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.
Odessa Republican Brooks Landgraf has filed HB 736 which would eliminate the use of STAAR for promotion, graduation and accountability purposes. Stay tuned for information on how we can help!
Thanks to Sherry Neeley who has put together this seven step action plan if you get a notice of summer school. TPERN notes are in italics.
1) Send the summer school letter
This should be your first response whenever the school tells you unilaterally that your 5th or 8th grader has to go to summer school as a result of STAAR. Accelerated Instruction decisions (including summer school) are made by a GPC after the results of the second administration are received. If you have not had a GPC, the school is not following the process.
2) Wait for the GPC.
3) Educate before going in to the GPC
Have you read:
This is the most important thing to read. It makes it clear that AI determined by the GPC should be individualized and that there is great flexibility in what can be agreed upon. Know the sections about accelerated instruction, and don’t be fooled by statements that specific things (like summer school) are required. There is so much flexibiity that literally no specific activity is required.
-The GPC guide?
This is a pretty confrontational guide. It may be needed, but we always encourage parents to enter into the GPC process with the idea that we are here to make an agreement with the school. Neither side should demand or dictate. We should all work together to make the best decision for the student.
-seen the summer school info?
4) have some simple at home accelerated instruction plans to offer the school in place of summer school such as Prodigy, Nessy, a reading log, a tutor, a worksheet, etc.
This is very important. If a school is demanding strict compliance with the law, some AI must be given before the student can be promoted. How much and what type is completely up to the committee. Parents can kick start the process by having a clear plan that is matched to the needs of the student.
5) have the waiver of the 3rd assessment completed
Schools do not have to agree to this. The more documentation of harm to the student you can show, the better. I recommend a note from a medical provider. Even if the school rejects this, you can still refuse to participate. The waiver is the one time a school can agree to let the parent refuse assessment. You will learn a lot about their attitude by how they respond to this request.
6) go ahead and have a simple letter typed up that states that you understand that by opting out retention is automatic and this is your formal appeal to the GPC to promote based on grades and classroom performance.
7) know that you can hire a lawyer if things are going badly
For parents of 5th and 8th graders who have opted out or failed STAAR, these flow charts show the process for determination of Accelerated Instruction and Promotion/Retention.
General Education Students (p. 8 of SSI Manual)
Special Education
For special education students, the ARD committee acts as the GPC. (p. 27 of SSI manual)
OK, so a mom from Kissam Elementary is being told that passing STAAR is required to go to 6th grade. Let’s examine how we know this is not true.
First, search for the Academic Performance Report for your school from 2014-2015. It is located here:
The cover looks like this:
Now let’s look at the STAAR passage rate for 5th grade Reading, the only one that counted for SSI last year:
We can see that the failure rate for 5th grade reading last year was 23%. Now if STAAR passage is required for promotion, then the retention rate in 5th grade would be 23%. Basically 1 out of ever 4 kids would have to repeat 5th grade. So let’s see what the Academic Performance report says about retention in the 5th grade:
We see that rather than a 23% retention rate, the actual rate was 0%. (For full disclosure, 15% of special ed kids were retained, but that number gives total retention of about 1.3%, nowhere near the 23% that would be required is STAAR passage was necessary for promotion.
As you can see, every kid who appealed their retention to the GPC was promoted.
This is one example of many. The idea that passing STAAR is required for promotion is utter nonsense. Know the facts and arm yourself!
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!
We have recently been made aware of a document published by the TEA that implies that 5th and 8th graders who do not pass STAAR reading and mathematics exams cannot be promoted. This piece of test propaganda completely omits the promotion process created by law by the Texas Legislature, that permits a Grade Placement Committee to make an individualized promotion decision on any child who has not taken or passed the STAAR reading or mathematics examination. This omission is clearly designed to pressure parents into assenting to STAAR testing that they may feel unnecessary or detrimental to the education of their children. We call upon the Texas Education Agency to withdraw this document from public use and include factual information on promotion paths on any future publications.
