HB 400 committee hearing
Late into Tuesday evening (and, technically, Wednesday morning), the House Public Education committee held a public hearing that included testimony regarding Chairman Rob Eissler’s "game-changing" deregulation bill, HB 400.Among other things, HB 400 eliminates the state minimum salary schedule and replaces it with locally-designed compensation packages that must be based on teacher evaluations and student test scores (or the district can choose a TEA-developed salary model instead), shifts to a districtwide K-4 class size average of 22:1 with a maximum of 25 students per class (waivers would still be available), and relaxes teacher legal protections to make it easier for a school district to engage in a reduction in force mid-year. HB 400 is also significant because it reinforces our sense that some organizations are opportunistically using the concern about the state budget to eliminate long-standing policies that protect students and teachers.
TCTA's Lonnie Hollingsworth, Director of Legal Services and Governmental Relations, was on hand to testify against the bill and explain TCTA’s concerns with the legislation. While the bill is supported by superintendents because of the local flexibility it provides, it would have long-term negative consequences for students and teachers. Research indicates that we should be working toward lowering class sizes, not raising them. The concept of a districtwide average is particularly troublesome in light of the fact that the average student-to-teacher ratio in Texas is 14.5 to 1, a point made in TCTA’s testimony to committee members. Clearly, larger class sizes are being averaged with small, nontraditional classes (such as special education or LEP classes) to achieve such a low figure.
TCTA is also concerned about the proposed salary measures. As TCTA’s testimony explained, “It is important to keep in mind that having a state minimum salary schedule is the main mechanism you, as legislators, have to direct dollars to the classroom and to emphasize instructional salaries.” We also noted, “The evidence continues to mount that it is inappropriate and unsupported by the research to base compensation, teacher evaluation, or other high-stakes consequences on student test scores.” You can read the entirety of TCTA’s written testimony here.
A parade of bill proponents suggested that this legislation will allow districts to create smaller elementary class sizes to better educate struggling students while allowing larger classes for successful students. Rep. Scott Hochberg questioned superintendents about whether this strategy is utilized in grades to which the class-size cap does not apply, such as for high school classes, but no superintendent was able to give a definitive example of high schools or middle schools where they employ this strategy. Superintendents also stated that this bill will save them money because it will allow them to have larger (and fewer) elementary school classes, give them greater staffing authority and flexibility, and allow them to provide “strategic compensation” based on student test scores.
Many business leaders also testified in support of this bill, some eventually acknowledging that the proposal was less about responding to a fiscal crisis and more about seizing the opportunity to dismantle policies with which they disagree.
TCTA held firm that the state must continue to provide the core student and teacher protections that are contained in the Education Code. In response to questioning at the hearing, TCTA explained that it is unnecessary and unwise to make permanent policy changes in response to a temporary fiscal crisis, particularly with respect to contract, pay, and class-size issues, and noted our willingness to work with legislators on appropriate short-term solutions.
The bill was, ultimately, left pending in committee though it could come up for a committee vote soon. Should the bill move out of committee in its current form, be prepared to respond to a TCTA action alert.
