They never were linked. They just both used the same assessments to get to their end points. To her credit, Julie Cole at the TEA has been absolutely clear with districts that using substitute assessments for graduation is not related to taking the EOC for accountability. But still, the misinformation continues:
Why do schools continue to mislead parents about substitute assessment requirements? On the one hand, a large amount of blame lies with the TEA for training schools on a proposed rule that was ultimately not adopted. When the rule was actually adopted without the proposed change, there was no fireworks show on a level of the initial rollout to alert schools to the actual form of the adopted rule. So many just continued to use the process that was presented in the initial training. A clarification that did not use the same clear language that the TEA uses in emails did not help. However, at the same time, there is some amount of willful ignorance at play. Schools have always made claims about “requirements” and absolutes of STAAR if they felt it would motivate students to participate and try hard. Telling them they have to attempt STAAR first is just another instance of this. Some district even overtly lie and throw this nonexistent requirement onto their website. I’m looking at you Katy ISD – an embarrassment of a district that has been wedded to data obsession since the pathetic tenure of TEA-sycophant, Dr. Allison Matney. I’m looking at you Pine Tree ISD – spreading false information 9 months after the TEA clarification! And I am especially looking at you Round Rock ISD – for telling your parents and students the precise opposite of what the law and the TEA says. This deserves a special view:
RRISD Website: 
TEA Clarification:
Julie Cole’s Clear Language:
If a district has any doubts, ask Julie and she will tell them straight:
So how and why do sophisticated districts continue to get it wrong? Why am I so hard on RRISD especially? Because they prove my point that this isn’t confusion or innocent error. This is deliberate misinformation. Over the course of two years, I brought this error to the attention of the General Counsel of the Round Rock ISD after she had “forbidden” me from contacting their counselors directly. On the phone she acknowledged the effect of the rulemaking, but she steadfastly refused to do so in writing or to make any effort to change the misinformation on the district website. In fact, she never even responded to this March 2021 email – over a year after the TEA clarified its position and she and I had a verbal agreement on the matter.
So, no, schools don’t innocently get this wrong. Not after two years and numerous corrections. The lies are deliberate and they are designed to do one thing: prevent parents and students from exercising their statutory rights to use substitute assessments to meet graduation requirements. If your district does this please report it to us and to Julie Cole at the TEA.
What do we propose that parents do when they have a qualifying substitute assessment score?
I can’t tell you how tired I am of hearing this. Parents of kids as young as third grade hear this. Some parents have even been told that passing STAAR in elementary school is required to graduate high school. We’ll file that claim as “too stupid to merit a response.” But let’s consider what underlies these types of claims being made to parents of younger students. The only reason to mention the EOC requirements to a elementary or middle school student as a reason to take STAAR is an underlying belief that taking the 3rd to 8th grade STAAR somehow prepares the kids for their high school EOCs. (EOC is what STAAR is called in high school. Every EOC is a STAAR and there are no high school STAAR assessments that are not EOCs). Let’s consider three reasons why this argument is weak. First, the Grade 3-8 assessments are generalized grade level (in theory) academic assessments untethered from any specific class content. The EOCs on the other hand are designed to assess content mastery at the end of a specified course of instruction. These are two different objectives, and they should not be conflated. Second, there has never been any demonstration that simply taking STAAR makes students any better at taking it the next time. To the contrary, the research tends to show that the kids who pass one tend to pass others and kids who fail are not somehow elevated to passing by more test taking practice. Finally, it ignores the fact that the curriculum is packed with assessments – whether part of the class or part of district benchmarking – designed to mimic STAAR. Your students will have no shortage of “practice” before their first EOC. But let’s get back to the point. Do you really have to pass STAAR to graduate? The answer is no.
Now, let’s be clear. Passing all five EOC assessments is one way a student can meet the requirements for graduation from a public high school. (Notably no such requirements apply to private schools or home schoolers.) But it is not the only way. What are the other ways?
And if you don’t make any of those options work, you aren’t stuck. There are two remaining options to make sure your kid graduates. One is accredited. The other isn’t.
So the next time the school tells you that you have to pass five EOCs to graduate high school, you can just nod knowingly and wonder whether they really don’t know or whether it is just more subtle intimidation for parents.
This article will discuss the Individual Graduation Committee Process for students who have not passed all five of the EOC exit exams as they approach graduation. This articles does not address the graduation options for Special Education students. It does include any student covered by a 504 plan. The IGC process allows a student to graduate by committee decision if they have failed to comply with the EOC requirements “for not more than two courses.” So let’s start at the beginning and walk through it.
The Texas Education Code requires passage of five End of Course assessments to receive a diploma from a public high school. (CITE). Those five courses are English I, English II, Biology, Algebra I and US History. Three of those are usually taken in ninth grade, one in tenth grade and one in eleventh grade. A student who does not pass the assessment has another opportunity in the summer and then three opportunities in each following year to try to pass. So a parent who permitted their kid to stay on this merry go round could potentially have their kid take 46 EOC assessments while chasing that paper.
Fortunately, there are alternatives. Many parents choose to have their kids attempt substitute assessments. But usually when a parent comes here looking for help, it is because their junior or senior has passed some of the EOCs, but still lacks having all five needed for graduation. And time is running out.
The good news is that for many of these kids, they do not need to pass all five EOCs to graduate. For most of them, the IGC (Individual Graduation Committee) option offers them a path to the diploma. A diploma issued by the IGC is precisely the same as the diploma a student who passes all five EOCs will receive. There is no notation or limitation on the student’s ability to attend college, enter the military, or make any other use of their high school diploma as a result of using the IGC process.
Who is Eligible to Graduate Via IGC?
This is determined by the plain language of the statute: “This section applies only to an 11th or 12th grade student who has failed to comply with the end-of-course assessment instrument performance requirements under Section 39.025 for not more than two courses.” Tex Educ. Code §28.0258 (a). Now this seems simple enough – pass three out of five and you are eligible — but there are a few caveats to deal with.
First, the Commissioner has added requirements to the statute. We can argue about whether he can restrict access to IGC graduation in a manner that the legislature did not, but for purposes of this article we are trying to get you to the IGC without a fight. The commissioners rules add an “attempt” requirement to IGC eligibility.
A student may not graduate under an individual graduation committee if the student did not take each EOC assessment required by this subchapter or an approved substitute assessment in Subchapter DD of this chapter (relating to Commissioner’s Rules Concerning Substitute Assessments for Graduation) for each course in which the student was enrolled in a Texas public school for which there is an EOC assessment. A school district or charter school shall determine whether the student took each required EOC assessment or an approved substitute assessment required by Subchapter DD of this chapter. For purposes of this section only, a student who does not make an attempt to take all required EOC assessments may not qualify to graduate by means of an individual graduation committee.
19 TAC §101.3022(e). Here the commissioner rules say two different things while repeating itself. First, it says that to graduate by IGC, the student must have actually taken each EOC or a substitute assessment for each course they took in a Texas public school that has an EOC attached to it. Then at the end, it seems to say that they must actually have attempted all of the EOCs, not the EOC or substitute assessment. Let me be clear that I do not think this intends to say that a student who passes a substitute assessment and never attempts the EOC cannot graduate by IGC. Or similarly, if the student took and passed Algebra I in Oklahoma (and thus exempt from EOC passage), I don’t think this rule means he has to attempt the Algebra I EOC before being eligible to graduate by IGC. But I do think that if they fail to pass the substitute assessment and never attempt to the EOC for that course, the school might deny them access to the IGC. For that reason, if you are relying in an IGC to graduate, we recommend that you attempt each EOC that you are missing one time. Refusing in person (turning in a blank answer sheet or tabbing through to the endand submitting) is an attempt.
How do we count “no more than two.”
As a matter of shorthand, we often say things like “3 out of 5” makes you eligible for an IGC. But we really do need to use the no more than two language. The number of required assessments to graduate is going to vary according to the student. As sec. 29.025 points out, the satisfactory performance requirement only applies to “a course in which the student is enrolled and for which an end-of-course assessment instrument is administered.” If the student was in private school or out of state at the time of their enrollment, they do not have to pass an EOC to graduate. So those do not count when counting whether the student “has failed to comply with the end-of-course assessment instrument performance requirements under Section 39.025 for not more than two courses.”
Example 1: Joe takes and passes Algebra I and English I in private school in 9th grade. In 10th grade, he goes to public school, takes and passes the Biology I course and EOC, passes English 2 course but fails the EOC, and then passes US History in 11th grade, but fails that EOC also. Joe is eligible to graduate by IGC. Sec. 39.025 only required that he take and pass Biology, English II and US History to graduate. Even though he has only passed one EOC, he has failed to comply with the requirement in only two classes. Because he has not failed to comply in more than two classes, he remains eligible to graduate under an IGC.
Example 2: Miranda is a newly arrived ELL student in 9th grade. She received the ELL exemption from passing English I and the assessment is not administered to her. She fails all her 9th grade EOCs that she attempts, but later passes Algebra I and Biology. She fails passes all her classes, but fails her English 2 EOC and her US History EOC. Miranda is not eligible to graduate by IGC. Although she has only failed two EOCs, her exemption from English I comes from an administrative rule, and not from sec. 39.025. She has failed to comply with sec. 39.025 requirements in English I, English 2 and US History. This is more than two classes. Note that if Miranda passed all EOCs other than the English I exempted EOC, she would not need an IGC because she could graduate using her exemption.
When does the IGC meet?
This is one of the most frustrating parts of the statute. The law provides that the school “shall establish an individual graduation committee at the end of or after the student’s 11th grade year to determine whether the student may qualify to graduate as provided by this section.” Unfortunately, the day before 12th grade graduation is still “after” the 11th grade year, and many schools have taken this approach of waiting to the last minute. The good news? The law expressly permits schools to start the IGC process as soon as 11th grade ends. There is no need to sweat graduation to the last minute. Parents should request the IGC be established at the end of 11th grade and be persistent in the Fall of 12th grade. The IGC can meet, prescribe any remediation required, and ease everyone’s concerns as the student completes any required work. If the school claims they do not meet until late spring, remember this is not a legal requirement. Rather it is just a local preference. There is no reason the school cannot get started in the fall. You should be persistent with the campus and district administration seeking an early start to the process. Engage your local school board if needed. Keeping people hanging on and worried is unnecessary, counterproductive and often just punitive. We should not tolerate it. In all things, document in writing and record phone calls.
Do I have to keep taking the EOCs every time they come up?
NO! Even the commissioner’s rules only require a single attempt. The school is required to offer it. Your choice not to take it does not disqualify you from IGC eligibility. When the IGC process was new, a very uninformed ESC put out a powerpoint claiming there was a two attempt requirement for IGC eligibility. It spread like wildfire because there was no other guidance available. We had to intervene to get this corrected at the ESC level, but many campuses still believe it. Even in the last two years, Pearland ISD has claimed a two attempt requirement existed. It doesn’t. We even wrote an article about it. IGC Graduation Does NOT Require Two Failed Attempts on EOCs The myth was so pervasive that the TEA even had to respond to it in its rulemaking,
99 Tex Reg 5900, 5901 (Oct. 11, 2019). One attempt satisfies the commissioner’s rule. Nothing else is required.
Who is a member of the IGC?
The commissioner rules (19 TAC 74.1025) answer this question. The individual graduation committee shall consist of the following:
(1) the principal or principal’s designee;
(2) for each EOC assessment instrument on which the student failed to perform satisfactorily, the teacher of the course;
(3) the department chair or lead teacher supervising the teacher described by paragraph (2) of this subsection; and
(4) as applicable:
(A) the student’s parent or person standing in parental relation to the student;
(B) a designated advocate if the person described by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph is unable to serve; or
(C) the student, at the student’s option, if the student is at least 18 years of age or is an emancipated minor.
In the event that the teacher identified in subsection (f)(2) of this section is unavailable, the principal shall designate as an alternate member of the committee a teacher certified in the subject of the EOC assessment on which the student failed to perform satisfactorily and who is most familiar with the student’s performance in that subject area.
In the event that the individual identified in subsection (f)(3) of this section is unavailable, the principal shall designate as an alternate member of the committee an experienced teacher certified in the subject of the EOC assessment on which the student failed to perform satisfactorily and who is familiar with the content of and instructional practices for the applicable course.
A few practical notes: schools often try to stack these committees with all sorts of people that are not on the list above: counselors, testing coordinators, multiple administrators. So long as the outlook is “how do we get this kid graduated” that shouldn’t be a problem. However, if it starts to get contentious, realize that there may be people piping up who shouldn’t even be in the room. It may make sense to identify who is actually on the committee and ask those who are not to either leave, or not interrupt the discussions.
With students who are 18, the parent is the presumed representative. However, because the student has the option to serve instead, schools often pull students from class and try to do these meetings on little to no notice. This is one reason to be proactive in getting the meetings scheduled. Also, discuss the importance of the meeting with your kid and see if he will write a directive to the school that they want you representing them and should contact you for any meetings.
How does the IGC make its decision?
To understand the various factors the legislature requires the committee to review, it is helpful to look at the IGC meeting guide from ESC 12. (View the form here.)
In Section III you will find the required committee considerations. No single factor has dispositive weight. It is not the case that one “no” on a factor means you can’t graduate. Rather the test is a balancing test and the committee can use its discretion to weight each factor as it sees fit. At the end of the day, the committee can make a recommendation to graduate the student or not. If the decision is to graduate them, they must require either a project in each lacking EOC course or the preparation and review of a portfolio demonstrating mastery of the subject. We strongly urge parents to retain work from each EOC course that is not passed so the portfolio is a viable option. Save good test results, papers that got good grades and any other work that shows the student has a mastery of the subject. Without this, it is impossible to do a portfolio and you must default to a project, which means new work.
What can the IGC require for graduation?
A project or a portfolio for each course that does not have a passing EOC or substitute assessment must be assigned if the student is permitted to graduate. The committee is also permitted to assign additional remediation in the subject areas. This is another reason to demand an early IGC meeting. If there is going to be remediation, the student should know about it well before graduation.
My schools says a project is required for the IGC, is this true?
No, there is no specified project requirement. In theory, the IGC makes an individual determination for each student. A project is one potential requirement.
How many votes do I need to graduate?
The decision of the committee must be unanimous. This is why it is important that only the actual members participate and vote, and that anyone with a conflict of interest not participate.
Can I appeal a determination that denies graduation?
No, the decision of the committee is final.
