This is an exact quote from the working paper of a senior adviser to Straus:

Option 1

Year 1–50% reduction from target revenue & 50% reduction from regular program

Year 2–50% reduction from target revenue & 50% reduction from regular program

Provisions sunset 8/31/2-13

Interim Committee to study school finance

Option 2:

Year 1 — proportionate reduction under current funding structure (Eissler)

Year 2–implementation of 1st year of SB 22 (Shapiro 25%/75%)

Estimate $4 billion owing FYs 2014 and 2015

Provisions sunset 8/31/2013

Interim Committee to study public school finance

There is an “understanding” that House Appropriations and Senate Finance can set the rates.

Everything that I have written here comes from two documents that I have seen, one from Sylvester Turner, the other from the senior Straus adviser.

* * * *

These were the two options that were on the table. The conferees chose to go with Option 2.

Eissler (pro-ration) is a 6% cut for all districts, including low target-revenue districts. In other words, the poorest districts get hurt the most.

SB 22, which I believe was the best of all options, is much better for poor districts.

The House insisted on a Sunset provision in two years.

Tagged: Florence Shapiro, Rob eissler, school finance

First, here’s an update from Abby Rappaport on the House:

Dawnna Dukes just lost the most exciting battle thus far on her amendment to eliminate school closures. Dukes spoke at length about the troubles at Webb Elementary School and argued that some school districts don’t mind school closure.  “That just means one less building with M&O that they don’t have to deal with in a part of town they weren’t paying attention to,” she said.

Rob Eissler motioned to table as he maintained that no school has to be closed under his bill and in fact there are more options for schools now (reconstitution in stead of closure, a year after reconstitution and a year at the commissioner’s discretion for improving schools).  After lengthy debate, Dukes lost on a division vote.

But until now, things have been pretty calm. Eissler had only motioned to table one other amendment (out of 26). The other amendment, from Guillen, would have changed the minimum plan to the “standard plan.” And Eissler and Ryan Guillen compromised on “basic plan.” No harm, no foul.
Most of the other amendments have focused on strengthening Career and Technical programs to ensure rigor. Some, like Patrick Rose and Marc Veasey, sought to ensure classes would maintain end of course exams and could be revoked if they did not maintain standards. Al Edwards even went so far as to require that the CT classes help students prepare for the work world by addressing  “workforce etiquette and dress and grooming standards” in addition to emotional readiness.

Joaquin Castro got his amendment asking the commissioner to consider a district’s promotion of “college aspirations” and Eddie Lucio is working an amendment to limit school counselors’ time away from their core job of advising students. Although Castro told us a while back that strengthening the role of guidance counselor may be a part of top ten percent compromises, Lucio said his amendment have nothing to do with such discussions.

Meanwhile,  the Senate debate has been mostly calm, but Steve Ogden is strenuously objecting to an amendment by Royce West which would delay implementation until 2013-14.  West argues that it will take time to develop new tests to determine college readiness in certain areas.

“You make it sound like it’s rocket science and it’s not. I submit to you that you and I could sit down and write the Alrgebra I test in a week. I would suggest its another excuse to delay accountability…While we fiddle Rome bills.”

West unashamedly took refuge behind Florence Shapiro’s skirt, asking Ogden if he trusted the Senate’s education chairwoman’s judgement — pointing out she deemed  the amendment acceptable. West prevails, 20-9.

Tagged: dawnna dukes, eddie lucio, Florence Shapiro, joaquin castro, marc veasey, patrick rose, Rob eissler, royce west, ryan guillen

By Abby Rapoport

Given the amount of prep work Rob Eissler has done to make HB 3 acceptable to the potential critics, today’s debate on education accountability may well breeze along. But if the sparks start to fly, here are some fires to watch out for:

Career and Technical Standards

Dora Olivo, the sole nay vote on the Public Ed committee, has been vocal in her concerns that the new standards allow Career and Technical classes to count in the four by four grid. “This isn’t shop!” Eissler said, in defending the new system. The issue illustrates the divide between Eissler, who sees CT classes as opportunities for relevance and advancement and Olivo, who worries that such classes will represent a return to “tracking” that allows counselors to push at-risk students into classes with less rigorous standards. Olivo wants CT classes to have the same rigorous standards as classes in the “recommended” and “advanced” diploma plans.

Testing

Olivo has been firm in her criticism of an accountability system based on testing. Eissler’s bill represents a significant departure from high-stakes testing; his bill only requires students to pass two end-of-course exams, in Algebra II and English III, as opposed to the Shapiro’s version Senate’s version, which has eight exams students must take. Olivo’s uneasiness with standardized tests is rooted in the criticisms of several UT education professors. Let’s just say that this is where the debate could get testy.

(more…)

Tagged: accountability bills, dora olivo, Rob eissler

This post was written by by Abby Rapoport, Texas Monthly intern–PB

HB 3, Rob Eissler’s school accountability bill, passed out of committee with only one “no” vote—no easy feat given the opposition he faced from many school groups and minority lawmakers when he laid out the bill a month ago. The bill addresses what Eissler calls, “the three Rs—rigor, relevance and relationships.”

Ultimately, the bill pushes Texas to become one of the top ten states in achieving post-secondary readiness. It requires districts to increase the number of students meeting college readiness standards–not just passing standards–and follows students during their college years to see if readiness standards are sufficient to assure college success. The education commissioner determines the specifics of the standards, but the trend toward post-secondary readiness is clear. It offers three high school diploma plans—advanced, recommended, and minimum. Regarding the recommended plan, the bill maintains the current 4 by 4 structure (English, math, science, and social studies requirements for four years of high school), as well as requiring two years of a language. Additionally, it allows students to take eight undefined electives within the recommended plan. (Currently the SBOE defines such electives.) Students on the minimum plan will still have defined electives. However, math and science is only mandated through Algebra II and Physics. The new curriculum also emphasizes Career and Technical and applied classes and allows them to be used in the 4 by 4 plan.

The curriculum also gets rid of the unpopular rule that 65 percent of educational expenditures must go to the classroom, which made it difficult to fund other parts of school budgets like cafeterias and school buses.

The bill has been a clear priority for the Public Education chairman since the beginning of the session; he spent much of the committee’s first meeting explaining goals the bill contains. He outlined his plan to move away from high stakes testing focusing on minimum performance. “We’re gonna get out of that game,” Eissler said then. At the time, he particularly emphasized that campuses would earn distinction for achievement in specific areas, like closing gaps, 21st Century Workforce Development, fine arts, and physical education (among others).

(more…)

Tagged: hb 3, Rob eissler, school accountability

Yesterday (Wednesday) was a tough day for TxDOT. After the usual routine of resolutions congratulating this and that, and welcoming these and those, the House session ended with a resolution aimed squarely at the transportation agency. Dunnam, Coleman, and other lawmakers are unhappy that TxDOT rushed to decide how to use its $1.2 billion in stimulus funding without consulting with the stimulus committee — even though the federal law allows the agency 120 days (until June 17) to obligate half of the money. TxDOT decided on February 26 to use $500 million for maintenance projects and announced its intention to allocate the rest of the money today.

One of the things that has lawmakers upset is that TxDOT plans to use $841 million of the $1.2 billion for toll road projects. Toll roads are not popular, and lawmakers fear that they will feel the heat. By obligating the money immediately, TxDOT was able to cut the Legislature out of the process.

Speaking to the House on Tuesday, Dunnam noted that TxDOT obligated the maintenance money without giving any indication of following the mandates of the federal legislation to consider distressed areas and maximization of new jobs. Coleman ran with his resolution on Wednesday, which ended with a sharp rebuke of TxDOT: “[The House] declares that the failure of the commission and the department to conduct the people’s business in a fair, open, and accountable manner has lost them the confidence of the House and of the people of Texas.” (Some would say that TxDOT had lost that confidence years ago.) Phil King and Jim Keffer decided that this was too inflammatory, and Coleman pulled the resolution down.

It wasn’t clear exactly what the lawmakers were trying to accomplish, but TxDOT’s defenders were concerned that what some legislators wanted wasn’t just a slower timetable. It was earmarks: specific transportation projects for their districts. Apparently TxDOT was getting pressure from members. This is bad business–and, to be fair to Coleman, he was the first to say so. We don’t want to go back to the days when lawmakers assembled local delegations to lobby TxDOT and kiss the ring in hopes of getting pet projects built–as opposed to TxDOT’s taking on projects in the order of their priority and affordability.

TxDOT won the battle, but the big war has yet to be fought. That, of course, is the TxDOT Sunset bill, which poor Isett is going to have to carry (by choice) in the face of a surly House. This episode was one more indication of the considerable antagonism toward TxDOT in the Legislature, which runs deep for reason such as an exchange that took place in the stimulus committee. Carole Kent asked if a particular project was a toll road, and the TxDOT witness said no. That was not a true answer. The project involved managed lanes–which are tolled. Episodes like this explain why TxDOT has lost the confidence of the Legislature, and why the antangonism it generates is not going to go away.

Tagged: garnet coleman, jim dunnam, jim keffer, phil king, Rob eissler, stimulus funding, toll roads, txdot

Committee appointments will be the first real test of the Straus speakership. How many of the 149 members can he satisfy? Here are some of the problems he will face:

—Straus has said that there will be no retaliation against Craddick loyalists. Good luck in keeping that promise. The ABCs are going to want to send some folks to the penalty box. (A theoretical question: Should we still refer to the ABCs by that designation, if “C” is no longer a factor? We can’t refer to them as “insurgents” any more, either, since they are now insiders.) It is a lot easier to handle committee assignments when you start with an enemies’ list. You can consign 25 to 30 members to oblivion. In Craddick’s case, the number was much higher, since most Democrats were excluded from major committees unless they were protected by seniority.

—Will seniority apply to Appropriations? Craddick revoked seniority on the committee because the panel he inherited from Laney was Democrat-heavy. Straus inherits a Republican-heavy committee. One of the things the Democrats are going to want from a Straus speakership is fair representation on major committees. To achieve that on Appropriations, Straus is going to have to follow Craddick’s lead and do away with seniority on Appropriations so that Gallego and Coleman can return to the panel. But he also needs to retain some of the experienced hands who know the budget.

—Can he satisfy the ambitions of the former ABCs? Those who were Craddick chairs (Pitts, Keffer, Solomons, Cook, Eissler) may want more prominent positions; those who weren’t (Geren, Kuempel, McCall, Merritt, Jones) will want a gavel or more.

The big prizes are Appropriations, Calendars, and Ways & Means. I’ll say who I think the leading contenders are—or, more to the point, ought to be, for these and other committees. This is not a complete list; I have tried to pick those committees that have the most impact on public policy. I have made certain assumptions: (1) The individual ABCs will get whatever they want, subject to internal conflicts within the group; (2) Early pledgers to Straus will do better than late pledgers when it comes to chairmanships; (3) Democrats will get the chairmanships of second-tier committees that are important to their party (e.g., Elections, Environmental Regulation, Higher Ed); (4) Returning chairs who performed at a high level will be retained; (5) Some returning chairs are headed for the penalty box.

Speaker pro tem: Senfronia Thompson

Appropriations: Pitts (chair in 2005) or Branch, with Keffer as a dark horse. Eiland as vice-chair would be in position to secure funding for the University of Texas Medical Branch.

Calendars: Geren. He has emerged as Straus’s go-to guy. He is clearly going to be a major player this session, if not at Calendars, then in another high-profile position.

Ways & Means: McCall. The word is that Keffer’s interests are said to lie elsewhere. Oliveira, who chaired the committee in the Laney years, could end up here. If Straus does not merge Local Ways & Means with the main committee, another chairmanship is available.

Public Education: The Eissler/Hochberg pairing is too good to break up.

Elections: Joaquin Castro or Trey Martinez-Fischer. This is one of the committees that the Democrats really want to control. Anchia, a veteran of the Voter I.D. battle with penalty-box-bound Leo Berman, is the obvious choice, but his skills could be put to better use elsewhere. Because of Dallas’s concerns with coal plants, I have him as a possibility for Environmental Reg; other contenders there could be Menendez and Strama. Castro or Martinez-Fischer could provide a decent burial for the Voter I.D. bill.

Insurance: This is a big year for insurance issues. The department has just been through Sunset review, and there is considerable displeasure with the agency’s regulation of the industry (or lack thereof), especially on the D side of the aisle. Smithee has chaired the committee forever, with a high level of confidence from members, but insurance is Straus’s profession and he will have his own priorities. If Straus decides to make a change, Eiland (a coastal legislator who has concerns about windstorm insurance) and Taylor (ditto) are possibilities.

Public Health: Jodie Laubenberg inherited the chairmanship when Dianne Delisi resigned from the House. She is unlikely to get the job on a permanent basis. A health care lobbyist tells me that Veronica Gonzales has the inside track. Garnet Coleman and Vicki Truitt are other contenders.

Culture, Recreation, and Tourism: Current chair Hilderbran should keep the position, unless Kuempel wants it. If he does, scratch penalty box candidate Sid Miller at Agriculture and Livestock and pencil in Hilderbran.

Environmental Regulation: Dennis Bonnen has been a controversial chairman; two years ago he bottled up a host of clear air bills, promising a comprehensive bill in 2009. I doubt that he will get that opportunity. I would not be surprised to see Kuempel, a member of the committee, move up to chairman, although this change in leadership may not produce a change in philosophy. If Kuempel doesn’t want it, Straus, who is pretty green himself (no pun about inexperience intended), could turn to a green Democrat such as Anchia or Menendez or Strama. As is the case with Elections, Environmental Reg is one of the committees the D’s would dearly love to control.

Energy Resources: Rick Hardcastle is the chairman, but if Tommy Merritt wants it, he gets it.

Economic Development: Joe Deshotel was chairman last session. His vice-chairman was Joe Straus. I’m betting Deshotel stays.

Business and Industry: Helen Giddings is the current chairman. This will be a test of whether the Craddick D’s get punished or not. If the answer is yes, Gary Elkins, the vice-chair and an on-again, off-again ABC over the years, and an early Straus pledge, is a likely candidate.

Criminal Jurisprudence: As was the case with Giddings, Pena is a former Craddick D whose fate will be closely watched. The committee mangled Jessica’s Law last session and Debbie Riddle had to be rescued on the floor. Dunnam could do a bang-up job as chairman, but he may prefer to be an ordinary member on more important committees.

Transportation: The chairmanship was left vacant by Krusee’s retirement. If Straus wants change at TxDOT (hear! hear!), he should install Joe Pickett as chairman. Pickett was an early and prescient critic of TxDOT, and he is one of the three most knowledgeable members in the House on transportation issues. But Straus’s chief of staff, Clyde Alexander, a former Transportation chairman, was close to TxDOT, and Joe Krier, husband of Straus transition team member, was an advocate for transportation issues. I’m afraid Pickett won’t make the cut (shame! shame!) and a TxDOT apologist will get the job. Wayne Smith, a veteran of the moratorium wars of 2007, may be the choice.

Higher Education: Patrick Rose. Holdover chair Geanie Morrison, who passed tuition deregulation in 2003, won’t make the cut. Rose, who has served on the committee, is from Hays County (Texas State), which makes him neutral in the rivalries involving UT, A&M, and Texas Tech. This is an important committee for Democrats because of the Top Ten Percent rule, which UT wants to see revised.

Corrections: Jerry Madden was a great chairman in 2007. He should stay.

Regulated Industries: Burt Solomons. It remains to be seen whether this will remain a separate committee or whether Straus will bring it back into State Affairs. I would prefer to see State Affairs reconstituted as it used to be, with some of the best members in the Legislature handling some of the most difficult issues. Chairman Phil King is surely headed for the penalty box, so the position will be vacant. Solomons had to deal with regulatory issues on Sunset, which led to a tussle with King. Sylvester Turner would be an equally fine choice, if the Democrats are not bent on punishing former Craddick D’s.

Human Resources: Naishtat may regain the chairmanship he lost when the R’s took over.

Pensions & Investments: John Otto. He can count. However, Straus may want Vicki Truitt to remain as chair. This could be a very important position because of the vulnerability of the two big pension funds to the economic crisis. If Straus (or Truitt) want to make a switch, Otto can figure out what is going on.

Licensing and Administrative Procedure: ABK (Anybody but Kino, including Delwin Jones).

Financial Institutions: If Otto doesn’t go to Pensions & Investments, this is another good landing place for somebody who can count.

Civil Practices: Cook did a great job as chairman last session and should stay, if that is what he wants to do.

Natural Resources: Hamilton is the current chairman. I don’t like to see East Texas members heading this committee. They’re rural, and they have excess water, and they don’t want to share it with the cities. Gallego and Gattis are current members, and either could handle it, but I assume each would prefer to be on Appropriations. West Texas always has major water issues, and this may be the perfect spot for Keffer.

These are all the chairmanships that I am going address. I don’t care who chairs Juvenile Justice or General Investigating.

I have left some big names on the sidelines. Gallego could handle any of several committees—Natural Resources, for one—but I assume he would rather be on Appropriations. The same assumption applies to Coleman, Gattis, and Kolkhorst.

The good news is that there is plenty of talent in the House, if the speaker’s primary interest lies in deploying talent rather than settling scores.

Tagged: abc's, appropriations, Brian McCall, calendars, Charlie Geren, committee appointments, dan branch, dan gattis, jim pitts, joaquin castro, jodie laubenberg, john smithee, pete gallego, Rob eissler, scott hochberg, senfronia thompson, speaker joe straus, trey martinez-fischer, ways & means

Before election day, when it still seemed as if Tom Craddick might win reelection as speaker, Terral Smith told me about what he hoped to do with committee assignments. Rather than use vice-chairmanships as a reward for loyal team members, Smith wanted to replicate the relationship between Rob Eissler and Scott Hochberg in Public Education. He hoped to have a strong Democratic vice-chair in every substantive committee. This would resemble what occurs in Congress, where the majority party has the chairmanship and the senior member of the minority party is the ranking member. On most congressional committees, these relationships are very good. I thought it was a great idea, but neither Terral nor I was sure that Craddick would agree to it. I hear that they have had other things on their minds since then.

I think it would serve Straus and the House well if the vice- chairmanships became meaningful positions, something more than an opportunity to mount a gavel on a wall plaque. The vice-chair should be a strong member from the opposite party of the chairman. This situation would formalize working across party lines.

Note to would-be commenters: Just because it came out of Craddick’s office doesn’t mean it is a bad idea.

Tagged: Joe Straus, Rob eissler, scott hochberg, speaker's race, terral smith, tom craddick