T H E M A G A Z I N E o f t h e T E X A S C L A S S R O O M T E A C H E R S A S S O C I A T I O N

CLASSROOMT H E

S U M M E R 2 0 1 2 • V O L U M E 3 2 • N U M B E R 2

T E AC H E R

SCHOOL FINANCE LITIGATION RESUMESNEW ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM UNDER DEVELOPMENT

RESOURCES ≠ EXPECTATIONS

t c t a . o r g • 8 8 8 - 8 7 9 - 8 2 8 22

E X E C U T I V E D I R E C T O R ’ S M E S S A G E

continued on page 26

TCTA InformationTCTA Information

Texas Classroom Teachers AssociationP.O. Box 1489, Austin, TX 78767-1489

Office hours: 8 a.m. – 5:30 p.m., Monday-FridayToll-free number: (888) 879-8282

FAX: (512) 469-9527Website: tcta.org

2012-13 Association OfficersPresident

Nanette Sissney, Whitesboro

President-ElectGrace Mueller, San Marcos

Immediate Past-PresidentDolores Ramirez, San Benito

BudgetCristal Isaacks, Levelland

Curriculum & InstructionSuzanne Garcia McCall, Slaton

GovernanceGina G. Gola, Grand Prairie

LegislationTonia Crittenden, Carthage

MembershipTerrill Q. Littlejohn, Midland

Professional Rights & ResponsibilitiesTeresa Koehler, Clear Creek

Teacher Personal ServicesJames R. Merrell, Galena Park

Staff ContactsExecutive Director/General Counsel

Jeri Stone

AttorneysJeri Stone

Lonnie Hollingsworth, Jr.Dohn Larson Holly Eaton

Michael CurrieGerald Francisco

Lindsay GustafsonJulie Leahy

Paige Bruton Williams

Business OfficeCandace Seekatz

CommunicationsAmy FranciscoKelley Strutton

LegislationLonnie Hollingsworth, Jr.

Ann Fickel

MembershipJulia Swope

Cyndi DennenErin Shore

Professional Development and AdvocacyHolly Eaton

Public AffairsLindsay Gustafson

Services CorporationJan Lanfear

TechnologyDavid Novotny

About TCTAThe Texas Classroom Teachers Association is an independent association for Texas teaching professionals that was founded in 1927 and serves 50,000 members across the state. TCTA is based in Austin and is the only statewide teachers association that limits active-level membership to those directly involved in classroom teaching or teaching support.

CLASSROOMTHE

T E A C H E Rdesigned by Theresa Sackey

THE END OF A DIFFICULT YEARNow that we’re finally at the end of this school year, congratu-

lations! This was an inordinately difficult year for educators, students and parents, who far too often saw up close and personally the effects of funding cuts as children were placed in larger classes or watched beloved teachers lose their jobs.

We get a lot of “trickle down” angst at the state office, as we receive thousands of calls from members throughout the year. Some seek information, others are concerned about a developing issue, and a smaller number are mid-crisis, perhaps having been suspended or proposed for contract termination, or the subject of a parent grievance.

Lots of people are asking if next year will be better, and we don’t yet have the answer. With regard to school funding, districts already know how much to expect for the 2012-13 school year because the state budgets on a two-year cycle and the coming school year is the second year of the current biennium. Although the school finance lawsuits (see “Resources ≠ Expectations,” page 4) are scheduled to be heard at the trial court level Oct. 22, historically it has been the Texas Supreme Court that ultimately decides these issues (due to appeals), and that final decision is unlikely to be delivered to the Legislature during the session that runs from January through May 2013.

“Intervenors” distract focus from real issues

Speaking of the school finance lawsuits, they’re just getting weirder. The most recent intervenor (a party hoping to join the previously filed lawsuits to urge its own arguments), is a group called Texans for Real Efficiency and Equity in Education led by none other than former state Rep. Kent Grusendorf. Those of you who have been around a while may remember that Rep. Grusendorf served as chairman of the House Public Education Committee for several years and consistently pursued education reforms that TCTA actively opposed. His initiatives included seeking to eliminate the state minimum salary schedule and contracts for teachers, leaving these matters to the marketplace and local control to determine. In an impressive show of unity and funding, the education community united in 2006 to elect a qualified challenger to Chairman Grusen-dorf, current Rep. Diane Patrick.

Guess what the intervenors are urging in their pleadings in the school finance lawsuit? They want a more “efficient” system of public education, as required by the state constitution. Their pleadings urge an expansion of charter schools despite the mounting evidence that most charter schools underperform their traditional public school counterparts, and those that excel tend to have signifi-cantly higher funding than your average traditional school by virtue of grants and contributions from entities like the Gates Foundation. Many speculate that when the lawsuit is heard, the intervenors will not be allowed to join the

T h e C l a s s r o o m T e a c h e r • S u m m e r 2 0 1 2 3

CLASSROOMT H E

S U M M E R 2 0 1 2 • V O L U M E 3 2 • N U M B E R 2

T E A C H E R

C O N T E N T S

2Executive director’s message

4Resources ≠ Expectations

8An overview of the school finance lawsuits

9New accountability system

under development

12Student discipline system

undergoes scrutiny

14TRS lays out potential retirement changes

16Washington Watch

17Accolades

Stay in touch with TCTA!Please provide us with your HOME/PERSONAL email address so we can quickly update you with the latest information. Simply click on the “Update Your Info” button at tcta.org or call (888) 879-8282.

“Like us” on Facebook or follow us on Twitter! Just click on the Facebook and Twitter icons at tcta.org.

Visit tcta.org, where you’ll find current information on almost any education-related topic, along with free continuing professional education, an ask-a-lawyer response center and much more.

THE CLASSROOM TEACHER (ISSN-0279-2494) is the official publication of the Texas Classroom Teachers Association (TCTA), providing news and opinions in the interest of education excellence. All contents are copyrighted and may not be reproduced without the publisher’s permission. The views and opinions contained in this publication are not necessarily those of the publisher. Copyright © 2012. Publication schedule is quarterly. Annual membership dues for TCTA are $140, $5 of which is allocated to a one-year subscription to THE CLASSROOM TEACHER. Subscriptions for nonmembers are available for $10 per year. POSTMASTER: Please send changes of address, articles and/or photographs to: Editor, THE CLASSROOM TEACHER, P.O. Box 1489, Austin, Texas 78767-1489. TCTA is located at 700 Guadalupe, Austin, Texas 78701. PERIODICALS POSTAGE PAID AT AUSTIN, TEXAS.

18New TCTA President

Nanette Sissney takes office

20TCTA members share summer plans

25TCTA delivers your CPE: It’s online and FREE

26In Memoriam

t c t a . o r g • 8 8 8 - 8 7 9 - 8 2 8 24

ith a number of lawsuits filed that challenge the school finance system and Texas’ accountability and testing system undergoing a long and complicated revision, Texas educators and school districts are left to figure out how to deal with the effects on students and campuses when resources are less than expectations. In this article, we provide an overview of the school finance lawsuits and detail

possible solutions to the main challenges. While the cases will be heard in court in October, any decisions are expected to be appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, with a lengthy road to resolu-tion. The second article (see pages 9-11) covers the development of the new state accountability and testing system, which due to its high-stakes nature, has been an extensive and complicated process that began in 2007 and will not be fully implemented until the 2013-14 school year.

RESOURCES ≠ EXPECTATIONS

T h e C l a s s r o o m T e a c h e r • S u m m e r 2 0 1 2 5

School finance litigation resumes

Four lawsuits filed against the State of Texas have been consolidated into one court case that will be heard Oct. 22 by Travis County District Judge John Dietz. Dietz will also consider a plea in interven-tion filed by a group spearheaded by former House Public Education Chairman Kent Grusendorf asking for massive deregulation and more charter schools.

As in the past, the plaintiffs in the suits are asking the court to issue an injunction to the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Texas Commissioner of Education to discontinue distrib-uting all state funding to public schools until the Texas Legislature creates a constitutional school finance system. Any decision the district court makes this fall will almost certainly be appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.

If any of the school districts or plaintiffs in the cases prevail, Judge Dietz could issue the order to shut down state funding for schools by the time the Texas Legislature convenes in January 2013. If this happens, an injunction would not likely go into effect while the cases are appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, which would probably not have time to issue a final decision by the end of the 2013 legislative session. For this reason, most observers do not expect any direct action on public school finance prior to the 2014-15 school year and possibly even as late as 2015-16. If the courts find against the state and direct the Legislature to create a different school finance system by 2014-15, the Legislature would have to convene in special session to do so, as the next regular session of the Texas Legislature would not convene until January 2015.

The three main challenges

The big question is whether the prospect of a district court order and a possible required special session will put enough pressure on the Texas Legislature in spring 2013 to overcome the political pressures that have traditionally kept it from creating a constitu-tional school finance system. With the exception of

NOTE: AN OVERVIEW OF THE SCHOOL FINANCE LAWSUITS

CAN BE FOUND ON PG 8.

the intervention filed by the Grusendorf group, the challenges to the school finance system fall into three basic categories.

• Funding for public schools must be equitable. While the constitution does not specifically mention equity, it does require an efficient system. According to the Texas Supreme Court in Edge-wood v. Kirby back in 1989, when the state relies on local property taxes to fund public schools as much as it does it creates vast disparities in taxable property wealth per student. That, the courts said, creates a system that is not efficient as required by the constitution. In Edgewood, the court held that school districts must have “substantially equal access to similar revenues per pupil at similar levels of tax effort.”

• Funding for public schools must be adequate. As with equity, the concept of adequacy is not specifically mentioned in the constitution. The challenge is based upon wording in the constitu-tion that requires the Legislature to make “suit-able provision for the support and maintenance” of the public school system. While previous court decisions have discussed the issues of adequacy and suitability, the Texas school finance system has never been found to be unconstitutional based upon an argument of adequacy or suitability.

• The school finance system cannot constitute a statewide property tax, as this is specifically prohibited by the Texas Constitution. This issue formed the basis of the last successful challenge to the school finance system as upheld by the Texas Supreme Court in 2005 in the case of Neeley v. West Orange-Cove Consolidated ISD. In that case, the plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that enough school districts in the state were taxing at the maximum operations tax rate allowed by law — $1.50 — and the state had essentially created an unconstitutional statewide property tax. According to the court, school districts must have meaningful discretion in setting local property tax rates to comply with the constitutional prohibition.

The response of the Texas Legislature in 2006 was to buy down school district maintenance tax rates by one-third. For instance, if a district was at the

t c t a . o r g • 8 8 8 - 8 7 9 - 8 2 8 26

$4 billion in 2011. There also was an additional cut to public schools of more than $1 billion from funds that had been provided to public schools outside the school finance formulas.

While some politicians continue to argue that the state did not reduce state funding for public schools in 2011 due to the fact that the 2009 increases were largely funded by federal stimulus funds, the effect on public school districts was a reduction in the amount of revenue per weighted student. This reduction was a result of the state’s failure to make up for stimulus funds used in 2009 and its failure to compensate for student enrollment growth.

The main problem with the current funding of public schools is that the state did not create an adequate revenue stream to pay for the lowered property taxes in 2006. It cost the state about $7 billion per year to lower school maintenance tax rates by one-third. The revised state business tax and cigarette tax increases enacted in 2006 raise only about $2.5 billion. This creates what is known as a “structural deficit” of more than $5 billion per year. With no mechanism for additional funding from the state, school districts must increase local property tax rates to pay for increased costs arising from inflation and ever-increasing accountability measures. The failure of the state to pay for enrollment growth in 2011 was the straw that broke the camel’s back, prompting the current round of lawsuits.

Three basic solutions

If the school finance system is found to be uncon-stitutional due to inequity or inadequacy, or because it constitutes a statewide property tax, there are only three basic solutions:

• The state would have to substantially increase the general revenue funds it allots to public schools.

• The state would have to redistribute more local property tax proceeds from wealthier districts to poorer ones.

• The Legislature could try to amend the Texas Constitution, which would require voter ap-proval. For instance, the constitution could be amended to authorize a statewide property tax. Recently, soon-to-be former Senate Finance com-mittee chairman Sen. Steve Ogden suggested the

maximum property tax rate of $1.50, the state rolled down the tax rate to $1 and used state general revenue to allow that district to maintain the same level of funding per weighted student that it had in 2006. This level of funding is commonly known as “target revenue.” Although “target revenue” was originally intended to be a temporary measure to ensure districts that had taxes rolled back by one-third did not lose any revenue at the lower tax rate, it has continued to be the basis for funding most school districts in the state.

The state gave school districts additional taxing capacity by giving them the authority to raise taxes by an additional 17 cents, but any increases of more than 4 cents require approval by the voters of each school district. The state has made some adjust-ments to the school finance system since then, even increasing funding for schools in 2009, but the only way for districts to increase funding per weighted pupil in the future is to increase local property tax rates.

Some districts have raised maintenance tax rates to the maximum of $1.17, but most have been unable or unwilling to take tax increases of more than 4 cents to local voters due to the difficulty in getting local tax authorizations passed when the country is facing the worst recession since the Great Depres-sion. The situation was made even worse when the state cut funding for the school finance formulas by

T h e C l a s s r o o m T e a c h e r • S u m m e r 2 0 1 2 7

statewide property tax as a possible solution to the school finance conundrum, as did the chairman of the powerful State Affairs committee, Sen. Robert Duncan. The constitution could also be amended to limit or eliminate judicial revenue of the school finance system.

Grusendorf group shifts focus from real issues

In the intervention filed by the Grusendorf group calling itself the “Efficiency Intervenors,” the complaint is that the current school finance system is inefficient due to such factors as the state limits on open-enrollment charter schools, which do not have to comply with “cumbersome” regulations such as those that provide for the minimal contractual protections and teacher rights such as duty-free lunch and planning and preparation periods. The intervenors also complain about the “inefficiency” the state exhibited when it required districts to spend a portion of the last two funding increases it provided to them on teacher pay raises.

Hopefully, the court will quickly dismiss these complaints and focus on the important school finance issues, as these have been quite intractable in the past, and they will continue to require the courts’ attention for the foreseeable future.

While none of the previous school finance lawsuits against the state were won based on a conclusion of inadequate funding, the Texas Legislature may have strengthened that argument by continuing to raise standards while failing to fund the current funding formulas. Previous court decisions provide that the Texas Constitution grants to the Texas Legislature the authority to set education standards that will provide for “a general diffusion of knowledge.” The Legislature then has a constitutional duty to make suitable provision for a school finance system that will fund the expectations it has set. The educational standards the state has set include high curriculum standards, increasing expectations with regard to college or workforce readiness, decreasing dropout numbers and continuously increasing standards on tests such as the STAAR and EOC examinations that are being phased in at the same time budgets are being cut.

In the West Orange-Cove case, the Supreme Court adopted a “rational basis” test in determining

whether the Legislature has met its constitutional school funding obligations. With regard to adequacy, the Court explains this standard as follows: “It would be arbitrary, for example, for the Legislature to define the goals for accomplishing the constitutionally required general diffusion of knowledge, and then to provide insufficient means for achieving those goals.”

Even though the Court held in 2005 that the funding system was not arbitrary with regard to adequacy, it indicated that the funding system just barely met the standard, going so far as to quote former Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff in the following statement, which he made to the trial court, so it basically makes the statement part of the Supreme Court decision: “I am convinced that, just by my knowledge of the overall situation in Texas, school districts are virtually at the end of their resources, and to continue to raise the standards ... is reaching a situation where we’re asking people to make bricks without straw.”

Although each lawsuit has a different focus, all four address the state’s failure to provide suitable support for meeting the education standards that continue to be implemented.

TCTA will keep you posted

TCTA will be on hand for school finance discussions and provide testimony as needed. Watch for the latest information on school finance on our website and in our eUpdates. To sign up for eUpdates, please visit tcta.org and click on the “eUpdates sign-up” button or call (888) 879-8282.

“IT WOULD BE ARBITRARY, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR THE LEGISLATURE

TO DEFINE THE GOALS FOR ACCOMPLISHING THE

CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED GENERAL DIFFUSION OF

KNOWLEDGE, AND THEN TO PROVIDE INSUFFICIENT MEANS FOR

ACHIEVING THOSE GOALS.”

—Texas Supreme Court, 2005

t c t a . o r g • 8 8 8 - 8 7 9 - 8 2 8 28

Fort Bend ISD, et al. v. Scott

The players: Largely urban and suburban districts, including Dallas and Houston ISDs, with mostly average or above-average property wealth per student, led by attorney David Thompson, who prevailed in the last successful school finance lawsuit

The arguments:• The school finance system is again a prohibited

statewide property tax.• State mandates, such as requiring teacher pay

raises, detracts from meaningful discretion to set local property tax rates.

• The finance system is inadequate.

Texas Taxpayer & Student Fairness Coalition, et al. v. Scott

The players: Largely low- to mid-property wealth school districts and representative taxpayers in those districts, led by the Equity Center, an association of mostly property-poor school districts and a major player in the first successful school finance lawsuit

The arguments:• The school finance system is inequitable for the

following reasons:o Rich districts have $1,000 more funding per

weighted pupil than poor districts.o The first 6 cents of tax effort above the target

revenue level is not subject to the so-called “Robin Hood” system of recapture.

o Taxes raised by districts for facilities funding are not subject to recapture, leading to even greater disparity in funding.

• The school finance system is again a prohibited statewide property tax.

• The finance system is inadequate.

Edgewood ISD, et al. v. Scott

The players: Property-poor school districts and representative parents and children in those dis-tricts, led by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the other major player in the first successful school finance lawsuit

The arguments:• Equity (similar arguments to Texas Taxpayer &

Student Fairness Coalition)

AN OVERVIEW OF THE SCHOOL FINANCE LAWSUITS• Adequacy issues, including the state’s failure to

achieve education college readiness as provided in the state’s accountability system, particularly with regard to English Language Learners and low-income students

Calhoun County ISD, et al. v. Scott

The players: School districts with above-average property wealth per student where local tax collec-tions are subject to recapture under the so-called “Robin Hood” system

The arguments:• The finance system is inadequate. • The school finance system is again a prohibited

statewide property tax. (The plaintiff notes that the more than $1 billion annually redistributed from wealthier districts is a significant factor in determining whether a statewide property tax has been created.)

Plea in Intervention of self-styled “Efficiency Intervenors”

The players: Several representative parents, students and taxpayers as well as a nonprofit corporation called Texans for Real Efficiency and Equity in Education, led by Executive Director Kent Grusendorf, the former House Public Education Committee chairman

The arguments:• The statutory cap on charter schools breeds inef-

ficiency, as do many of the provisions of Chapter 21 of the Texas Education Code (the chapter containing teacher certification standards, rights and benefits). For example, personnel decisions are seldom made in the best interests of students and current laws make it difficult to hire and efficiently compensate the most effective teachers and remove poor-performing teachers.

• Statutory provisions restrict districts from converting to Home-Rule School Districts, which are not subject to virtually any provisions relating to teacher rights and benefits, student discipline, or even parental and student rights contained in the Education Code.

• A lack of consumer-driven competition causes the system to be inherently inefficient.

T h e C l a s s r o o m T e a c h e r • S u m m e r 2 0 1 2 9

If there’s something we love in educa-

tion, it’s acronyms. Education lingo is

a veritable alphabet soup. And this grand

tradition continues with the development of

the new state education accountability and

testing system. Rather than TAKS we have

STAAR, not to mention EOCs. We have new

accountability standards based on CCR*

performance standards and STAAR perfor-

mance labels recommended by the PDAC*

members. And now we have recommenda-

tions for specifics of the new accountability

system being developed by the ATAC* and

APAC* members, and recommendations for

school/district distinction designations being

developed by AADDC* members. And who

could forget the ever-present AYP?

NEW ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM UNDER DEVELOPMENT

TAKS

STAAR

EOC

AOAC

CCR

PDACATAC

*GUIDE TO LESSER-KNOWNOR NEW ACRONYMS

CCR = college/career readiness

PDAC = Performance Descriptor Advisory Committee

ATAC = Accountability Technical Advisory Committee

APAC = Accountability Policy Advisory Committee

AADDC = Academic AchievementDistinction Designation Committee

t c t a . o r g • 8 8 8 - 8 7 9 - 8 2 8 210

NEW ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM UNDER DEVELOPMENT

Whew! What’s the translation?

To put it simply, much work is being done to put meat on the bones of the skeletal framework of the new accountability and testing system that the Legislature passed in 2009 via House Bill 3. When major changes are made to something as complex as the Texas education accountability system, it takes time — lots of time.

What started in 2007, when the movement to dramati-cally change our accountability system began in earnest, is now nearing the stage at which final details of the new system are being hammered out, with the majority of that work being done by selected committees of stake-holders working with TEA.

Under the HB 3 timeline, Aug. 1, 2011, was the last time ratings were issued under the old accountability system. 2011-12 was the transition year for which no ratings will be issued. The 2012-13 school year will be the first year that district accreditation statuses and district and campus performance ratings will be issued under the new system (not including college-readiness [CCR] indicators). Full implementation of the new HB 3 system will take place in 2013-14.

Because our state accountability and testing system is so high-stakes, the development process is extensive and complicated, with lots of wheels turning at once. Fortunately, TCTA keeps up with all the developments through a variety of avenues — not the least of which is representation by our members and staff on a number of the committees involved.

The new system’s beginnings

When the process began in 2007, then-TCTA Presi-dent-Elect Susan Lewis was appointed by Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and then-Speaker of the House of Representatives Tom Craddick to serve on the Select Committee on Public School Accountability, charged with conducting a comprehensive review of our existing public school accountability system. Lewis was the only committee member currently teaching in a public school classroom. The committee spent the next year holding hearings across the state to gather input from stakeholders about what a new system should look like.

The Select Committee made recommendations to the 81st Legislature in 2009, and after months of additional hearings and negotiations in which TCTA was heavily involved, HB 3 — containing the new accountability

system’s framework — was passed. HB 3 made sweeping changes to not only the state accountability and testing system, but also to high school graduation programs and sanctions imposed on campuses and districts with consistently low test scores or graduation rates.

TEA implementation plan presented in late 2010

During 2010, legislators held hearings to monitor the development of the new accountability and testing system, and late that year, TEA issued its 433-page HB 3 implementation plan to the Legislature. Also in late 2010, TCTA Executive Director Jeri Stone was the only teacher group representative invited by TEA to participate in a Perfor-mance Descriptor Advisory Committee (PDAC) meeting for the new STAAR tests. During that meeting, panel members made recommen-dations to TEA about performance labels and general descriptions of the performance standards to describe the level of knowledge and skills required at each perfor-mance level for all grades and subjects on the new assessments.

The final, TEA-chosen labels were: • Level III: Advanced Academic Performance • Level II: Satisfactory Academic Performance• Level I: Unsatisfactory Academic Performance

On the Algebra II and English III tests, the Advanced Academic Performance level also indicates students are well-prepared for postsecondary success. The Satisfactory Academic Performance level means that students are suffi-ciently prepared for postsecondary success on those tests.

Work on HB 3’s implementation was temporarily put on hold during the 82nd legislative session in early 2011, but it resumed again later in the year, when TEA again invited Stone to participate in the End-of-Course (EOC) Policy Committee to recom-mend reasonable ranges within which to set the final STAAR EOC cut scores. At TEA’s invita-tion, Stone also served on a subsequent stan-dard-setting committee, which used the ranges set by the EOC Policy Committee to make final cut score recommendations for EOCs. Discus-sions centered around providing a phase-in for Level II/Satisfactory Academic Performance from initial (to be developed) cut scores to final ones. Regarding the phase-in, the committee also recommended that the cut score

T h e C l a s s r o o m T e a c h e r • S u m m e r 2 0 1 2 11

NEW ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM UNDER DEVELOPMENT

that’s in effect once a student first takes an EOC exam is the cut score in effect for the student throughout his high school career. TEA adopted this recommendation in its final decision.

Regarding phasing in passing standards, TEA’s final deci-sions were to phase in the Level II passing standards in two stages during a four-year period, with the first set of performance standards in effect in 2012 and 2013, and the second set of performance standards in effect in 2014 and 2015. The final Level II performance standards will be in effect starting in 2016. Additionally, a two-year phase-in will be provided for Level III performance on English III reading and writing and Algebra II only.

TEA is not scheduled to determine passing standards for grades 3-8 STAAR until October/November 2012, after results from the 2011-12 STAAR test administra-tion are available.

Shortly after the EOC Policy Committee meeting, TEA convened a new Accountability Policy Advisory Committee (APAC) to provide advice to the commissioner of education on accountability policy and design issues for the main por-tion of the new accountability system. TCTA Governance Chair Gina Gola was invited by TEA to participate on the committee, which first met in March 2012. Early indications from the APAC Committee discussions are that it is favorably inclined to use an index framework for the new accountability system rather than the separate indicators framework in place now.

Index framework favored

TCTA has long advocated using an index approach to the state accountability system as a way to factor in more indicators and move away from assigning accountability ratings based on a campus/district lowest-performing subject, student group or other indicator. Texas’ accountability system currently uses a separate indica-tors framework, which requires districts and campuses to meet accountability targets on each performance measure. This framework clearly identifies the lowest performing subject, student group or other indicator.

According to TEA, with a performance index frame-work, each measure contributes points to an index score. Districts and campuses must meet one account-ability target on the total index score. Performance on all measures is included, but stronger performance in some

areas can compensate for weaker performance in other areas. With a performance index, the resulting rating reflects overall performance rather than the weakest areas.

Many variations are possible such as weighting the measures to reflect state goals, and there was interest by both the Accountability Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) and APAC in using weights within the index to place appropriate emphasis on certain measures to reflect state goals. However, there also was interest in looking at separating indexes by school type or major indicator (assessment versus graduation). The APAC is scheduled to meet again in November 2012.

New distinction tier

Meanwhile, TEA is convening committees to make recommendations about the second (or extra credit) tier of the new accountability system, called the Distinction Tier. It will allow an eligible campus to receive a “dis-tinction” designation if it ranks in the top 25 percent of campuses based on annual improvement in student achievement or in significantly diminishing or closing performance gaps between student subpopulations; or if it satisfies “distinction” criteria for academic achieve-ment in the four core subject areas: fine arts, PE, 21st century workforce development and second language acquisition. TCTA is fortunate to have the only teacher representative appointee (nominated by Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst) on this commit-tee. Former TCTA President Susan Lewis, is serving on what is called the Academic Achievement Distinction Designation Com-mittee (AADDC), which held its first meeting April 16, 2012.

TCTA involvement continues

Many different wheels are moving at the same time to fill in the final details of our new state accountability and assessment system. It’s possible that the new system could yield a more nuanced and accurate picture of the hard work that educators in schools and districts around the state are doing to ensure that Texas students meet the greatly increased expectations that the Legisla-ture first set in motion back in 2007.

As we have from the beginning, TCTA will continue to ensure we are involved and represented in the long and complicated process that has as its end game a fully evolved state accountability system by 2013-14.

t c t a . o r g • 8 8 8 - 8 7 9 - 8 2 8 212

Appleseed targets “school-to-prison pipeline”

In April 2007, Texas Appleseed, a volunteer group of lawyers and other professionals working on solutions to systemic problems in Texas, dubbed our school discipline system the “school-to-prison pipeline.” The group has been active in the last several legislative sessions, and has a strong interest in the correlations between disciplinary actions in school and later incarceration.

However, some of the group’s recom-mendations would limit teachers’ ability to effectively maintain class-room discipline.

Appleseed’s reports frame school discipline in a broad social context. The group maintains that Texas schools use “exclusionary discipline” for minor infractions and that the system is a gateway to the juvenile justice system, even implying that the relationship is causal (i.e., that sending students to disciplinary programs during the school years increases the likelihood that they will end up in the prison system). The reports also find that minority and special education students are significantly overrepresented in the population of students receiving disciplinary actions.

Appleseed relies heavily on a report from The Council of State Govern-ments (CSG) Justice Center and the Public Policy Research Institute at Texas A&M University. The report maintains that school administrators use their discretion to suspend or expel 60 percent of Texas students. The study also claims “definitive evidence” that an overreliance on suspension and expulsion increases the probability of grade retention, school dropout and juvenile justice involvement.

Discretionary removals allowed under current law

A critical tool that teachers use for disciplinary purposes is Section 37.002 of the Texas Education Code, which provides for teacher removal of a student. This law allows a teacher to send a student to the principal’s office to maintain effective discipline in the classroom. It also allows removals based on documented repeated interference with the teacher’s ability to communicate effectively with the students in the class or with the ability of the student’s classmates to learn.

Just as academic expectations are rising and resources dwindling, societal pressures are creating a complex new world for today’s students. It’s difficult enough to provide students with the academic guidance that is the fundamental mission of the public schools; now just keeping students safe and class-rooms free of disruption is harder than ever. What is ahead for teachers trying to maintain a safe, positive and creative learning environment?

STUDENT DISCIPLINE SYSTEM UNDERGOES SCRUTINYTools for maintaining safe classrooms at risk

T h e C l a s s r o o m T e a c h e r • S u m m e r 2 0 1 2 13

A student can also be removed for a single event if his behavior, in the teacher’s determination, is so unruly, disruptive or abusive that it seriously interferes with the teacher’s ability to communicate effectively with the students in the class or with the ability of the student’s classmates to learn.

Finally, the statute requires teachers to remove students and send them to the principal for placement in a disciplinary alternative education program (DAEP) or expulsion if the students engage in behavior requiring a mandatory removal or expul-sion under Chapter 37 of the Texas Education Code. If a teacher removes a student under Section 37.002 and objects to having the student placed back in the teacher’s class, the student can be placed back in the class only by a placement review committee comprised of two faculty members selected by campus staff and one member selected by the principal.

While a removal under Section 37.002 does not necessarily lead to DAEP placement, any restrictions on districts’ ability to place severely disruptive students in a DAEP could restrict teachers’ ability to remove severely disruptive students from class.

In its initial report in 2007, Apple-seed suggested that districts should factor “intent” into discipline deci-sions, noting that while districts may consider intent with regard to discretionary DAEP placements, they were not required to do so. In its foray into the legislative arena during the 2007 legislative session, Appleseed made a push to place such a limitation on removals and make the process more stringent. The effort was unsuccessful, but a similar bill was later passed in 2009.

TCTA helped draft and supported the bill in 2009 to address criticisms of so-called “zero tolerance” poli-cies that led some district officials

to believe that they had to place students in DAEPs for inadvertent actions such as accidentally leaving a Boy Scout knife in a jacket.

New law limits discretionary removals from DAEPs only … for now

House Bill 968, passed during the 2011 legislative session, changed the standard for discretionary expulsions. It previously involved “serious or persistent misbehavior” in violation of the student code of conduct that occurs during placement in a DAEP. The law now allows for expulsion only if a student is documented to have engaged in serious misbehavior “while on the program despite documented behavioral interventions.” This is a significant shift from the original language of the law. The introduc-tion of required documentation of behavioral interventions is new, and persistent misbehavior alone can no longer be a reason for expulsion. The behavior must be “serious,” which now is explicitly defined.

The new law, while limited to discre-tionary expulsions, is an example of the types of attempts we may see during the next legislative session — attempts potentially directed at discretionary removals from the regular classroom. These efforts may include adding new hurdles to be cleared prior to the implementa-tion of a discretionary removal, or limiting the reasons for which a student can be removed.

Appleseed’s most recent efforts

The latest Appleseed project is a series of cost studies, beginning with one prepared on the Dallas ISD. Appleseed claims that DISD spent $11.3 million in 2010-11 on referrals to DAEPs and expul-sions to Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Programs (JJAEPS). The costs are based on lost average daily attendance (ADA) funding, main-tenance of off-campus facilities and

more. The report determined that the cost per seat in a Dallas ISD DAEP is more than $57,000. It includes a statement that all of the referrals Appleseed studied were made at the discretion of Dallas ISD and did not “risk student or school safety.” As with most of the Appleseed publica-tions, the focus seems to be limited to safety issues and does not take into account the loss of learning due to the activity that caused the student removal.

Appleseed is expected to come out with several additional cost studies on large districts in Texas.

Teachers need help, not more hurdles

Teachers are asking for help with discipline in their classrooms. Appleseed makes several sugges-tions for options they can use other than removal, including convening a task force, implementing Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports (PBIS), and teacher/staff training.

TCTA has pursued legislation that would provide additional assis-tance to teachers by requiring that each campus designate a campus discipline officer.

It is crucial to remember that actions taken within the school system must often be limited to “treating symptoms, rather than the disease.” Discipline issues that result from students’ personal or family problems and societal issues must be tackled by addressing the underlying problems, which may not be within the scope of the public schools’ mission or resources.

There is always room for improve-ment in the system, and teachers welcome any help that can be offered, but the answer does not lie in ending or severely restricting a teacher’s ability to remove a disruptive student from the classroom.

t c t a . o r g • 8 8 8 - 8 7 9 - 8 2 8 214

The Teacher Retirement System has embarked on a study required by the Texas Legislature that will present a number of options to change teacher retirement benefits. A rider in the 2011 budget bill required TRS to report on the impacts of potential changes to the pension plan, including “retirement eligibility, final average salary, benefit multiplier, and the cre-ation of a hybrid plan that includes defined benefit and defined contribution features ...”

TRS LAYS OUT POTENTIAL RETIREMENT CHANGES IN STUDY PRESENTATION

At the April 2012 TRS Board of Trustees meeting, TRS staff laid out the first group of options being considered for inclusion in the study. TRS staff is starting with an assumption that the target level of benefits at retirement, known as the “replacement ratio,” should be 69 to 70 percent of the salary that the employee was making at retire-ment. This percentage is on the low

end of the range recommended by retirement advisors, and correlates to the approximate level of benefits for an employee retiring with 30 years of service credit (30 years times the 2.3 percent multiplier results in 69 percent of the employee’s final average salary).

TRS staff noted that the scenarios presented at this meeting measured

replacement income only at the time of retirement, but that the lack of post-retirement increases will lower effective purchasing power over time.

NOTE: The study will consider the impact to the pension fund of the fol-lowing options under varying scenarios, including whether the changes would apply only to new hires or would be imposed on current employees.

Retirement eligibility

The comprehensive TRS legislation from 2005 modified the Rule of 80 for normal retirement (age plus years of service must total at least 80) for new employees, defined as those entering TRS on or after Sept. 1, 2007. These employees, while still eligible for retirement upon meeting the Rule of 80, must also be at least age 60 to receive full benefits.

The study would consider a change to this new provision to impose a minimum age of 62, rather than 60. The current average age at retirement is 61 years.

Final average salary

Under current law, with the excep-tion of veteran employees who were “grandfathered” in the 2005 law, an employee’s retirement benefit is based on the average of her highest five years of salary.

The study would consider a change to seven years of highest average salary. This would be outside the norm, as three to five years is more commonly used by public pension plans.

The TRS pension design study is required by law. The options included in this article are not being presented as recommendations, and there are no legislative proposals currently on the table.

T h e C l a s s r o o m T e a c h e r • S u m m e r 2 0 1 2 15

The pension study will present infor-mation on a variety of options that include elements of both a DB plan and a defined contribution (DC) plan, in which the contribution level is guaranteed and benefits rely on how well investments perform.

One example given was a hybrid plan under which a portion of contributions — the amount neces-sary to fund a 1.5 percent multiplier — would serve as the DB plan, providing a moderate monthly benefit; contributions in excess of that amount would go into an addi-tional 401(k)-style DC plan.

TCTA testimony continues

TCTA has testified repeatedly on the study, asking that TRS staff review the impact of such changes not only on the pension fund, but on current and future retirees (TRS responded that the study will include

Multiplier

Current law includes a 2.3 percent multiplier in the benefit calcula-tion for all employees. The study will examine a reduction to a 2.0 percent multiplier.

A 2.0 percent multiplier is mid-range for pension plans in which employees are not also participating in Social Security, but TRS retirees do not benefit from a regular cost-of-living adjustment that is common in such plans in other states.

Hybrid plan

TRS is currently a defined benefit (DB) plan, under which benefits are determined in law and contributions from the state and members can be adjusted as needed to provide those benefits. (The Texas Constitution requires the state to contribute 6 to 10 percent of payroll, and employees must contribute at least 6 percent.)

this information). TCTA staff noted that any negative changes to retire-ment benefits would be “adding insult to injury.”

We have included a question regarding potential changes to the TRS plan structure in our candi-date survey; survey responses can be viewed at TexasTeachersVote.org.

TRS staff has noted that not all proposals mentioned in the April presentation would necessarily be included in the final study. It will be refined and fleshed out in the coming months (with more opportunities for review and comment at the June and July 2012 TRS Board meetings), and submitted to the Legislature by September.

TCTA will continue to monitor and provide input into the development of the study.

PAID ADVERTISEMENT

t c t a . o r g • 8 8 8 - 8 7 9 - 8 2 8 216

ELECTIONS LIKELYTO IMPACT ESEA

REAUTHORIZATION AND OTHER FEDERAL

EDUCATION PROGRAMS

The 2010 midterm elections brought major changes to Washington, leading to a much more conservative House of Representatives and a more partisan political atmosphere. Then there was the elimination of federal earmarks, the process by which Congress directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects, and the current economic climate, which has resulted in a push for reduced federal spending so as to begin addressing our nation’s $15.6 trillion debt.

While federal education spending continues to see minor increases, funding for core federal education programs including Title I, the Indi-viduals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and school improvement programs has, in effect, been level-funded by Congress the past few years.

Federal education programs may be further impacted as a result of the elec-tions this fall. Several pieces of federal education legislation are pending Congressional revision: the Elemen-tary and Secondary Education Act or ESEA (also known as NCLB or the No Child Left Behind Act); IDEA; the Workforce Investment Act (WIA); and a number of programs that have been appropriated but not authorized, such as Race to the Top, Promise Neighborhoods, and the Investing in Innovation (i3) programs.

Washington Watch

T h e C l a s s r o o m T e a c h e r • S u m m e r 2 0 1 2 17

Education not a major campaign issue … so far

Education has not received much attention this campaign season despite it being a top-tier issue for voters according to a recent survey by the College Board. And, although President Barack Obama and his administration have introduced several education initiatives since taking office, voters don’t necessarily identify with those same priority issues.

According to the same survey, just 31 percent of voters want to see funding go to expand school options, 24 percent place a priority on merit-pay bonuses for teachers, and only 17 percent of voters want to see money for school choice. Additionally, the administration has said and done very little related to core education programs such as Title I and IDEA.

It also remains unclear if and how Mitt Romney, the likely Republican presidential nominee, will use educa-tion in his campaign. Romney has declared his support for NCLB. He also has expressed his support for the federal government’s involve-ment in education, although he has mentioned consolidating the U.S. Department of Education “with another agency, or perhaps [making] it a heck of a lot smaller” if elected.

As for Congress, nearly 40 members of the House of Representatives and 11 senators have already left or will leave Congress in 2012. Still, though Republicans will likely lose House seats, they are expected to maintain their majority. In the Senate, whether Democrats maintain the majority or Republicans take it back, the numbers will remain close.

Potential outcomes for ESEA

Regardless of who gets elected this fall, there are a number of foresee-able outcomes for education reform, and in particular, for ESEA. Congress

could remain deeply divided, making it difficult to pass any legislation, including the long-overdue rewrite of ESEA. Another potential outcome is that Congress will begin to push back against the status quo of not advancing the majority of bills they consider and, once again, work in a bipartisan manner, creating much better odds of moving ahead with true education reform and ESEA reau-thorization. Whatever the outcome, our nation’s education system needs revision to ensure our nation’s educa-tors are supported and all students are educated to meet the demands of college and the workplace.

This article was prepared by TCTA’s lobby team in Washington, D.C., Van Scoyoc Associates, which has extensive experience with education-related committees at the Capitol and in executive branch agencies.

PAID ADVERTISEMENT

TEKS and STAAR!********************************

▪ STAAR Assessment

– Reading – Grades 3, 4, 5

- Reading Warm-ups

- Focus on the STAAR - Reading

▪ Writing – Grade 4

- Revising / Editing

▪ TEKS – Introduction, Practice,

Reinforcement, Assessment

- Reading

- Mini Lessons – K – Grade 3

- Mini Flip Charts – K – Grade 3

- I Know the Reading TEKS! Board

Games – K – Grade 3

-Read-To‛s – Basic – K – Grade 3

- Oral Reading Fluency Practice and

Progress Monitoring – Grades 2-5

-Guided Reading Lessons – 3, 4/5

-Beginning Reading – Classroom and

Homework Activities – K – 1

-Writing

- Sentences – Writing/Revising/Edit**********************************

FREE SAMPLES at

www.readingwarmupsandmore.com

********************************

1-877-315-6925

AccoladesTCTA member recognized with H-E-B Excellence in Teaching AwardEmily Swoboda, Northside CTA mem-ber, was one of six Texas teachers to win a prestigious H-E-B Excel-lence in Education Award in May 2012. Swoboda was chosen for the secondary-level Leadership Award and will receive $10,000 for herself and a $10,000 grant for her school, Communications Arts High School in San Antonio.

Educators make outstanding alums!Two TCTA members were among 12 outstanding teachers recently honored by the University of Texas at Austin alumni association, the Texas Exes, for outstanding teaching: Kathi Burney, an English teacher at Hughes Springs High School; and Linda Jo Huff, an algebra teacher at Angleton High School.

Wichita Falls ISD selects TCTA member as Teacher of the Year Longtime McNiel Junior High School teacher Micky Miller was chosen as the Wichita Falls ISD Teacher of the Year in April 2012. Miller teaches 7th grade pre-AP Texas History and is a TCTA faculty representative at his school.

Teacher recognized for “heart” Bay City ISD’s Holmes Elementary teacher Ruby Tanguma won the dis-trict’s “You’ve Got Heart” award in March 2012. A fellow teacher nominated Tanguma because of her positive attitude and dedication to her students that includes often stay-ing after school to provide tutoring. Tanguma is an active TCTA member who has represented District 3 on the Directors’ Council.

t c t a . o r g • 8 8 8 - 8 7 9 - 8 2 8 218

FULFILLING CAREER IN EDUCATION LEADS TO SO MUCH MORE FOR NEW

TCTA PRESIDENT NANETTE SISSNEYAlthough teaching wasn’t a lifelong dream for Nanette Sissney, it’s clear she was born to be an educator. After an early career in the business world and another as a full-time mother, she has spent the last 21 years in the Whitesboro ISD public schools — the first 12 years teaching high school and the last nine as a school counselor. On June 1, 2012, Sissney took office as 2012-13 statewide president of the Texas Classroom Teachers Association, and her busy world became even busier.

Fulfilling career in education

Sissney’s teaching career began when she was 38 and her sons were 8 and 10. Prior to teaching, she spent many years in computer operations and financial auditing before the family moved to a farm near Whitesboro in pursuit of “good country living.”

After several years as a full-time mother, Sissney decided to return to the workforce, and quickly turned to education because she had developed “a deep respect for teachers” while volunteering at her sons’ schools. In 1990, she earned her bachelor of arts degree in political science from Texas Woman’s University and began teaching at Whitesboro High School.

“Teaching high school seniors gave me the opportunity to work with older students just as they were struggling with the decision of what path to follow as they entered life’s next phase,” says Sissney, “and while I absolutely loved teaching government and economics and knew subject matter was important, I thought helping students believe in themselves was equally important.” After 12 years as a teacher, Sissney returned to school and obtained her master’s degree with an emphasis in school counseling from Southeastern Oklahoma State University.

There’s no such thing as an “average day” for Sissney, now a counselor at Whitesboro Intermediate School. Rather, each day is determined by the needs of 370 8-, 9-, and 10-year-olds, who deal with numerous issues. Sissney also conducts character guidance classes, works with small groups on various issues such as friendship, divorce and grief, and spends a big part of the spring semester fulfilling her responsibilities as testing coordinator.

Sissney enjoys making life a little better for students and is heartened by the simple signs of appreciation — a smile in the hallway or an unsolicited hug. She feels particularly rewarded when she notes a positive change in a student’s habits or attitude. At the same time, she finds it heartbreaking to see students in circumstances that are weighing them down, knowing she is powerless to bring about the permanent changes needed to help them reach their potential.

While all professions have drawbacks and stresses, Sissney believes education is “the most noble of all professions, and one that offers a unique opportunity and challenge to change the face of the world one student at a time.” She loves what she does and considers it much more than a job.

Yet, she has concerns

Sissney is concerned about the lack of a strong family presence today, and she sees students coming to school with more needs than ever before. Additional funding is required to meet these needs, but as funding continues to decline and as student needs grow more demanding, Sissney sees the gap widening regarding the ability to help students reach their potential.

Sissney believes the school finance system, in its current form, is unable to meet the needs of students, and calls for development of a system that is fair and will provide appropriate funding for students. She thinks it’s crucial for teachers and teacher groups to provide input on the new system.

A seat at the table

In 2009, Sissney was appointed by Gov. Rick Perry to a six-year term on the board of trustees of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas. She is one of two public school district active members on the board and was nominated by employees of public school districts. Sissney is especially proud to have been nominated by her peers and finds service on the board both challenging and rewarding. TRS manages pension funds for Texas public education employees and oversees the health insurance programs for active and retired members.

T h e C l a s s r o o m T e a c h e r • S u m m e r 2 0 1 2 19

Supporting the profession

Sissney became a TCTA member during her first year of teaching 21 years ago, and she quickly realized the impor-tance of professionals belonging to an organization that promotes the profession, keeps members updated, offers access to attorneys and legal information, and provides liability insurance and continuing education.

Besides the tangible benefits of TCTA membership, she says belonging to TCTA also sends an important message: “I am a professional and want to do my part to promote the teaching profession.” She adds that “this power of advocacy at the Capitol is also a tremendous reason to belong to TCTA.”

After serving as a district director for two years and as a two-term member of the Executive Board as chair of the Professional Rights & Responsibilities Committee, Sissney felt ready to lead the organization in its continued efforts to promote and protect the teaching profession. She believes that helping new and existing teachers understand the value of belonging to TCTA is crucial, and encourages members “to help TCTA membership grow one member at a time by reaching out and making personal contact with colleagues.”

Also active on the local level, Sissney has served on the Region 10 Teacher of the Year panel, and on several committees and in numerous capacities for the Whites-boro CTA, including president, secretary and faculty representative. Sissney also has served as second vice-pres-ident of the Delta Kappa Gamma Kappa Zeta Chapter.

As 2012-13 TCTA statewide president, Sissney will guide the organization’s efforts as we work to enhance the teaching profession and provide a full array of services and advocacy to our members. She also will take an active role in representing TCTA at many key discussions and meetings. She has expressed excitement about serving as statewide president and looks forward to visiting with local leaders and members from every region of Texas.

The personal side of Sissney

Born in Tyler, Sissney later moved to Daingerfield where she graduated from Daingerfield High School. She credits her parents for recognizing the importance of education and encouraging their children to study hard and make

education a priority. Sissney’s mother was valedictorian of her class even after skipping a grade, and went on to receive a two-year business degree (which Sissney says was typing and shorthand in those days). Sissney’s two aunts are retired educators who are very proud that she entered the profession, and her three sister-in-laws also teach.

Sissney and her husband of 38 years, Dale, have two children. Their older son, Michael, teaches government and economics and is the girls’ varsity basketball coach at Keller Central High School.

Son Michael, daughter-in-law Brittany, and granddaughter Kara

Michael’s wife, Brittany, an RN, is currently a student in the graduate program for nurse anesthetists at Texas Wesleyan University and will graduate in 2013. The couple has a 5-year-old daughter, Kara, who Sissney says is high energy and brings much joy to the family.

The Sissneys’ younger son, John, will begin his three-year residency at Texas A&M’s Health Science Center in June. His wife, Emily, has been a 6th grade math teacher in Birdville for the past four years, and she will teach math in Bryan ISD next year.

While free time is a rarity for Sissney, she says she couldn’t be happier with her life and the choices she’s made. She thrives on being busy, but when she does have a little time, she says she enjoys spending it with family and friends, traveling and reading.

Her final message

Sissney strongly believes that: “Teachers are the good guys, the ones with white hats. We must continue to be involved in decisions, work hard, promote the profession and help to find solutions to problems.”

A quote from James Boren has served as a template for her. Boren’s “Guidelines for Bureaucrats” are “(1) When in charge, ponder; (2) when in trouble, delegate; (3) when in doubt, mumble.” Sissney’s suggested guidelines for educa-tors are more proactive: (1) When an election is coming, educate yourself; (2) vote in both the primary and general elections; and (3) expect what you were promised!Nanette and her husband Dale

Son John and daughter-in-law Emily

t c t a . o r g • 8 8 8 - 8 7 9 - 8 2 8 220

SCHOOL’S OUT AND SUMMER’S HERE.Time to rest and relax, rejuvenate and regroup, revive and

replenish. Take a moment to read how your fellow TCTA members are spending the summer, and enjoy your well-deserved break.

Share Your Summer!

The “Go Slow” Way of Life in BelizeTHIS PAST DECEMBER, I RETIRED AFTER 29 YEARS OF TEACHING, and after more than 30 years in the chemical plant industry, my husband will retire in August. We have visited the small Central American country of Belize several times and have fallen in love with the “Go Slow” way of life this Caribbean paradise serves up. So, this summer we are staying in Belize for 21 days, during which time we will travel across the entire country in pursuit of not only “together time,” but doing the international house-hunting thing!

My sister and her husband (the brother of my husband) will accompany us, as they too hope to cash in on a life of carefree days among some of the friendliest folk one can encounter. So, as we cart along the not-so-pampered roads of Be-lize, we hope to enjoy some Mayan memories, rainforest ruckuses and barefoot beaches. As the Kriol say, “Gaad bles Bileez.”

Tammy BarnettFormer 5th grade science teacherGoliad Intermediate SchoolGoliad ISD

T h e C l a s s r o o m T e a c h e r • S u m m e r 2 0 1 2 21

Getting Back to Her Dutch Roots MY PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER WAS THE ONLY CHILD IN HER FAMILY BORN IN AMERICA; everyone else was born in the Netherlands. My father always said I resembled her in many ways, but my memories of her are dim because she passed away when I was 6. Growing up in western Michigan, I remember my great aunts and uncles jabbering in Dutch, but I never paid much attention. I mentioned this in passing to my parents, and how I regret not picking up any Dutch when I had the chance. For my birthday, they gave me Rosetta Stone in Dutch. So what are my summer plans? I plan on learning Dutch and reconnect-ing with part of my heritage.

MJ Tykoski8th grade science teacherCooper Junior High SchoolWylie ISD (Region 10)

Welcoming Home a Soldier and Son

AS THE END OF ANOTHER SCHOOL YEAR IS LOOMING, all of my colleagues and friends get so excited talking about vacation plans. Some talk about remodeling their houses, visiting family or even working toward their master’s degrees. I, on the other hand, am

so excited about the time I get to spend with my 27-year-old son. I don’t want to go anywhere but my own back porch this summer! You see, my son is a U.S. Marine who just got back to the states from Afghanistan. He has been in the Marines for almost six years, and we have not gotten to spend a lot of time together.

He and I were talking the other day over the phone (I have not seen or hugged him yet), and he said the most wonderful words a son could say and that will forever ring in my ears: “Mom, I just want to relax when I come home, sit outside on the porch soaking in ‘home,’ enjoy your meatloaf with green bean casserole, and play with Flash.” My son, a rough, tough sergeant in the Marines, wants to be HOME with his family and play with his dog in the yard! So if anyone asks me what I am doing for my summer vacation, I will be sitting on my back porch, sip-ping on iced tea, watching my son play with his dog Flash and being THANKFUL that he came home safely to us again!

Camille StoltenbergMath teacherAngleton Intermediate SchoolAngleton ISD

“Lazy, Unstructured

Days of Summer”SUMMERTIME IS A TIME OF REST, RE-LAXATION AND RENEWAL ... so I begin with long, daily walks before the sun awakes the sweltering heat of the day, followed by coffee on the back porch beneath the gentle hum of ceiling fans, looking out at my backyard oasis of trees and flowers. Then the daily hum of forgotten activities begins. I treasure precious time with grandchildren — those who live in town and those who live far away. I work on scrapbooks that I know in my heart will never really be completed. I watch television — entire shows! I sew. I read. I relax. But before I know it, summer is at an end. I begin thinking about how to teach math to my new class even before I have met them. I plan new strategies so I can reach my students and create a love of math in their little souls. I anticipate their reactions, their smiles, their fears. It’s time. I must return to my frenzied, frantic, daily routine, storing the lazy, unstructured days of summer in pre-cious, priceless memories.

Marty Pinkstaff5th grade teacherReagan Magnet ElementaryEctor County ISD

t c t a . o r g • 8 8 8 - 8 7 9 - 8 2 8 222

No Summer Lull for This TeacherTHIS SUMMER, as with every summer, I will spend my time taking staff de-velopment classes, attending a coaching clinic, going to a health conference in San Antonio with colleagues, taking students who are part of an orga-nization I sponsor to a conference in The Woodlands, preparing for a staff development presentation for a teacher inservice at the start of school, cleaning house, and taking care of elderly parents who have suddenly taken ill. Hopefully, I will find a moment when I can take a break and just enjoy some alone time, but if not, at least I should acquire enough information to begin a new school year with some fresh, new and exciting ideas.

Iris Hancock7th grade health education teacherSugar Land Middle SchoolFort Bend ISD

“Packed” SummerI WILL RETURN TO EUROPE for a week or more in France and Spain. I will also spend 10 days in Jackson Hole, Wyo., with my family. I will spend my free days quilting, running, play-ing golf, finishing Pinterest projects, and going to Texas Ranger games. Also I will be accumulating hours for the Region 18 Sci-ence Collaborative and working on graduate classes at Texas A&M. Maybe I’ll find a fun part-time job to earn extra spending money. Needless to say, I like to “pack” my summer full of things to enjoy when I am not teaching. Andra LancasterMidland Academy Charter SchoolMidland

Reconnecting With Family

THIS SUMMER I plan to vacation with my mother. Reconnecting with family is always an easy choice for summer vacation, but when that family is your 91-year-old uncle, it makes it all the more special. My Uncle Joe lives in a small logging community at the west entrance of Mount Rainier National Park. He is still very active and has a passion for raising raspberries. The stories he tells of days when the family owned a dairy and how all the children (including my mother) worked in the blueberry fields to earn money to buy shoes for school makes me feel truly blessed to be part of this family.

Barbara FitzgeraldSocial studies teacherPathways Academic CampusKilleen ISD

Time for Work and PlayI PLAN ON GETTING A PART-TIME JOB and spending as much time as pos-sible with my two boys! That means a possible trip to the beach, San Antonio, tubing down the river, and just enjoying family and friends!

Sherri MartinPrekindergarten teacherHelen Edwards Early Childhood Learning CenterKaufman ISD

T h e C l a s s r o o m T e a c h e r • S u m m e r 2 0 1 2 23

3 WAYS TO ORDER DISCOUNT TICKETS:MAIL P.O. Box 1489, Austin, TX 78767-1489PHONE (888) 879-8282 (toll-free) ONLINE www.tcta.org/member_benefits/cost_ saving_programs

PLEASEALLOWAMPLETIMEFORTICKETDELIVERY.

AMUSEMENT PARKS

MAIL ORDER TO:

NAME

ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP

TELEPHONE

PAYMENT METHOD:PLEASE CHARGE $ ______________

TO MY: ❏ VISA ❏ MASTERCARD

ACCOUNT NO. EXP. DATE SECURITY CODE NAME ON CARD

SIGNATURE

❏ ENCLOSED IS A CHECK FOR $ ____________

TOTALPAYMENT $

TCTADISCOUNTEDTICKETSTOSEAWORLDSANANTONIO&OTHERSEAWORLD/ANHEUSER-BUSCHPARKSAREAVAILABLEONLINEONLY.

SeaWorld (San Antonio) ONE-DAY ADMISSION:____ Adult–$51.89 each $______________ Child–$43.24 each $__________

TWO-DAY ADMISSION:____ Adult–$52.98 each $______________ Child–$45.95 each $__________ (Second day must be taken by Jan. 1, 2013)

FUN CARD SEASON ADMISSION:____ Adult–$61.63 each $__________ ____ Child–$50.82 each $__________

SCHLITTERBAHNNEWBRAUNFELS&SIXFLAGSTICKETSAVAILABLEBYMAIL,PHONEORONLINE.TICKETPRICES

INCLUDESALESTAX;GATEPRICESINPARENTHESES.

Schlitterbahn (Galveston Island) ONLINEONLY

____ Adult–$41.88 each ($48.70) $______________ Child–$32.13 each ($37.88) $__________

Schlitterbahn (New Braunfels) ____ Adult–$43.24 each ($50.87) $______________ Child–$34.95 each ($41.12) $__________

Schlitterbahn (South Padre Island) ONLINEONLY

____ Adult–$36.79 each ($47.62) $______________ Child–$32.46 each ($37.88) $__________

SixFlagsOverTexas (Arlington)____ Adult/Child–$33.46 each ($61.55/43.19) $__________

SixFlags-HurricaneHarbor (Arlington)____ Adult/Child–$23.75 each ($32.39/26.99) $__________

SixFlags-FiestaTexas (San Antonio) ____ Adult/Child–$35.14 each ($61.62/43.24) $__________

SPLASHTOWNTICKETSAVAILABLEBYMAIL/PHONEONLY

Splashtown (Houston) ____ Adult/Child–$22.72 ($38.96/30.30) $__________

DATE REQUESTED

DATE MAILED

ORDER TAKEN BY

ORDER COMPLETED BY

OFFICE USE ONLY

TCTA MEMBERS PLAY“AT A DISCOUNT”

AT TEXAS’ FAVORITE

t c t a . o r g • 8 8 8 - 8 7 9 - 8 2 8 224

*Advance reservations required. Discount is subject to availability at participating hotels and cannot be combined with any other discount. © 2012 Choice Hotels International, Inc. All rights reserved. 12-367/04/12

With over 6,100 locations around the world, Choice Hotels International® has the locations you need at the rates you want—and now our amenities are better than ever. Select brands have enhanced their bedding and breakfast offerings to ensure guests enjoy their hotel experience. Join the Choice Privileges® rewards program and start earning points toward free nights with every qualifying stay. There’s never been a greater time to check into Choice.

Receive the TCTA rate on your next stay at participating hotels when you enter Special Rate ID: 00800827*

ChoiceHotels.com 800.258.2847

Great Locations. Great Brands. Great Value.

12-367_TCTA_FP_Ad_8.5x11.indd 1 4/27/12 4:25 PM

PAID ADVERTISEMENT

T h e C l a s s r o o m T e a c h e r • S u m m e r 2 0 1 2 25

TCTA DELIVERS YOUR CPE: It’s online and FREE

What’s new for summer 2012?(Each worth 1.25 hours CPE credit)

Teach Like a STAAR (Parts I and II)

The Aftermath: How Educators’ Legal Rights Are Being Impacted

by Legislative Changes

Communication and Respect

Differentiating for Gifted Students

Curing the Culture of Disrespectin the Classroom

Current Events Update

What Works for ESL in the Classroom

Other popular online courses:Real Solutions to Behavior Problems

Mastering Social Media for Your Classroom

Cyberbullying: The New Frontier

Making It Work: Principals’ Perspectives on GoodWorking Relationships

Lessons Learned from Responding to a School Crisis

Response to Intervention:A System of Support forStudents and Teachers

Collaboration Tools forStudents and Teachers

Texting Your Way Into Trouble:How To Keep Your Relationships

With Students Professional

School Violence: What’s Really Going On?

Behind the Wizard’s Curtain:Creating Activities That Transport

the Gifted from Kansas to Oz

Strategies for Teaching GiftedStudents in a Regular Classroom

TRS Contributions: Where’s My Money Going?

Contemplating Retirement ina Struggling Economy

All Texas teaching certificate holders who earned their certificates after Sept. 1, 1999, must accumulate 150 continuing profes-sional education (CPE) hours every five years to keep their cer-tificates active. An SBEC-approved provider of CPE, TCTA is here to help. TCTA.org/seminars provides a variety of free professional development courses that you can complete on any computer at any time — and your summer break could be a perfect time to earn some hours.

Most of the seminars are video-based, some are written, and a few feature printable handouts for additional information. A tracking system helps confirm that your class has been com-pleted, and you can print out a certificate outlining CPE credit hours earned.

For more than a decade, TCTA has offered members a convenient, free option for earning continuing professional education credits, and we have just unveiled several new online CPE sessions — just in time for summer!

*Advance reservations required. Discount is subject to availability at participating hotels and cannot be combined with any other discount. © 2012 Choice Hotels International, Inc. All rights reserved. 12-367/04/12

With over 6,100 locations around the world, Choice Hotels International® has the locations you need at the rates you want—and now our amenities are better than ever. Select brands have enhanced their bedding and breakfast offerings to ensure guests enjoy their hotel experience. Join the Choice Privileges® rewards program and start earning points toward free nights with every qualifying stay. There’s never been a greater time to check into Choice.

Receive the TCTA rate on your next stay at participating hotels when you enter Special Rate ID: 00800827*

ChoiceHotels.com 800.258.2847

Great Locations. Great Brands. Great Value.

12-367_TCTA_FP_Ad_8.5x11.indd 1 4/27/12 4:25 PM

t c t a . o r g • 8 8 8 - 8 7 9 - 8 2 8 226

The easy solution seems to many to be to spend the state’s rainy day fund, or at least a significant part of it. TCTA is supportive of using this fund and urged that approach with legislators last session, but it’s not a long-term fix. Like the federal stimulus funds that got us through the session before last, the rainy day fund is one-time money that does nothing to address the structural revenue deficit. Our revenue system is simply not designed to generate the amount of money needed to continue state government spending, including that spent on education, at its current level. Fixing it means somebody will have to pay more, and some programs may have to be cut.

What can we do?

The Texas House could have 35 to 40 new members in the 2013 session. More than 30 of the candidates in the primary elections have an education background, with most having served on a local school board. This is poten-tially good news for education funding, but possibly bad news for teacher rights and benefits, as many administrators basically threw teachers under the bus last session by demanding “flexibility” (translation: the ability to pay teachers less and fire them more easily) in exchange for reduced funding.

It is heartening that the tide seems to be turning in terms of public senti-ment. We more often hear about and from parents who recognize that it’s time to dial back the emphasis on standardized testing and return to a more balanced approach to checking progress without making the checking the focal point of education.

Hundreds of districts have signed onto a resolution urging modera-tion in the testing system, and even outgoing Commissioner of Education Robert Scott, in his final months in that role, noted that the accountability system had become a “perversion” of what was intended. (Spoiler alert: The

lawsuit. That makes sense to us given that most of what they seek has little to do with school finance and much to do with ideological policy argu-ments that thus far they’ve lost in the legislative arena.

And in the tradition of piling on, the Texas Association of Business, long a vocal critic of public education while simultaneously doing everything possible to avoid properly funding it, has sought to join with the intervenors. The organization’s head announced at a recent press conference that business pays two-thirds of the cost of public education and is the ultimate consumer of the product.

I’m a little stunned that there hasn’t been an outcry at the assertion, which has been made more than once, that business is the ultimate consumer of the product of the education system. It seems like parents and students would think they had a stake, that retirees would have an interest in those who will contribute to the economy and their benefits, and that some might even value education for its own sake.

What’s the solution?

So why is it so difficult to fund our schools at even the level of the national average? That seems such a straightforward and simple approach to take if we really want to address our diverse student population’s needs. Much of the challenge results from the mixed messages legislative candidates are hearing. Parents and educators object to the funding cutbacks and the damage that has been done, while fiscal conservatives urge smaller government and no tax increases. Given the significant share of the state’s budget consumed by education, these two desires may be mutually exclusive. Worse yet, some who want increased education funding are also opposed to higher taxes or more government spending.

E X E C U T I V E D I R E C T O R ’ S M E S S A G E

Texas Association of Business strongly opposes any “retreat” from account-ability.)

The sense is that we are at a crossroads in public education, considering whether to invest in our tradi-tional public schools and moderate the demands of accountability, or to abandon the current model of traditional public education and fragment into a piecemeal system of distance and online learning, charter schools, vouchers and credit recovery programs. There are many factors at play and entities with different agendas, so it will be critical that those of us who support public schools make our voices heard.

continued from page 2

Shelley Reep1967 – 2012

TCTA leader Shelley Reep lost her four-year battle with cancer in April 2012, only two months after being hon-

ored as TCTA’s 2011-12 Leader of the Year at the state convention.

The Midland CTA award nomination described Reep as “vocal and passionate about protect-ing the profession she loves,” and noted that she was instrumental in many changes in her district that have protected teachers’ rights. As a former chair of Midland’s Teacher Com-munication Committee, Reep served as a liai-son between teachers and the central office.

Reep also was known for being a caring mentor for her students, spending time with them and helping them to gain self-confidence.

“When she saw kids come from environments where parents weren’t loving and supportive, it was personal to her,” says TCTA member-ship director Julia Swope, who knew Reep well. “She was going to instill self-esteem and drive in those kids no matter what it took.”

A teacher for 22 years, Reep had taught 7th grade math at Alamo Junior High School since 2006. Prior to that, she taught grades 4-6 at Burnet Elementary School for 17 years. In 2011, Midland ISD recognized Reep as a “Hero for Kids.”

In Memoriam

T h e C l a s s r o o m T e a c h e r • S u m m e r 2 0 1 2 27PAID ADVERTISEMENT

t c t a . o r g • 8 8 8 - 8 7 9 - 8 2 8 228

Texas Classroom Teachers Association P.O. Box 1489, Austin, TX 78767-1489(888) 879-8282 (toll-free) (512) 477-9415 (phone)(512) 469-9527 (fax) tcta.org

PERIODICALS POSTAGE PAID AT

AUSTIN TEXAS

Amusement park tickets and moreSchlitterbahn, Six Flags, SeaWorld and more(see page 23 for discount prices)

The Houston Museum of Natural Science(discount coupon available online)

Car rental preferred rates(Discount codes available online)Alamo (800) 462-5266Avis (800) 331-1212Budget (800) 527-0700

21st Century Auto Insurance(800) 442-4317Preferred rates with first-quality ser-vice and coverage, including 24-hour roadside assistance, identity theft restoration service, and emergency travel & medical assistance.

Hotels at special rates LA QUINTA INNS(866) 468-3946 Up to 35 percent off at participating locations

CHOICE HOTELS®

(800) 258-2847 Up to 15% off at participating locations(discount code available online; see page 24 for details)

Sprint cell phone service discountsUp to 23 percent discount on cell phone service with a 30-day money back guarantee; certain restrictions apply. Contact rebecah.parkinson@sprint.com.

Have fun with TCTA member discounts

TCTA has what you need for summer fun — whether it’s discount tickets to your favorite amusement park or special rates on a hotel and car for your summer vacation. As a TCTA member, you have exclusive access to a wide range of special cost-saving programs. Here we highlight just a few that focus on summer fun:

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT

TCTA.ORG/SERVICES OR CALL TOLL-FREE AT (888) 879-8282.

SCHOOL’S OUT AND

SUMMER’SHERE