Jerk of the Week – Drew Scheberle, Austin Chamber of Commerce VP

Written by admin on April 12, 2017. Posted in STAAR | EOC Testing. 2 Comments

The Jerk of the Week award is not given out every week. It’s only given out when someone engages in particularly jerky behavior. Our winner this week is none of than Austin Chamber of Commerce vice president (sorry, SENIOR vice-president) Drew Scheberle. Young Mr. Scheberle is quite the accomplished scholar. Growing up in the affluent Northern Virginia suburbs, Mr. Scheberle attended James Madison High School in Vienna, VA. James Madison is currently an 80% white/Asian-American school; presumably it was even whiter back in the 90s. Even today it’s Hispanic population is only 11% with African-Americans comprising 2% of the student body. Less than 6% of its students receive ELL services. Obviously, he is personally acquainted with the challenges facing Texas high schools. Following what we can only presume was a stellar high school career, Scheberle attended the private Trinity University (current tuition $36,000 per year). Here his exposure to African American students would have risen 50%, since they comprise 3% of Trinity’s student body.

Mr. Scheberle has earned this award for his testimony before the Senate Education Committee in opposition of SB 463, which would make permanent the extremely popular and successful implementation of Individual Graduation Committees that were created on a temporary basis by the 2015 legislature. Individual Graduation Committees let students who have passed 3 of 5 End of Course STAAR exams be reviewed on an individual basis for graduation with their class. These students must, at a minimum, have earned all the credits in the classroom that are required for graduation. A variety of factors are required to be considered and either a project or portfolio of work must be part of the process. Of course the Austin Chamber and the Texas Association of Business both opposed SB 149 in 2015, claiming it would lead to what they termed “social graduation,” playing on overstated fears of “social promotion.” Over the last two years, the data shows that nothing of the sort has happened. Rather, students are individually reviewed and carefully screened for readiness for graduation. Only about 2/3 of students reviewed are actually approved for graduation.

Believing it his duty to advocate for more test bubbling proficiency for graduation (a real world skill notably absent from any job requirements at any Chamber member we could find), Scheberle rose to the challenge! “Continuing to lower the bar is not helping,” said Drew Scheberle, vice president at the Austin Chamber of Commerce. “There are always going to be students who are right on the margin.” (Texas Tribune Article) .Now, it might be too easy to point out that a law that keeps the bar exactly where it is can’t really be said to be “lowering” the bar, but Scheberle was all in. Challenged by Sen. Kel Seliger, the author of SB 463, Scheberle was asked if he could support “the graduation of a student in Flower Mound who failed to pass one required [EOC exam] in social studies?” Snootily raising his Trinity-educated nose, Scheberle scoffed that “I would give her a GED if she earned it.” Bad idea, Drewski, bad idea. Sen. Seliger wasn’t speaking in hypotheticals. He was speaking on an actual FMHS student who graduated by IGC and now maintains a 3.6 GPA at Oklahoma Christian University. And he could have been speaking of any of the thousands of IGC graduates now making their futures in universities, community colleges, trade schools and the military, thanks to IGC process. For many students who are English Language Learners, suffer from learning disabilities or medical impediments (and some who are just bad test-takers but perfectly proficient in the classroom), the IGC process is their only road to a diploma. But for Country Club Drew, their worth and ability is only definable in terms of test bubbles.

For this amazing show of arrogance, snobbery and general jackassery, we congratulate Drew Scheberle, TPERN’s Jerk of the Week.

Please Set Your Password

Written by admin on March 24, 2017. Posted in STAAR | EOC Testing. 8 Comments

This is a post I hate to write, but it is sadly necessary. A number of parents choose to opt out by having their kids refuse the assessment. This is completely fine. Choose the best route for you. A growing number of schools have chosen to work with parents to enable the refusal to take place in a secure environment, where the student is not bullied, and then the kid goes back to class. That is the proper and humane approach. And then there are the rest of them.

For some schools, there is a sense of necessity to trick the child or the parent into taking the assessment. Kids are told they must sit in the room for four hours even if they refuse. During that time they may be subjected to pressure from the proctor to attempt the assessment. Even more boldly, multiple instances of trickery have been reported where the child is told that the school has just spoken with the parent and the parent wants the child to try the assessment. This is deceitful and a gross violation of parental rights. But it happens. And it happens every year. And no matter how many times we warn parents, they all claim shock and surprise.

Please take steps to prevent you and your child from being tricked. We advocate using a password system. You and your child agree on a password. Once the child is at school, if they are told that you have agreed to let them take the STAAR, the teacher must give the password. If the teacher can’t tell the student the password, the student knows it is a trick and should continue to refuse. The student needs to be made aware that the teacher or principal may threaten punishments. The student needs to know that these are likely just tricks and the parent will fight for the student no matter what. No password = no attempt. The password gives the child a sense of power and control that the school can’t take away!

I would also send my child to school with several of these:

As soon as they get into the room, set it on the desk. If the teacher asks them to attempt the assessment, they should just hand them the card and tell them they need to talk to the parents.

Between the password and the Dear Teacher card, you can take positive steps to prevent your child from being tricked or bullied into assessment.

IGC Graduation Does NOT Require Two Failed Attempts on EOCs

Written by admin on March 20, 2017. Posted in Other. 2 Comments

Update 2017-2018: We are pleased to note that ESC 12 has removed the two attempt/two failure language from their updated Powerpoints.

It’s always something. For whatever reason, misinformation spreads faster in school districts than lice. And much like lice, the students are always the ones who get the raw end of the deal. Although we ought to be well past the point of arguing about this, apparently ESCs and school counselors are spreading blatantly incorrect information about the eligibility of students to graduate under an IGC. In the Texans Take Action Against STAAR Facebook group today, a counselor posted this completely erroneous statement regarding eligibility for IGC graduation:

“She will need to attempt the test and fail two times before the scores can be accepted or before she is eligible for an IGC .” (emphasis added).

Now, let’s look at what the law actually says. First, let’s consider the Texas Education Code. This is the statute that creates IGC graduation pathways. Although the TEA commissioner may enact rules to implement the statute, he may not add to it. He may not impose on the student greater burdens than the legislature put upon them. Likewise ESCs, ISDs and individual schools may not impose stricter standards than the law requires. The relevant section is § 28.0258

(a) 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.

(b) For each student to whom this section applies, the school district that the student attends 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.

First, note that there is no language limiting the application of the section to students who have attempted and failed their EOCs twice. The limit is that they can be lacking no more than two assessments for graduation. Section (b) tells us that if this section applies to them, the school shall establish an IGC committee to determine whether the student qualifies to graduate. This is mandatory – not permissive – language. The statute then lays out the factors that the committee must consider in “determining whether a student for whom an individual graduation committee is established is qualified to graduate.” Not included in the 15 factors set by statute is any requirement of additional attempts to pass the EOC.

While this should settle the question, let’s look at what the Commissioner’s Rules enacting this section say. The commissioner may impose necessary rules to implement the statute. ESCs, districts and schools cannot add additional requirements.

§74.1025. Individual Graduation Committee Review.

(a) Effective beginning with the 2014-2015 school year, in accordance with the Texas Education Code (TEC), §28.0258, §101.3022 of this title (relating to Assessment Requirements for Graduation), and the course requirements in Chapter 74, Subchapter B, of this title (relating to Graduation Requirements), a school district or an open-enrollment charter school may award a high school diploma to a student who has taken but failed to achieve the end-of-course (EOC) assessment graduation requirements for no more than two courses if the student has qualified to graduate by means of an individual graduation committee.

Arguably, the Commissioner has added to the statute with the requirement that the student have taken the EOC assessment. But even having done that, neither here nor any any other part of the rule, has the commissioner inserted a double attempt/double failure requirement. So why are schools spreading (and I assume implementing) this obviously incorrect interpretation of the law. Enter the ESCs.

Texas has a number of Educational Service Centers dispersed across the state to support local districts in their area. These ESCs give presentations, formulate guides, and generally provide administrative assistance to districts. But they aren’t lawyers and they aren’t exceptionally overstaffed. So when one ESC puts something new out, other ESCs pick it up and run with it. And that is what has happened with the IGC process. Even though the current FAQ on the TEA website contains no reference whatsoever to a double attempt/double failure rule, some ESCs started propogating this as fact. Offenders include Denise Bell/ESC 12, ESC 10 which is circulating an incorrect flow chart from Garland ISD. Educational consultants Moak Casey analyzed the bill and came up with no such double failure requirement.

It is not clear where this idea originated, though there are two possibilities. The first possibility is confusion over the TSI substitution requirements. When SB 149 was passed, the legislature also provided that if a student has passed Texas’s college readiness assessment for Math or English (the TSI test) they may substitute that passage for failure on Math or English as applicable. However, the legislature did put a restriction on this ability to substitute. The TSI substitution provision states:

A student who, after retaking an end-of-course assessment instrument for Algebra I or English II, has failed to perform satisfactorily as required by Subsection (a), but who receives a score of proficient on the Texas Success Initiative (TSI) diagnostic assessment for the corresponding subject for which the student failed to perform satisfactorily on the end-of-course assessment instrument satisfies the requirement concerning the Algebra I or English II end-of-course assessment, as applicable.

This is what a retake/double failure requirement looks like. But this language is not in the IGC provision. It is found only as a pre-requisite for substituting TSI scores for EOC assessments in meeting graduation requirements. Since the legislature in the same bill knew how to add such a requirement, it is patently unreasonable to assume they meant to add it to a section which it is noticeably absent from. Still, it is possible that some administrators may have assumed that the same requirements for substituting TSI scores applied to eligibility for IGCs. But they are different statutes and such an assumption is simply wrong.

The other possibility for confusion lies in a very simple provision that means nothing more than what it says. Toward the end of the IGC statute, the law states:

Notwithstanding any action taken by an individual graduation committee under this section, a school district shall administer an end-of-course assessment instrument to any student who fails to perform satisfactorily on an end-of-course assessment instrument as provided by Section 39.025(b).

Now this section is not a double failure requirement. All this does is provide that even if an IGC approves graduation for a student, the school must continue to give them the assessments they have failed. We know it is not an eligibility provision because it begins by presuming that an IGC already has been formed and taken action. If that happens before any re-test, there can’t be a re-test requirement. No. This just tells a school to keep offering the assessment no matter what the IGC does. It notably does not require the student to be present, to take it, or to perform at any given level. Likewise it does not provide any authority to revisit the IGC decision if the student refuses or is absent from the administration of the EOC. Again, this is very obvious to any lawyer who reads the statute. This can’t be a pre-requisite to eligibility because it presumes that the student is eligible and some action has been taken. However, to a non-lawyer trying to decipher this statute, it is possible it could be confused with a re-test requirement. But it isn’t one.

Truly the most maddening issue with the two test/two failure interpretation is that it does not come from the TEA. Nothing on the TEA website even hints at it. Not that this trumps the actual language of the law, but if there was something as basic as a two attempt/two failure requirement, you would expect to see that front and center in those types of words in the TEA guidance. The absence of such language speaks as loudly as the statute itself. Rather, some administrator somewhere thought they would make this up, and everyone else followed along . . . all to the detriment of the student. Hopefully no students will actually be harmed by this. However, if you run into schools communicating such a construction, please report them to us and if your student is affect, obtain legal counsel promptly.

Conroe ISD Doubles Down on Old Lies

Written by admin on March 13, 2017. Posted in STAAR | EOC Testing. Leave a Comment

We’ve received a report of a demonstrably false e-mail being sent to parents at a Conroe ISD junior high school., McCullough Junior High. The full email is below, but the closing paragraph of the e-mail read as follows:

“Also, as a general reminder to ensure there is no confusion or surprise, Texas students in eighth grade must pass both the STAAR reading and math exams. Note, eighth graders have three attempts to take each test. The first opportunities occur on 3/28 and 3/29. Texas eighth grade students who do not pass the reading and/or exams on the first attempt are required by state law to be pulled out of their regular classes and remediated during the school day for the two weeks leading up to the second administration on May 8 and May 9. Texas students who do not pass after the second attempt are required by state law to attend summer school STAAR Academy and take the test for the third time on June 20 and June 21. As you plan your summer schedule, please note this information in advance.”

So let’s break down the falsehoods this school sees fit to share with parents. We’ll ignore the condescending, if not mocking tone of the opening “to ensure there is no confusion or surprise.”

Texas students in eighth grade must pass both the STAAR reading and math exams. This is false because the Texas Education Code provides that students who do not pass the STAAR math or reading in 5th or 8th grade can be promoted by a Grade Placement Committee. If we look to 2015 (the last time STAAR based retention was on the table), Conroe had a 6% 8th grade English failure rate, but only a 0.6% retention rate. Clearly, 90% of the students who failed STAAR were not retained. They were promoted via GPC just as the statute envisions. Yet, the junior high does not see fit to tell parents that. They only spread the false narrative that 8th grade is a “must pass” year.
Texas eighth grade students who do not pass the reading and/or exams on the first attempt are required by state law to be pulled out of their regular classes and remediated during the school day for the two weeks leading up to the second administration. Again, this is absolutely false. The state requires “accelerated instruction”. It does not specify the time, extent, or method of that instruction. It does not require schools to pull kids out of regular classes. It does not require the remediation be during the school day. It does not require it to last two weeks. These are all local decisions. Apart from being false, this e-mail is a cowardly “pass the buck” approach for schools unwilling to take responsibility for their own local decisions. When a parent complains about their kid being pulled out of class, the school will look them in the face and lie and say “the state requires us to do this.”
Texas students who do not pass after the second attempt are required by state law to attend summer school STAAR Academy and take the test for the third time on June 20 and June 21. The school worked really hard on this sentence to pack two entirely separate lies into one long sentence. First, there is absolutely no state law or rule that requires students who have not passed STAAR after two attempts to attend summer school. Moreover, this isn’t even entirely a local decision. The law, again, requires “accelerated instruction” without requiring any particular duration, content, form, method or location. But that is not a decision that can be made now. The accelerated instruction for each individual student is determined by the Grade Placement Committee, of which the parent is a member. Any school telling you what the decision of that committee will be before it even meets is essentially saying they have no intention of following the specific requirements of Texas law. If the decision is not made by the GPC, it is not valid and can be ignored. Second, state law does not require any student to take the third administration of STAAR. In fact, it explicitly permits a parent to waive the third administration. It is the one circumstance most schools will acknowledge an opt out right. But apparently not in Conroe – they choose to lie, deceive and bully.

Let me try giving this e-mail a re-write for the hapless administration of this poor school.

“Parent partners in education, Texas students in eighth grade will soon take the STAAR reading and math exams. The first administration will occur on 3/28 and 3/29. We hope they will do well. They’ve been working hard. But let’s keep everything in perspective. We know a one time assessment is not a fair picture of your child’s ability. This is why Texas law lets schools promote kids who have not passed STAAR, if they have otherwise shown they are capable of success at the next grade level. If your eighth grade student does not pass the reading and/or math exams on the first attempt, we are required by state law to give them accelerated instruction. We’ll make sure it isn’t disruptive to their classroom learning and communicate the plan to you in advance. Let us know if you have any concerns about our proposed remediation and we’ll work with you. After the second administration on May 8 and May 9, if your student has not passed both Math and Reading STAAR, we will have a GPC meeting to discuss the promotion of your child and any remediation they need to complete before the fall. We’ll also explain how you can choose to waive the third administration of STAAR. As you plan your summer schedule, know that we put your child and your family first. Have a great spring break, relax, and let’s come back and finish the year strong!”

Here is the actual e-mail:

An Open Letter to Mike Morath

Written by admin on June 12, 2016. Posted in STAAR | EOC Testing. Leave a Comment

from Ben Becker

I am a public school parent, and I do want accountability for our schools. What makes a good school is so much more complex than what any single assessment can determine, and I look forward to the day when this is recognized by the Texas Education Agency and the Texas Legislature. Until then, thousands of concerned parents like myself along with educators fighting for authentic instruction will work to mitigate the damage done by a flawed assessment system.

Please do not hide from your own accountability.

I look forward to your response. Our schools and our children are counting on your answers.

Read the full text here

TEA Scraps 5th/8th Grade STAAR Consequences

Written by admin on June 12, 2016. Posted in STAAR | EOC Testing. 3 Comments

Facing a pending deadline to answer the lawsuit filed by four Texas parents challenging the 2016 STAAR administrations for grades 3-8, TEA Commissioner Mike Morath announced major changes to 5th and 8th grade STAAR for this year. In a letter to Texas administrators, Morath announced that the TEA was “removing student consequences attached to STAAR testing for grades 5 and 8 for the remainder of the 2015-16 assessment cycle.” These changes include requiring passage for promotion or requiring accelerated instruction as a result of the STAAR results. GPC meetings (the source of promotion decisions and accelerated instruction plans) are also no longer required. In an interview with the Dallas Morning News, the Commissioner did state that he intended to use the results for accountability ratings for schools. In keeping with the detachment of consequences, the June retest for 5th and 8th graders was cancelled.

The Commissioner left open for district decisions regarding continuing planned accelerated instruction, but made clear it was not a requirement imposed by the state.

Attorneys for the parents stated that they were reviewing the TEA’s announcement and awaiting the answer to the lawsuit.

Call to Action: Comment on Proposed Accountability Rules

Written by admin on June 7, 2016. Posted in Accountability, STAAR | EOC Testing. 2 Comments

Despite knowing that the Grade 3-5, and likely the Grade 6-8 STAAR, assessments do not comply with the time limits set in Education Code, the TEA is moving forward with plans to use those ratings in the 2015-2016 accountability ratings. This is done via the rulemaking process. Parents should submit public comment on this matter to the TEA. The proposed rule is 19 T.A.C. §97.1001. Public comment is accepted until June 27, 2016. Comments may be submitted via e-mail to rules@tea.texas.gov. The following statement, or one similar to it, should be raised in comments.

“The proposed rule 19 T.A.C. §97.1001 should be amended to require that no state assessment instrument may be used in the determination of district or campus accountability ratings unless such assessment complies with the requirements of the Texas Education Code, Texas Administrative Code, and any applicable federal law or regulation.”

Parents may also wish to cite the myriad problems with STAAR administration this year, along with the various superintendent letters on the issue. But please, make sure you include a comment about the assessments needing to comply with the law!!!

If you wish, you can cc TPERN on the e-mail at txedrights “at” gmail.com

TPERN’s public comment is pictured below:

Seguin ISD Files Due Process Complaint Against TEA

Written by admin on June 2, 2016. Posted in Section 504 | Special Education, STAAR | EOC Testing. 1 Comment

Finally! A district has realized the can and must stand up for their students with regard to STAAR assessment.

Although this is a limited scope complaint, it marks, to our knowledge, the first formal complaint made against the TEA for accommodation issues relating to STAAR.

TPERN salutes the Seguin ISD for taking this long overdue action and putting its students before political politeness.

Seguin ISD files complaint against TEA

The “Required” Summer School Notice

Written by admin on April 20, 2016. Posted in STAAR | EOC Testing. 70 Comments

2023 Note: The revisions of HB 4545 eliminated the GPC process. This article is outdated. Note, however, that this year Grades 3-8 are not receiving STAAR results until August. Some schools are attempting to “require” summer school based on predictive results. This is not allowed. Only actual failure to meet standards can result in “required” summer school (you can still opt out). If you took an EOC, failure to meet standards will be available in late May, and you will need to opt out. If you took a Grade 3-8 STAAR, simply reply to the school with this statement: “HB 4545 Accelerated Instruction can only be mandated on actual STAAR results that show the student did not approach grade level standards. It cannot be mandated based on predictions, other assessments or any other assumption of the District. We will discuss Accelerated Instruction when the actual passing standards and actual results are disclosed.”

As the first results of the STAAR assessment come in and the days left in the school year slip away, more and more parentsof kids who failed or did not take the first assessment are receiving notices that their kids are “required” to go to summer school. Round Rock ISD is even sending notices that the district has registered the student for summer school. They may tell you that if they don’t attend, they will be in violation of the compulsory attendance laws. They may tell you that unless you attend summer school you can’t be promoted by the GPC. As parents of 5^th and 8^th graders there is one simple and important fact you need to know:

Schools cannot unilaterally require your child to attend summer school as a result of their STAAR results.

The notices these schools are sending are a blend of truth and fiction, and it is important to understand what part is true and when you need to be concerned about it. Let’s start with the part that has some truth to it. The compulsory attendance statute does state that (d) “Unless specifically exempted by Section 25.086, a student enrolled in a school district must attend:

* * *

(3) an accelerated instruction program to which the student is assigned under Section 28.0211;

and Section 28.0211 (a-1) states that “[a]ccelerated instruction may require participation of the student before or after normal school hours and may include participation at times of the year outside normal school operations.”

This would seem to indicate that a school really can require your kid to go to summer school if they fail STAAR. However, for parents of 5^th and 8^th graders, the key is this. After the second administration of STAAR, if a child has still not passed, the accelerated instruction must be determined by the Grade Placement Committee that you are a part of. This is clear in the statute where it states:

“After a student fails to perform satisfactorily on an assessment instrument a second time, a grade placement committee shall be established to prescribe the accelerated instruction the district shall provide to the student before the student is administered the assessment instrument the third time.”

And the parent is a member of this committee! In other words, the school may not unilaterally send your kid to summer school for not passing STAAR. A quick caution, there is no GPC process for grades 3, 4, 6 or 7. If you get a summer school notice in those grades you will need to either protest and reach a new agreement with the school, exercise your 26.010 opt out rights, or withdraw your child from the school for the summer.

It is apparent based on parental reports that most schools are skipping the GPC meeting after the second administration and sending out summer school notices. So what should the strategy be for parents who are receiving these notices. The first option would be to request your GPC meeting as soon as the second STAAR assessment is taken and come up with an agreeable Accelerated Instruction plan. Since there is no required time, length, form or content of accelerated instruction, I recommend that parents propose a short home based or online program. The more research you have done into what a plan like this would look like, the better chance you have of succeeding. The school just needs to document their file for the state. The more you help them do that, the better chance they agree. The second option would be to simply ignore it. Any accelerated instruction plan following the second assessment that is created by the school and not by the GPC is legally void. Make sure that you are looking carefully for notices and do not miss the meeting if your school schedules one. If you ignore the notice of the GPC meeting, the school can proceed without you.

Finally, please note that when the GPC meets to consider promotion, they are again required to prescribe accelerated instruction. Further, for 5^th and 8^th graders note that “A student who fails to perform satisfactorily on an assessment instrument specified under Subsection (a) and who is promoted to the next grade level must complete accelerated instruction required under Subsection (a-1) before placement in the next grade level. A student who fails to complete required accelerated instruction may not be promoted.” For this reason, it is dangerous to refuse the accelerated instruction that follows the first failed attempt. It is very important that the parents and the school agree on what that accelerated instruction should be. Make sure that when you refuse, the schools agreement is specifically phrased as an agreement on accelerated instruction – not just an exemption or excuse. Again, accelerated instruction can be as simple as a single online lesson or one in school tutorial. Whatever it is, make sure it is documented and agreed.

The Summer School “Threat”

Written by admin on April 19, 2016. Posted in STAAR | EOC Testing. 9 Comments

For 5th and 8th grade students who have received or are about to receive their results, parents commonly hear “if they don’t pass/If they opt out they have to go to summer school.” Please understand, that no school has the authority to tell you that you are going to summer school. By law, accelerated instruction is not decided by the school, the district, the superintendent, or the state. Accelerated instruction is decided by a meeting of the Grade Placement Committee held after the results of the second administration are received. Any “order” or “instruction” issued by anybody other than the Grade Placement Committee is legally invalid.

How will you know if this is a decision of the GPC? Because the parent is a member! Unless you are informed of the meeting, the school cannot hold a GPC meeting. (If you are notified, but don’t attend, the GPC can meet without you.) If there is a GPC meeting, go to it, and demand accelerated instruction that is not summer school. Ask for online learning. Ask for a one day “tutorial”. Ask for a home study/remediation plan. The SSI manual is clear that accelerated instruction has no legally necessary form, length or content. It must be individualized. Show them that in the SSI manual and make them choose the right plan for your child. These are your rights. If the summer school order comes any other way, ignore it. It is not valid.