Tag: opt out

Ten Texas Opt Out Myths, and the Real Story Behind Them

Written by admin on . Posted in STAAR | EOC Testing. 2 Comments

Updated January 19, 2021

STAAR season is upon us.  And with it comes the annual posting of opinions, “law” and procedures that people have been told are true or represent a sure path to successful refusal of the assessment.  In this post, we discuss seven common myths that represent things that schools say, that parents say or that simply float around as truisms, when they are not!

Myth #1. If you opt out, your child cannot be promoted.

Other than for grades 5 and 8, promotion is not tied to performance on the STAAR assessment. While some local school boards may have a different policy, most follow the state law and only require STAAR passage for promotion in Grades 5 and 8. Check your ISD board policy EIE (Local) for your specific rules. By the way, even for Grades 5 and 8, the statute provides a pathway to promotion for students who fail or refuse to take the STAAR assessment.

Myth #2. A school cannot retain a child unless the parent agrees.

Each school district can set its standard for promotion and retention. They do not need your permission to retain your student. For students who did not pass STAAR or who opted out in Grades 5 and 8, the decision to promote the student must be unanimous from the Grade Placement Committee (which includes you as a parent). The decision to retain does not have to be unanimous.

Myth #3. Students are required by law to take the STAAR test.

Schools are required by law to assess students. An administrative regulation suggests that the students must be assessed.  The statute places no obligation on a student or parent to take the assessment and provides no mechanism to compel participation.

Myth #4. A student who fails the STAAR or opts out must go to summer school.

Schools are required to offer students who do not perform satisfactorily on the STAAR what is called “accelerated instruction.” There is no specific definition of what constitutes AI or when it must take place. There is absolutely no rule that requires it to occur during the summer or on the school’s campus. A school has a high degree of flexibility to design an AI plan appropriate for each student, and parents have successfully refused on campus summer instruction or designed their own AI programs with no negative consequences.

Myth #5. There is a difference between Opting Out and Refusing the Assessment

This myth is based on the idea that our legal system operates using magic words. It doesn’t. Whether you are informing the school that you intend to Opt Out or Refuse, you are conveying the same message: that you will not permit your child to be assessed. The key here is to be clear with the school that you are not asking permission; you are simply informing them of your decision.

Myth #6. The Supreme Court has decided that parents have the right to refuse assessments for their kids.

There is absolutely no case law on this point at the Supreme Court level. People who perpetuate this myth take decisions that looked at the right to private education, or did not even deal with schooling, and try to stretch the language to fit standardized testing. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of cases involving curricular issues are decided against parents who are trying to exempt their child from curricular choices made by the school. However, we have never found a case where the court has said that a school may compel participation against a parent’s decision, even where the parent accepts the consequences of non-participation. We believe this is a fundamentally different question than those cases that seek exemption without consequence.

Myth #7. If you Opt Out, you must keep your child home the full week due to make up dates.

This may be a myth or it may be true. Some schools have used common sense and permitted students to return to class on make up days without completing the assessment. Those schools usually require the student to write refused on the assessment booklet. So this is something a parent can negotiate with a school. If you go this route, arrange it beforehand and be present for the refusal. Make sure your child knows that they should not take the assessment without hearing from you directly. You may want to have a “password” that the child must hear before they agree to take the assessment. Another option if schools refuse to permit a return to class is to keep your child home in the morning until it is too late in the day to start the STAAR. The STAAR cannot be administered unless time for the full testing window remains in the school day.

Myth #8. A school can’t retain a student with all passing grades just for failing STAAR.

Sadly in 5th and 8th grade this is not true.  In all other grades, including high school, grade level promotion is not based on passing STAAR.  However, in 5th or 8th grade, it is absolutely possible for a student to pass all classes, fail STAAR, and be retained.  This is part of what makes high stakes assessment so abhorrent.  Now, the reality is that almost no kids who are passing their classes are retained for failing STAAR, but it is irresponsible to suggest somehow that it can’t happen.  It also makes STAAR look less punitive than it is, and that minimizes the incentive of people to work to change the testing regime.

Myth #9. They can’t keep you from graduating if you are passing all your classes

Again, not true. The law requires a student to pass all five EOC assessments to be assured of graduation. If a student passes 3 out of 5, they may be approved for graduation by the Individual Graduation Committee. However, this is not automatic. Even if the student gets to an IGC, the IGC can still deny graduation to a student, even a student with passing grades in all classes. The IGC is not bound to graduate anyone, and each year students with passing grades still do not graduate at the IGC level. It’s not common, but it happens. And if the student has not passed three assessments, they never get to the IGC. (Different rules apply for Special Ed students, and the assessment count may vary for students transferring into Texas from another state or from a private school). High school parents should review our article What About High School? for more information on opt out and the high school student.

Myth #10. There really is no option to Opt Out of STAAR

Just shut up.  Thousands of parents opt out their kids out of STAAR every year.  The schools do not have to agree with it, they do not have to (and likely will not) give permission and they do not have to make it easy (though any true professional would).  There is absolutely no means created by statute for the school to compel the attendance and participation of any student in STAAR assessments.  Arguably, a statutory right to opt our exists, but even if it doesn’t, this is still a parental decision that the school has no means to override.  Schools don’t get to decide what is OPTING OUT and what is not. This type a language is an attempt to control the narrative and intimidate parents.  As parents we need to stop enabling this kind of nonsense talk.  You can keep your kid home, or send them and have them not answer a single question.  Done, you have OPTED to take your kid OUT of the data driven assessment game.  You win.  Just don’t tolerate this idiotic language game for a minute.

Midland ISD Threatens to Retain Students for Opt Out

Written by admin on . Posted in STAAR | EOC Testing. 1 Comment

We have received two reports of parents in the Midland ISD being threatened with retention of their child if they follow through on their opt out plans.  These students are not in 5th or 8th grade.  As a result, state law does not require passage of the STAAR for promotion to the next grade level.  In fact, after receiving these reports TPERN investigated the local board policies for Midland ISD.  Midland ISD policy EIE (Local) is clear:

In grades 1–8, promotion to the next grade level shall be based on an overall average of 70 on a scale of 100 based on course-level, grade-level standards (essential knowledge and skills) for English/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies.

In other words, if you pass your core classes, you get promoted.  Period.  Other parts of the policy make it clear that Grade Level Advancement contingent on STAAR passage applies only to 5th and 8th grade students.  So why the threats?  First, some administrators believe parents are too stupid or too passive to push back against a threat to their child, even when that threat would require the school to ignore its own policies.  Second, the TEA and school district attorneys are warning districts that 2015 could see massive increases in Opt Out numbers.  Rather than address the underlying issue, or seek reconciliation with district parents and taxpayers, the path of confrontation, threats and intimidation is being recommended to school districts.  Clearly, school district lawyers will benefit from this by generating more work and legal fees.  The reason for their recommendation is bathed in self-interest.  It is less clear why a school district led by elected trustees would feel fighting and threatening your constituents — to the extent of stating that the district will ignore its own policies — is good stewardship.

Parents looking to opt out of STAAR assessment should be prepared to critically examine every reason, excuse or threat given by the school district.  In particular please report any threats to retain students using our Incident Report form.  In many cases, the schools simply parrot the self-interested advice given to them by the TEA or their attorneys.  As seen by the Midland ISD example, these threats are often false and hollow.  What a sad state of affairs that lying and threatening parents and kids for data collection is seen as acceptable behavior.  But what a powerful testimony to the real strength of the opt out movement.  Stand your ground.  Change is coming!

An Opt Out Course for Schools

Written by admin on . Posted in Constitutional, STAAR | EOC Testing. 6 Comments

If there was any doubt that the Opt-Out movement is gaining steam and raising real concerns among school districts, administrators and the TEA, that doubt was put to rest when one of the state’s premier education law firms, Walsh, Anderson, which represents dozens, if not hundreds, of school districts around the state, created a special Audio Seminar for its client school districts entitled ““OPTING-OUT” OR “OPTING-IN”  – AN OVERVIEW OF PARENTS’ RIGHTS”.  Along with this audio conference, a handout was provided which will undoubtedly mirror the response letters parents receive this year from Walsh, Anderson represented districts.  The handout, which is linked at the end of the article, ranges from condescending to didactic to, at times, realistic about the growing demand from parents that school districts recognize their parental right to remove their children from state assessments administered as part of the STAAR/EOC assessment program.  In this article, I will focus on a limited number of the Walsh, Anderson arguments.  I want to preface this by saying that, notwithstanding the “hard line” espoused by the Walsh, Anderson lawyers who wrote this piece, we have resolved numerous disputes with Walsh, Anderson-represented districts to the satisfaction of our parent clients. My chief misgiving about this document is that the lawyers writing it had several opportunities to offer sound legal advice to administrators about how they can bridge the gap between the demands of parents and the demands of the TEA and still remain within the letter of the law.  They chose not to offer that advice.  This is disappointing, because it sets up unnecessary conflict that neither parents nor school administrators want.  Indeed, the paper opens by admitting that “many school districts and school personnel agree that Texas pedagogy has become too focused on standardized testing,” but then fails to help those districts or school personnel who may wish to find creative solutions to parent demands that will satisfy both the TEA, the district, parents, and, most importantly, student needs.  It is a missed opportunity, and one that will needlessly increase conflict between districts and parents.

The 26.010 Debate

Predictably, the seminar started with a review of the Education Code’s opt out provision contained in section 26.010 and the infamous “avoid a test” language.  Although the author accuses Opt Out groups of deceiving parents by not telling them about the portion of the statute that refers to avoiding a test, nearly every opt out group educates parents about this issue because it is the anticipated response parents receive from the school.  What the seminar fails to address is whether the “avoid a test” language refers to intent or effect.  The provision that states “[a] parent is not entitled to remove the parent’s child from a class or other school activity to avoid a test.” No cases have determined whether this language refers to the motivation of the parent or to the effect of the opt out decision.  If the former, then the myriad reasons that parents have to oppose the Texas assessment regime clearly evince a motivation that is far beyond avoiding a test.  If the latter, then the school’s interpretation is correct (assuming a STAAR assessment is the same thing as a “test”).  However, this question has never been answered and should not be so neatly dismissed by school districts.

However, the most disingenuous part of this paper is the contention that subsection (b) of the statute also serves to prohibit opt out rights.  Subsection (b) reads, in the relevant part, “[t]his section does not exempt a child from satisfying grade level or graduation requirements in a manner acceptable to the school district and the agency.”  This is no limitation on opt out rights, period.  To claim otherwise shows either an inabilty to read a statute or simple pandering to the TEA and school districts.  This section makes clear that simply because one opts out, they are not exempt from grade level or graduation requirements. (Incidentally, the inclusion of this section could be read as implicitly recognizing that parents can opt out of state assessments.)  In other words, if you opt out, you aren’t therefore exempt from promotion or graduation requirements.  Note, however, that it recognizes the existence of other acceptable means of meeting the requirements.  In Grade 5 or 8, that means a GPC meeting.  In high school, it may mean completion of a substitute assessment,  or simply accepting a certificate of completion rather than a diploma.  What it does not mean, however, is that this section is any type of limitation on the existence of opt out rights.

Finally, the author of this presentation dismissively treats the distinction, created by the Legislature, between an assessment and a test, using arguments intended to persuade non-lawyers, but which are ultimately weak legal arguments.  First, she suggests that to understand that the words “test” and “assessment” mean the same thing in the statute, we should look at the TEA rules.  However, most law students could tell you that regulations cannot alter statute.  Simply because the TEA wants it to mean the same thing, doesn’t make it so.  Quite to the contrary.  The author reliance on an Attorney General’s opinion that refers to assessments as tests in a clause in one sentence likewise proves the point.  Again, the starting point for interpreting the law is not the regulations and not an AG opinion, it is the plain language of the law and the rules of statutory construction to resolve any ambiguity.  Among the rules relevant here are “'[w]ords and phrases that have acquired a technical or particular meaning, whether by legislative definition or otherwise, shall be construed accordingly.’. . . .We further presume that the Legislature selected statutory words, phrases, and expressions deliberately and purposefully.” Great-W. Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Texas Atty. Gen. Child Support Div., 331 S.W.3d 884, 893 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011, pet. denied).  Here we know the Legislature has carefully distinguished between tests and assessments.  Although the author argues that the words “test” and “assessment” are used interchangeably throughout the statute, this is simply not true.  Take, for example, Chapter 39 of the Education Code, which is the very section that sets forth the assessment scheme for the State of Texas.  In that entire section, there is only one instance of “test” arguably being used to refer to the state assessments (and that is in reference to receipt of the materials from the contractor and is limited to 5th and 8th grade assessments). Every other usage of the word “test” in Chapter 39 refers to either field testing of questions, or to SATs or AP tests.  In contrast, that section uses the word “assessment” over 450 times.  That is not exactly interchangeable.  Moreover, in Chapter 26, the section on parent rights, “assessment” and “test” are never used interchangeably.

However, these are the best arguments that the schools could come up with, and we will see them again in 2014-2015.

What Constitutional Rights?

The memo further dismisses parental assertions that their 14th Amendment rights permit them to opt out.  The author of the memo writes that “such arguments [are] not based on any legal premise, rather, the argument essentially consists of ‘I’m right and you’re wrong.’”  Not to be too flippant, but the legal premise is quite clear and really not open to controversion.  It goes like this: “The US Constitution trumps state law where the two conflict.”  It’s called the Supremacy Clause and is well established.  This dismissive approach to parental concerns is not helpful, nor is it good counseling to school district clients.  Now, there is a real question as to whether the 14th Amendment permits a parent to opt out without consequence from state assessments.  I would suggest that the weight of current authority suggests that states have the ability to enact assessment schemes and attach consequences to the failure to perform satisfactorily on the assessments.  The 14th Amendment likely does not permit a parent to claim exemption from the assessment scheme.  However, that is a very different question than whether a school can (or should) contravene the instruction of a parent to their child that they are to refuse to complete the assessment.  We are very clear with any parent that we counsel that there are potential consequences to opting out.  Indeed, I find one of the greatest strengths of the opt-out movement is the willingness of the parents to accept the consequences.  We believe that under the 14th Amendment, parents have a relatively unfettered right to instruct their children not to participate in activities that they find morally objectionable or that they believe may pose mental or physical harm to their child.  The school may attach consequences to that decision, but they may not contravene or override a parent’s direction to their child on this issue.  We do believe this is a fundamental right of the parent and worthy of much greater respect from the districts and their attorneys.

Mark S for Score

The presentation next turns to another issue raised by TPERN and many parents: the insistence of the TEA that assessments assigned to students who refuse them be marked as “S” and returned for scoring as a zero.  As TPERN pointed out in an earlier article, this results in blatant data manipulation, resulting in a representation that students who never took the assessment were actually assessed.  Other codes currently exist which would accurately reflect the situation, and most states — including those with sizeable opt out movements — accurately reflect when students are not assessed.  For reasons that appear completely grounded in intimidation and shaming, the TEA insists that any student who refuses to be assessed be labeled as having been assessed and missing every question.  The TEA even instructs the school district to assist them with this data manipulation.

Walsh, Anderson’s advice to school districts is as expected: do whatever the TEA tells you to do whether it is right or wrong.  They do not address data manipulation, other than to assure the school districts that the chance of being prosecuted for marking the score sheet “S” is “extremely low”, which must be reassuring to an administrator.  Interestingly, they note that the TEA may change the scoring instructions this year.  We strongly urge the TEA (and districts actually engaged enough to offer input to the TEA) to mark refused assessments in a manner that tells an accurate story: this student was not assessed.  Shaming, blaming and intimidating parents and students is a strategy that will backfire and will only increase parental opposition to high stakes testing.  We can make a difference here.  It is a shame that given an opportunity to educate and engage their clients, this law firm has chosen instead to just urge them to go along with everything that the TEA says instead of engaging the TEA on a rule-making issue to assure that assessment results reflect reality.

Opting Out of Accelerated Instruction

Whatever the STAAR assessment may be, there is no question that the Accelerated Instruction (“AI”) that schools “offer” to students who have not passed the STAAR is not a test.  Thus section 26.010 clearly permits a parent to opt out of this objectionable instruction.  Amazingly, however, and without any legal analysis whatsoever, the school districts’ lawyer instructs her clients that a “school district is simply not permitted by law to grant these requests.”  This selective type of statutory interpretation reeks of cowering before the TEA, as the lawyer herself calls this “a legal interpretation that TEA has affirmed.”  The TEA and Walsh, Anderson are simply wrong about this.  There is no rational argument that section 26.010 does not mean precisely what it says.  If the legislature wanted to place accelerated instruction in the same category as a test, it knows exactly the language to use to do that.  It chose not to.  There is only one conclusion to draw from that: accelerated instruction is unambiguously within the scope of 26.010, and not within the small class of exclusions contained in the statute.

Moreover, the districts’ lawyers have missed an extremely important opportunity to find common ground between parents and schools.  Although the statute requires schools to offer accelerated instruction, there is absolutely no statutory delineation of what that instruction must include, the amount which must be offered, or the location where it takes place.  This intended flexibility contained in the statute has enabled us to reach very reasonable agreements with school districts to permit the AI to be a home study program, to be proposed by the parents as to content, and to include little to no on-campus component, thus assuring that students are not removed from electives, physical education or fine arts programming for test prep.  If the attorney counseling the school districts were interested in helping the districts work together with parents, this should have been pointed out immediately and offered as a way to reach an amicable resolution with parents.  Most parents don’t object to their child learning more math or English.  They object to the loss of curriculum-enriching courses; they object to mindless test prep worksheets; they object to the segregation and grouping of their students in activities that signify STAAR failure to their peers.  Schools have tremendous flexibility to craft AI programs for individual students.  Rather than (wrongly) telling schools they must deny all AI opt out requests, a far better approach would have been to tell administrators that they can work together with parents to find solutions that meet the needs of everyone involved.  It is a shame that opportunity was wasted.

Conclusions

Despite the dismal view of parental rights taken by counsel for the districts, there remains some good news in this handout.  First, the Opt Out movement is being recognized as a force in education that must be dealt with at the state and local levels.  Unfortunately, the chosen method of dealing with the movement still seems to be confrontation, rather than reconciliation.  Hopefully, some districts will realize that it is politically perilous to favor the central planners in Austin over their local parents and start to find solutions that work for parents and schools, both.  Likewise, we also hope that the TEA will change its scoring policy on refused assessments and accurately report who has been assessed and who has not been.  Again, the districts could have been urged to engage on this issue, rather than sit like potted plants waiting for the decision of the TEA to be passed down from on high.  Finally, the attorney’s advice, wholly lacking in legal analysis, instructing districts that they must reject AI opt out requests may be the shortest section of the memo, but it is, unfortunately, the one that signals that districts are being told to, and will, follow a path of confrontation, not reconciliation, with parents objecting to the overreach of standardized testing in the schools.  While this may be quite desirable for school law attorneys who will be busily responding to parent requests at growing rates, we do not believe this will be positive for districts, schools, or parents who are best served by finding ways to work together to improve the overall educational experience of the district’s students.

[The link to this presentation was removed due to a copyright claim by Walsh, Anderson.  Parents wishing to view the presentation should make a Public Information Act request to their local school district to see if they received it.]

Article by: Scott Placek, Arnold & Placek, P.C.

Pull Out Interventions – The Power to Say No

Written by admin on . Posted in STAAR | EOC Testing. 1 Comment

A recent posting on the Texas Parent’s Opt Out Facebook Group raised the issue of schools removing children from elective courses several days a week for STAAR Intervention or Tutoring.  Thanks to some information from teacher members of the group, we were alerted to a provision of HB 5 that limited pull out instruction to 10% of the total class days, unless a parent agrees in writing to a larger number.  This is consistent with attendance credit provisions found elsewhere in the statute that require 90% attendance to receive credit. (See discussion from Texas Music Educator’s Association) This provision was put in place to limit schools ability to remove kids from elective courses without parental agreement.

The actual statute is clear:

The board of trustees of each school district shall adopt and strictly enforce a policy limiting the removal of students from class for remedial tutoring or test preparation. A district may not remove a student from a regularly scheduled class for remedial tutoring or test preparation if, as a result of the removal, the student would miss more than 10 percent of the school days on which the class is offered, unless the student’s parent or another person standing in parental relation to the student provides to the district written consent for removal from class for such purpose.

Tex. Educ. Code sec. 25.083(b).  This does not mean, however, that a school district has the unrestricted ability to deprive a student of 10% of their elective class periods.  A parent can decline or opt out of accelerated and remedial STAAR instruction under section 26.010.  A form AI opt out letter is available on our site.

This 10% pullout statute may be one reason we see more school denying electives and creating actual remedial classes.  In that regard, the statute may have negative unintended consequences.  As a parent, you should continue to advocate for your child’s schedule and the removal of remedial classes that you deem unnecessary.  If your child is placed in a remedial class, the school may deny that Opt Out is permissible under the statute.  You should verify that the class is listed in the district’s course catalog, and if it is not, inform them that you are not avoiding an entire class, but rather that your are refusing remedial instruction.  If the school has placed a remedial STAAR course in their catalog, your can still argue that the class is not a “subject” as your student is already enrolled in subject courses.  Rather, it is a remedial tutoring class, which you object to and refuse to enroll your child in.

If a school district refuses to remove your child from a remedial class and refuses your right to opt out, please notify us using the Incident Report form!

Fighting the Opt Out Truancy Threats: Dual Enrollment Home Schooling

Written by admin on . Posted in Constitutional, Homeschooling, STAAR | EOC Testing. 17 Comments

Schools are actively brandishing the threat of truancy charges against parents who exercise their fundamental liberty rights to direct the education of their children and protect them from abusive testing regimens.  Schools have sent threatening letters and in some cases actually filed truancy charges against both parents and children if they missed10 days (unexcused) in a six month period or more than three days in a four week period.  We have seen letters threatening to file truancy charges against nine year old students, even though the statute only makes truancy criminal if the child is between 12 and 18 years of age.  It is less clear if parents can be charged for truancy of children under age 12 because of the confusing way the statute is written.  One argument would say that the days missed calculation applies to students of all ages for purposes of charging the parent.  Another argument would say that the days missed calculation can only be determined by reference  to the age of the child, and therefore parents can’t be charged if the student is under 12.  We predict schools will take the first interpretation and file charges against parents and force them to argue in court, at risk of conviction, that the second interpretation should prevail.  We do not believe schools will file against any student under age 12.  (Please file an Incident Report with us if they do)

Rather than depend on legal semantics to fight the charges, parents do have other options.  Please note, none of these options have been tested in court.  There is always a risk that a judge may reject them, but we believe they are legally sound.  The first option is the withdraw/re-enroll option discussed in a previous article.  The main requirement here is that if charges are filed, you must demonstrate that you have an actual home school program during the time of disenrollment that includes a study of good citizenship.  Curriculum purchased or downloaded from the internet, along with assignments from the days of withdrawal would support this factual finding.  Of course, if you take this route, you are faced with multiple withdrawals and re-enrollments during a school year.  This is a time consuming undertaking.  We also believe local school boards may try to pass policies to combat this if this approach becomes prevalent.  For this reason, we are proposing a new approach.  Again, this approach is legally untested, but we believe it to be valid and consistent with state law.

The approach is what we call Homeschool Co-Enrollment.  At its heart, Homeschool Co-Enrollment is the essence of what schools should seek in a family’s approach to education.  In Homeschool Co-Enrollment, parents are actively involved supporting and supplementing the academic development of their child.  Homeschool Co-Enrollment exists informally in many ways.  Sunday School classes, academic tutoring centers, and family reading times are all examples of homeschooling that we engage in informally, not to mention giving homework help and quizzing your child to prepare for tests.  Our proposal is for a family that intends to take their kids out of school during STAAR testing to make this relationship formal.

Continue reading

Opting Out and Truancy: A Hollow Threat or Big Stick?

Written by admin on . Posted in STAAR | EOC Testing. 1 Comment

A recent tactic by school districts faced with opt out requests has been to not so subtly suggest to parents that if they keep their children home on STAAR administration and make up days, the schools will report the parent to the appropriate agency for institution of truancy charges. Truancy courts have become an increasingly common tactic used by courts to compel the attendance of the child in the public schools. The charges are criminal in nature and pose the risk of fines up to $500. For that reason, it is important that parents keeping their kids out of school for STAAR testing days be aware of the specifics of their district’s policies. Because each district can have local attendance policies, this article cannot be used for specific advice about your district. However, each district must adhere to the minimums established by the state law. If your absences comport with the state law, districts must recognize them. So what do parents need to know?

1. Truancy charges can only be based on unexcused absences. As a result, you must know what types of absences are excused. The Education Code provides certain absences that MUST be excused, and other types that may be excused at the district’s discretion. This article deals only with the absences that state law requires to be excused. Under section 25.087 of the Education Code, they are as follows:

(b) A school district shall excuse a student from attending school for:
(1) the following purposes, including travel for those purposes:
(A) observing religious holy days;
(B) attending a required court appearance;
(C) appearing at a governmental office to complete paperwork required in connection with the student’s application for United States citizenship;
(D) taking part in a United States naturalization oath ceremony;
(E) serving as an election clerk; or
(F) for a child in the conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services, attending a mental health or therapy appointment or family visitation as ordered by a court under Chapter 262 or 263, Family Code; or
(2) a temporary absence resulting from an appointment with a health care professional if that student commences classes or returns to school on the same day of the appointment.

Most of these excuses are unlikely to coincide with a specific STAAR administration. However, for parents who are Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox) there is a “holy day” almost every day, as one saint or another is commemorated by the Church. It may be a saint truly important to your family that merits a day of prayer and contemplation. April 21 is also the First Day of Ridvan in the Baha’i faith, Orthodox Christians commemorate the Holy Martyr Eupsychios on April 22 and wider Christianity recognizes April 23 as St. George Day. Those absences are excusable under state law, and it is improper for the school to inquire into the sincerity of your beliefs.

April Saint Days – Catholic
may catholic saints day
May Saint Days – Catholic

2. Being sick is not automatically excused. Notice what is missing in the statutory list of excused absences — illness. Absences for illness are strictly a local concern and you must be certain to comply with whatever policy your school district has to the letter! Scheduling a doctor’s appointment does not create an excused absence under state law. The statute specifically provides that to be excused for a doctor’s appointment, the student must either start or return to class on the same day as the appointment. If you meet that requirement (even if the child is at school for only five minutes), the absence must be excused.  Many parents utilize this provision by assuring that the child either leaves school for the appointment before STAAR testing begins, or returns to school with insufficient time remaining for the child to take the STAAR assessment.

3. Truancy laws have two components: credit and crime. The first component is what is called the 90% rule. It states that a student “may not be given credit or a final grade for a class unless the student is in attendance for at least 90 percent of the days the class is offered.” (Tex. Educ. Code sec. 25.092 (a)). Missing a week probably won’t put your student at risk, but if they have a lot of other absences, this could be a problem. The 90% rule applies to BOTH excused and unexcused absences, so make sure you count all the absences when you do the math. Also, the 90% is more like a 90% guideline. A student who is in attendance for 75-90% of the classes may be given credit after review by an attendance committee.

4. The crime component may not apply if your child is under age 12. Sec. 25.0951 of the Education Code requires a school to make certain truancy referrals. It is mandatory for the school to refer a student and parent to the appropriate court if the student, without excuse, fails to attend school for “10 or more days or parts of days within a six-month period in the same school year.” It is optional, but permitted, for the school to make the referral if, again without excuse, the student “fails to attend school without excuse on three or more days or parts of days within a four-week period.” The key though, is this: parental liability is tied to student absences under Sec. 25.094. On its face, 25.094 only applies if the student “is 12 years of age or older and younger than 18 years of age.” Threats about truancy referrals for children under age 12 seem to be nothing but bullying and coercion. Whether the parent can still be referred is an open question.  You may wish to consult a criminal attorney about this if you have concerns, however. The age limit does not affect the 90% rule.  Please note, we believe schools will refer parents for absences of children under age 12.  The child should not be liable, and the parents can argue that the statute is vague and does not apply to them, but we believe there is a good chance a court will enforce it at the trial court level.

Note: If you have been threatened with a truancy referral for a child under age 12, please complete an Incident Report so we can track this abusive behavior!!

5. Are there any other options? Yes. If you have a district that is going to make a truancy referral, or insists that your child must sit in the testing room even while refusing the test either on test day or make up day, you do have the ultimate weapon. Withdrawal. Because Texas recognizes home schooling, you can always withdraw your child from public school the day before the STAAR and re-enroll after the last makeup day. The Texas Association of School Boards has advised the schools that they must honor these withdrawal and re-enrollment requests. One funny note from the statute — in order to meet compulsory attendance standards, your home school must include a study on good citizenship. Maybe you can study the constitution or the fundamental liberty interest that parents have in the education of their children!

– Scott Placek

© 2022 Texas Parents' Educational Rights Network