House Public Education Committee Hears Interim Charges 

Legislative “Interim Charges”: What Are They and Why Do They Matter?

The Texas Legislature meets once every two years for 140 days for its regular legislative session, during which the only bill it is required to pass and send to the governor’s desk to be signed into law is the budget for the next biennium.  

We became all too familiar with “special sessions” in 2023 after the governor called four, which can last up to thirty days. After calling a special session, the governor lists policy areas and only legislation germane to these policies may be considered. The four special sessions Gov. Abbott called in 2023 were failed attempts to force the passage of universal taxpayer-funded school voucher legislation. Despite the availability of billions of your tax dollars in the state surplus, state leadership chose short-sighted property tax relief instead of fully funding our public schools that have not seen an increase in the basic allotment since 2019. 

During the interim between legislative sessions, the Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives and the Lieutenant Governor, who serves as president of the Texas Senate, issue lists of “interim charges” to committees within their respective chambers. These interim charges typically task committees with: 

1. monitoring the implementation of bills passed in the most recent legislative session, and 

2. examining salient issues and providing recommendations to be potentially incorporated in bills to be filed in the next legislative session. 

Decisions about which issues should be covered in the interim charges and how these charges are worded are highly political. The House Public Education Committee’s interim charge on potential voucher legislation was characterized as examining issues related to providing “educational opportunity,” euphemistic language intended to evoke emotional support for pro-voucher talking points. Another political decision is made by committee chairs regarding who to bring in as invited witnesses to speak as subject matter experts, as they often reflect a pre-existing bias in favor of a particular perspective and set of preferred policy solutions. 

These interim committee charges and hearings are important because they frame issues to be acted on in the next legislative session and establish expectations for what kinds of policy solutions should be considered. 

The House Public Education Committee held much-anticipated hearings on its interim charges on Monday, August 12, and Tuesday, August 13. 

Commissioner’s Update on Behalf of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) 

Before the Monday hearing began, TEA Commissioner of Education Mike Morath presented an update on the state of public education in Texas.  

Morath presented on the state of public education funding in Texas using outdated inflation figures from earlier in the year, remaining generally agnostic regarding whether the current funding levels are adequate to meet our state’s needs. 

Some highlights of Morath’s testimony included his acknowledgment of the approximately $2 billion special education funding gap — the difference between the state aid provided to districts for special education and what they actually spend — and how the size of the state’s population of students receiving special education services has significantly grown over the past several years, representing a significant additional cost to our school districts. He also testified about the woefully inadequate funding provided to school districts for school safety and security which has resulted in widespread difficulty complying with the new state mandates passed last legislative session, including the requirement that districts assign at least one-armed security guard to protect every campus. 

When pressed by Rep. Brian Harrison (R-Midlothian) regarding whether public education is “funded at its highest levels ever,” however, he supported the anti-public education talking point. This argument is used to distract from the state’s failure to adequately fund our public schools and promote the unfounded argument that additional funding would have little or no impact on improving student outcomes or the quality of public education that our public schools can provide. Notably, neither Harrison nor Morath accounted for crucial factors like inflation or enrollment growth in their discussion. It took Rep. Gina Hinojosa (D-Austin) to challenge this oversimplification and provide the much-needed context of rising costs and increasing student numbers. 

Implementation of Legislation 

Instructional Materials and Education Programs 

The committee spent the first portion of the day hearing panels related to the implementation of HB 1605. This was the giant instructional materials bill from the 88th Legislative session that, among its many provisions, requires TEA to develop open education resources (OER) for certain grades and subjects and for the State Board of Education (SBOE) to revamp its review and adoption process toward “high-quality instructional materials” (HQIM). Chairman Aaron Kinsey reported that the state had adopted a host of rules related to the requirements of the bill as well as the adoption of quality rubrics for English and Spanish language arts and reading and mathematics and a suitability rubric for all subjects. He also outlined upcoming actions to be taken by the SBOE for their current review. There will be a hearing for all submitted materials in September with final adoption of materials anticipated at their November meeting.  

Commissioner Mike Morath extolled the virtues of OER, namely that they will be free and adaptable. However, Rep. James Talarico had many pointed questions for the Commissioner on the addition of Biblical stories and references that amounted to “preaching” in the classroom. He stated that these presented a slanted worldview according to Christianity and excluded other belief systems, excluding those students that hold differing beliefs from being fully welcomed in the classroom experience. 

Texas AFT testified on some of the unintended consequences of the bill. Though the bill requires educator preparation programs to train teacher candidates in the availability and use of OER, TEA has leveraged that provision to propose the elimination of lesson design from teacher pedagogy training. Not only did this take aim at the foundations of the teaching profession, it is a serious overreach by the agency. Fortunately, we along with the other members of the Texas Coalition for Educator Preparation (TCEP), successfully advocated to stop this action for now. 

HB 2209 established the Rural Pathway Excellence Partnership (R-PEP) program which allows the creation of partnerships between districts to offer more and more substantial career pathways for students in rural districts where there are fewer opportunities. Panelists said the program has been somewhat slow to launch but that where it has, they are seeing great success with the program. One student testified that R-PEP has allowed her to graduate with multiple certifications, creating more choices for her after high school. 

SB 2124, passed during the 88^th regular session, created the Middle School Advanced Mathematics Program which requires school districts to establish and automatically enroll eligible students in an advanced mathematics pathway. It’s estimated that 52,000 students will be enrolled next year, giving them the opportunity to complete Algebra I in eighth grade= and leading to more advanced math courses, such as Advanced Placement, before graduation. Completion of higher math courses is a strong predictor of education attainment and workforce outcomes. The SBOE is beginning the work of creating standards to meet the needs of this new pathway. 

“Educational Opportunity”/Vouchers 

The timing of the hearing, coinciding with the first day of school for many districts and new teacher orientations in others, appeared to be a calculated move to minimize participation from educators and school employees. This scheduling choice limited the voices of those most directly impacted by potential voucher legislation. 

Also telling was the use of euphemistic language in the interim charge on vouchers as mentioned above. 

Furthermore, the list of invited witnesses only included pro-voucher advocates, all but one from outside of Texas, whose experience with vouchers comes from states that do not represent the size and diversity of Texas’s public school system. This lineup appeared to be designed to produce a discussion leading to a particular desired outcome: a pro-voucher recommendation from the committee. 

Despite the apparent bias in the witness selection, several committee members asked the invited witnesses critical questions about voucher programs: 

3. Benefiting the Wealthy: Rep. Gina Hinojosa (D-Austin) pointed out that studies show 70% or more of voucher recipients in other states were existing private school students from disproportionately wealthy households, undermining the pro-voucher argument that such policies expand “educational opportunity” so that “students and families have increased options to attend high-quality schools, regardless of circumstance.” 

4. Discrimination Concerns: Private schools participating in voucher programs can discriminate against students including those requiring special education services, a point emphasized by Rep. Hinojosa. 

5. No Benefit to Students in Rural Schools: Chairman Ken King (R-Canadian), a representative of the rural House District 88 which includes 19 counties, challenged an invited witness’s claims that vouchers benefit all students, noting that in the rural communities he represents, students “wouldn’t benefit a damn bit.” 

6. Constitutional Issues: Rep. Steve Allison (D-San Antonio) — a former superintendent defeated in the Republican primary by an avid voucher proponent funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars in pro-voucher dark money — raised concerns about potential violations of the Texas Constitution if voucher legislation passes. 

7. Negative Academic Impacts: Rep. Allison cited studies showing harmful effects of vouchers on student learning and high rates of students returning to public schools with significant learning losses. 

8. Flawed Logic & Impact on Public Schools: Rep. Allison called out the flawed logic of spending billions of dollars on a parallel system to serve a minority of students at the expense of the vast majority of students who attend public schools. He also delivered a strong statement in support of Texas’s public schools for serving a large and diverse student population and providing a robust variety of innovative programs and services to students that meet their individual needs. 

9. Historical Context: Rep. Talarico reminded the committee that the original proposed school voucher in Texas was an attempt in the 1950s to circumvent racial integration mandated by Brown v. Board of Education. 

Despite attempts to limit input from public education supporters, the public testimony was predominantly opposed to the vouchers. Much of the testimony emphasized how vouchers drain state budgets, deprive public schools of necessary resources, and have a harmful impact on students.  

On the day before her first day of school, one of Texas AFT’s Thrive Fellows, a teacher from Duncanville ISD, drove from the Dallas area to Austin and spent the entire day at the Texas Capitol to make her voice heard. 

Two Democratic nominees also spent the entire day at the Texas Capitol to provide public testimony. Laurel Swift, running for House District 121 against the outspoken voucher proponent who defeated Rep. Allison, and Dr. Merrie Fox, challenging Senator Donna Campbell in Senate District 25, both expressed their strong opposition to vouchers. They urged the Texas Legislature to fully fund public schools instead. 

In addition to the hours of public testimony opposing vouchers, Texans from across the state submitted hundreds of electronic public comments, with the overwhelming majority expressing strong opposition to vouchers. 

Uncertified Teachers 

Tuesday’s hearings began with an examination of the causes for and impacts of uncertified teachers in the educator workforce. TEA staff and Chairwoman Jean Streepy of the State Board of Educator Certification began with a straightforward accounting of the alarming rise in uncertified teachers–34% of all new hires in the 2023-2024 school year entered the classroom with no certification. A recent report from Learning Policy Institute estimates just over 84,000 teachers in Texas were not fully certified for their assignment (uncertified and out of field); this represents a jaw-dropping 22.5% of all teachers currently in the classroom. Undergirding this decline in workforce quality is a policy landscape that perpetuates the revolving door. An astounding 950 school districts include an exemption for educator certification in their district of innovation (DOI) plan and of those, 418 plans also include an exemption for notifying a parent that their student has an uncertified teacher in the classroom.  

The committee and invited panelists seemed under no illusions as to the causes for this influx of underprepared teachers–qualified teachers are leaving the profession en masse due to chronically insufficient compensation and untenable working conditions. All available preparations routes together cannot train enough candidates to replace the veteran teachers and their years of experience. Districts would prefer to hire fully licensed educators, but the need is too great, and so they turn to hiring uncertified teachers. 

The tangible and intangible costs to filling our classrooms with underprepared teachers. 

• Uncertified teachers are most highly concentrated in the lowest-income areas, both urban and rural. All districts are underfunded, but these districts tend to be severely so compared to their suburban counterparts. 

• Texas AFT provided testimony echoing the expert witnesses who stated that uncertified teachers are having a significant negative impact on student outcomes. We have data demonstrating the rise in attrition coupled with the lowering in average experience of teachers is having negative impacts on math scores in particular. 

• Uncertified teachers leave the profession at much higher rates; only 39% remain after five years. This constant churn overburdens district staff to train these untrained teachers and disrupts campus climate and culture. 

• Studies vary, but it can cost a Texas school district more than $20,000 in direct and indirect costs to replace a single teacher.  

• An increase in uncertified educators also means more limited reporting, enforcement, and transparency of instances of educator misconduct. Teachers who have not completed a program are untrained in the Educator Code of Ethics. This puts our students at risk. 

The solutions seem obvious, yet the challenge will be to exert the political will to accomplish them. 

• Engage in honest negotiations to pass a clean funding bill to significantly raise the compensation of the teachers and staff that support our students daily 

• Tighten district of innovation exemptions to limit uncertified teachers and create additional incentives to seek certification either before or during a teaching assignment 

• Provide additional modes and pathways for new and novice teacher to receive support while earning certification 

• Reduce barriers to certification without impacting hiring flexibility 

Early Literacy and Numeracy 

The final charge on the interim agenda was related to early literacy and numeracy. The committee sought input into improving outcomes for pre-K through third grade students and how to achieve proficiency by the end of third grade. There were some bills in the 88th session related to this charge that did not make it over the finish line, but the interest in this topic remains.  

A common theme among the panelists was that there is insufficient data to drive good policy in this area. While we do not oppose data-driven decision making, we should not look to gather that data at the expense of our youngest students who are still learning how to learn and are often unreliable test takers. 

The comments often ranged beyond simply early reading and math to encompass the overall importance of investing in early education. The majority of human brain development is complete by age five, and providing young thinkers with opportunities to explore and play based on their creative impulses can yield huge results. Our Thrive report highlights the significant personal and workforce benefits of early learning investments such as universal childcare and universal pre-K. One testifier reminded the committee that one third of this population of learners is emergent bilingual and that any solution must consider the need for bilingual education and support.

Next Steps 

After the completion of the hearings this week, the House Public Education Committee has now heard testimony on all of the interim charges it was assigned.  

Several issues crucial to the future of public education in Texas were glaringly absent from those interim charges. These omissions include: 

• Resolving the worsening school finance crisis, evidenced by the growing number of districts facing massive budget deficits, laying off essential employees, and closing local public schools 

• Increasing compensation for educators and school employees as a necessary intervention to the recruitment and retention crisis 

• Improving working conditions and providing healthy, safe, and secure working and learning environments 

• Expanding access to affordable childcare for educators 

• Reining in the issues caused by Districts of Innovation (DOI), including the degradation of standards and lack of transparency and accountability 

Thankfully, pro-public education committee members and Texans providing public testimony and submitting comments continually raised these issues. Texas AFT has also been working throughout the interim with our members and legislators to lay the groundwork for change in the next legislative session, and we need your help: 

• Contacting members of the House Public Education Committee to suggest recommendations we would like for them to submit to Chairman Brad Buckley (R-Killeen) for him to consider including in the committee’s interim report. 

• Making the voices of educators and school employees heard in the upcoming (yet to be scheduled) consequential interim committee hearings in the House Committees on Higher Education and Pensions, Investments, & Financial Services. 

• Scheduling meetings with your elected officials to share your personal story and advocate for the Educators’ Bill of Rights, representing our members’ priorities and our union’s legislative agenda 

• Organizing and building your local unions, because increasing our local power across the state translates to collective influence on the policymaking process. 

• Supporting pro-public education candidates for the Texas House and empowering your friends and family to vote!