Home ::

The end of a legislative session always signals the beginning of another phase, that of implementing the laws passed during the session. The newest laws include some twists involving legal rulings and federal involvement – here’s what we know so far:

Salaries
The school finance bill passed this spring provided for an increase in teacher salaries, subject to a determination by the commissioner of education that it is an allowable use of federal stimulus funds. In July, the U. S. Department of Education approved Gov. Rick Perry’s application for federal stimulus funds, which included about $2 billion in federal funds for Texas schools. In August, Commissioner Robert Scott determined that the salary increase is a permissible use of the federal funds, so school districts and charter schools will be
required to provide the increase to covered employees.

The new school finance bill includes language providing that every professional employee subject to the state minimum salary schedule will receive a raise. Professionals subject to the minimum salary schedule include classroom teachers, full-time librarians, full-time counselors, and full-time registered nurses. Speech pathologists, though not subject to the minimum salary schedule, will also receive the raise due to efforts by TCTA in coordination with the Texas Speech-Language Hearing Association. (TCTA continues our efforts to persuade lawmakers that paraprofessional salaries must be addressed at the state level; in the meantime, TCTA members can work at the local level to urge administrators to direct some of additional federal funds toward paraprofessional salaries.)


The amount of the required state raise will vary by school district because of the structure of the school finance bill. Every district will receive at least $120 per weighted student (a “weighted student” takes into account any special funding assigned to a student, such as special education, bilingual, etc.). Districts are required to spend an amount equal to $60 per weighted student, less any increased TRS and/or Social Security costs, distributed equally to all employees subject to the state minimum salary schedule in the district. No covered employee will receive less than $800.

Districts will be required to pay these amounts in addition to what each eligible employee would have made in 2009-10 had the district’s salary schedule for 2008-09 been carried forward. Basically, covered employees will get a “step increase” in addition to the $800 or $60 per weighted student, whichever is greater. Districts that do not have a salary schedule should use the hiring schedule to determine the amount of the step increase, according to the interpretation of the law by TCTA staff attorneys. Covered employees at the top of the local schedule in effect for the 2008-09 school year would not receive a step increase unless an additional amount is approved by the local school board. Teachers in charter schools will also receive the increase, but the “step increase” provision does not apply to them.

There will likely be some confusion among school district officials about the raise, as this is the first time that the Legislature has passed a teacher salary increase that varies from district to district. Members with questions about the manner in which the raise is being implemented should contact the TCTA Legal Department at (888) 879-8282.

Changes in high school graduation course requirements
Recent legislation made major changes to Texas high school graduation programs. Although some decisions about how the high school graduation programs will be changed have not yet been made, several issues have emerged that are of note.

With the unexpected and immediate implementation of new graduation requirements, many school districts are starting the new school year scrambling to rearrange courses, schedules and teachers.
One issue is whether certain courses currently required under the recommended high school program (RHSP) will continue to be required. Under House Bill 3, the State Board of Education must require the following for the RHSP:


Completion of four credits in each of the four core curriculum areas, including at least one-half credit in government (currently required as part of the four required social studies credits) and at least one-half credit in economics (previously required as a separate credit), plus two credits in the same foreign language (current), and six electives. HB 3 also reduces the required one and one-half credits in physical education (PE) to one credit.

Under HB 3, the SBOE is prohibited from designating a specific course or specific number of credits in the enrichment curriculum as a requirement for the RHSP. TEA has therefore determined that the following required courses/credits should be eliminated from the RHSP:

  • one-half credit in health education
  • one credit in technology applications
  • one-half credit in PE

Another course currently required under the RHSP is one-half credit of speech. Because speech is not part of the enrichment curriculum, the SBOE could continue to require the course and, as a result, either increase the total number of credits currently required (26) under the RHSP, or leave the total number of credits required under the RHSP the same by designating speech as part of the six electives provided for the RHSP under HB 3.

During initial discussions about these changes to the high school graduation programs at a July 2009 meeting, the SBOE seemed to indicate that it would be inclined to keep the speech credit requirement but did not arrive at a final decision. The SBOE is scheduled to meet for a workshop on the topic in August.

HB 3 makes changes to the other two high school graduation programs (the minimum and advanced high school programs) as well by adding one fine arts credit to the minimum high school program, reducing the one and one-half PE credits required under the advanced high school program to one credit, and increasing the number of electives under the advanced high school program from two and one-half to five. However, according to TEA, since HB 3 does not prohibit the SBOE from designating specific courses in the enrichment curriculum for the minimum or advanced high school programs, the courses eliminated under the RHSP due to HB 3 will NOT be eliminated under the minimum or advanced high school programs.

Graduation changes take effect immediately
Another issue is the timing of when these changes will go into effect. In the past, when making major changes to high school graduation requirements, policymakers have phased in the requirements starting with 9th graders in a future year to avoid changing the rules in the middle of the game for high-schoolers who most likely planned their high school course sequences according to laws/rules that existed at the time they entered high school. However, under HB 3, these changes will go into effect for ALL high-schoolers starting with the 2009-10 school year, with the rationale apparently being that since these changes allow more flexibility and do not require MORE of students (with one exception, noted below), students will not suffer potential harm because of the changes.


The one potential exception to the changes taking effect immediately is the added fine arts credit in the minimum high school program. Apparently TEA is seeking additional information about whether this requirement can be implemented prospectively starting with 9th graders since it does require more than is currently required of students in the minimum high school program.


Local authority to require certain courses
As evidenced by recent media reports, the immediate implementation of these changes is causing a widespread flurry of activity in school districts where schedules, courses and teachers must be adjusted as a result. One of the key questions from school districts seems to be whether a district can continue to require students to take courses no longer required at the state level. According to the FAQ document issued by TEA, the answer appears to be yes.


Grading policies
After TCTA members verified the prevalence of “minimum grade” policies at our annual convention in February, TCTA worked with Sen. Jane Nelson to promote legislation to change this practice. As districts begin to look at changing their policies to comply with the new law, it appears that implementation of the bill could be less straightforward than expected.


SB 2033, passed in the 2009 legislative session, requires districts to adopt a grading policy before the beginning of each school year, and provides that the policy may not require a teacher to assign a minimum grade for an assignment or test that does not reflect the quality of work. All school districts must adopt such a policy, and those that did not have a policy in place or that had a policy in conflict with these provisions may have some significant issues to settle.


Some districts are taking a creative route. For example, the Wichita Falls ISD, which had adopted a minimum grade policy only weeks before the bill passed, revised its policy this summer to provide that while teachers may assign a grade of zero on an individual test or assignment, the policy will retain a provision allowing the district to enter a 50 in the record for a course grade that is lower than 50. TCTA has since heard of several other districts whose grading policies will allow district administrators to change course grades that are below a minimum level.


It remains to be seen whether policies such as this will survive legal challenges seeking interpretation of the new law.


Sick leave
The TCTA-initiated SB 522 (by Sen. Kip Averitt/Rep. Rob Eissler) provides that a district sick leave policy cannot restrict the order in which an employee may use the state minimum personal leave and any additional personal leave provided by the school district. As the law goes into effect beginning with the 2009-10 school year, districts should be considering their leave policies in light of this new requirement and adopting revisions as needed.


Texas school districts must evaluate and potentially revise their leave policies to ensure that employees can choose the order in which they use state and local leave days. The law was passed to allow for the varying personal situations experienced by employees and the differences between local school district leave policies.

Most school employees have more than one type of leave available as a result of the state minimum sick leave program that existed before Sept. 1, 1995, the state minimum personal leave programs that have existed since, and local leave granted in addition to the state program. State law previously did not address an employee’s ability to choose which type of leave to take among the leave options available.

Employees may wish to consider the following factors in deciding when to use which type of leave:

1. Some districts pay employees who retire from the district for unused local leave, making it advantageous to use state days first.


2. After establishing retirement eligibility, a retiree with at least 50 accrued state leave days can purchase a year of service credit to increase benefits, making it advantageous to use local days first.

3. State days transfer among districts; local days generally do not, making it advantageous for employees who may change districts to use local days first.

13th check
In the 2009 legislative session, lawmakers approved a supplemental payment – commonly known as a 13th check – for school retirees. Due to scarce resources, the payment was limited to no more than $500; because of legal concerns over a non-traditional method of financing the payment, it must be approved by the Texas Attorney General.


TCTA recently submitted a legal brief to the Texas Attorney General’s office regarding the $500 13th check for school retirees approved in the 2009 legislative session. HB 3347 authorized the one-time supplemental payment, capped at $500, to certain retirees contingent upon receipt of an attorney general’s opinion concluding that the one-time payment is constitutionally and statutorily permissible. If the attorney general determines that the payment is unconstitutional, the funds will instead go toward increasing the state contribution rate to TRS from 6.4 percent to 6.644 percent. (Note: the state contributed 6.58 percent in the last biennium in order to fund the previous 13th check; the rate was lowered to 6.4 percent in the 2009 session.)


Some policymakers believe that the supplemental check could be unconstitutional for a number of possible reasons: that it is an illegal gift of public funds; that it represents an increase in benefits paid while the TRS fund is not actuarially sound; or that the check falls into the category of “extra compensation” for state officers or contractors, which is not allowed. TCTA’s legal brief addressed all of these issues and urged the attorney general to conclude that the payment is constitutional and serves an important public purpose.

Retired school employees live on a fixed income, while the costs of health care and other necessities have continued to rise. Approximately 80 percent of retired teachers do not receive Social Security, and the TRS annuity is often a school retiree’s only source of income. With the Legislature unwilling to appropriate the billions of dollars it would take to make the fund actuarially sound, which is a pre-condition to increasing benefits for annuitants, this supplemental payment is vital to providing retirees some economic relief.


The attorney general must issue an opinion no later than November 2009.

TCTA will continue to monitor and report on developments on these and other implementation issues as they occur. Continue to check out our website for updates.

Posted: 08/24/09