Texas Senate Bill SB912

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Out of Senate Committee: 3/2/11
• Introduced: 2/24/11
• Voted on by Senate: 3/9/11
• Refer: 2/28/11
• Report Pass: 3/2/11
• Engrossed: 3/9/11
• Refer: 4/11/11

Caption

Relating to temporary modification under certain circumstances of procedures authorized for the nonrenewal of public school teacher term contracts.

Impact

The impact of SB912 potentially broadens the rights of teachers facing nonrenewal of their contracts by allowing them specific avenues to contest such actions. By mandating hearings that must occur within a stipulated timeframe following a request from the teacher, the bill seeks to bring a level of fairness to the process. This change could affect school districts statewide, compelling them to adopt new administrative practices that align with the provisions set forth by the bill, thereby standardizing how nonrenewal cases are processed across Texas schools.

Summary

SB912 addresses the procedural mechanisms related to the nonrenewal of public school teacher term contracts, specifically under circumstances where school boards determine a reduction in personnel due to financial exigency or program changes. The bill proposes a modification to the Education Code, allowing the board of trustees to conduct hearings regarding the proposed nonrenewal of a teacher's contract, thus giving the affected teachers an opportunity to challenge decisions made against them. This modification is aimed at enhancing due process for teachers who may face nonrenewal and ensuring that their rights are recognized within the school district's administrative processes.

Contention

While SB912 aims to protect teachers’ rights, it may also raise concerns among school districts regarding the administrative burden and potential legal liabilities associated with holding hearings. Critics may argue that the procedural requirements add complexity to already challenging budgetary situations, particularly in districts experiencing financial constraints. Furthermore, there may be debates over how the specified timelines for hearings could lead to rushed decisions, thereby undermining the quality of deliberation required to address such significant employment matters.