Relating to accountability intervention provisions applicable to school district campuses, including the creation of accelerated campus excellence turnaround plans and the conditions under which a closed campus may be repurposed to serve students at that campus location.
Impact
The bill significantly modifies the Texas Education Code, specifically relating to campus turnaround plans. It introduces the concept of expedited turnaround plans for schools permanently rated as unacceptable for consecutive years. The commissioner of education is granted more authority regarding the selection of schools that require turnaround strategies, and the bill emphasizes the importance of documentation regarding the district's resources, restructuring methods, and programs designed to cater to special student populations. Such changes are likely to affect the standard operating procedures of school districts and ensure a more focused approach to underperforming campuses.
Summary
SB1412 focuses on implementing accountability intervention provisions for school district campuses in Texas. The bill aims to establish accelerated campus excellence turnaround plans that provide structured guidelines for schools that are rated as unacceptable. The provisions include detailed instructions on the restructuring of campuses, the types of academic programs to be offered, and the involvement of campus-level committees and stakeholders in the decision-making processes. The goal is to enhance the educational outcomes of students attending underperforming schools while giving districts a framework to improve their academic standards.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding SB1412 has been largely positive among proponents who emphasize its potential to significantly improve educational outcomes in struggling schools. Advocates believe the rigorous framework for accountability will lead to better management and result in enhanced student performance. However, there are concerns among opponents regarding the capacity of the commissioner of education to unilaterally dictate when a campus should be repurposed and the implications it may have on local governance and decision-making processes. This creates a division where some view the bill as necessary reform, while others see it as a potential overreach of authority.
Contention
Notable points of contention include the balance of authority between local educational bodies and the state's commissioner. Critics argue that granting the commissioner the final say on improvement plans without avenues for appeal raises issues regarding local input and control. Furthermore, the conditions under which a closed campus may be repurposed to serve students spark debates over community engagement, adequacy of representation from parents and educators, and the fear that some students could be displaced if their campus becomes repurposed. The discussion of autonomy for districts versus streamlined state intervention illustrates a conflict in educational governance as the state continues to grapple with reforming school accountability standards.
Relating to evaluation under the state accountability system of school district campuses that enroll certain students who receive special education services.
Relating to the use of opioid antagonists on the campuses of public and private schools and institutions of higher education and at or in transit to or from off-campus school events.
Relating to an indicator of achievement for evaluating the performance of public elementary, middle, and junior high school campuses and districts under the public school accountability system.
Permits high performing school districts to be monitored by DOE under New Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJ QSAC) every seven years rather than every three years.