Things are heating up in this legislative session, with a metric ton of bills being filed and some of the governor’s and lieutenant governor’s stated priorities moving through the committee process.
Several of those bills are various attempts at pay incentives for teachers – and we do mean just teachers, unfortunately. We’ll walk through what’s moving and our view on those bills below, as well as recap the Senate Education Committee’s continued attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Senate Education Committee Discusses Library Books, Parental Rights
Let’s start with the non-funding-related update. The Senate Education K-16 committee met yesterday to hear a docket of “parents’ rights” related bills. Foremost were two bills by Chairman Brandon Creighton. Senate Bill 12 and Senate Bill 1565 are designed to work together to establish the parent as the primary authority in a child’s education.
Both bills take direct aim at diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programming and procedures in schools districts and charter schools. Prohibitions include hiring based on race, sex, color, or ethnicity outside of complying with anti-discrimination laws, any trainings related to DEI, and classroom instruction related to these topics. There are provisions for the transfer of students between school districts, changes to the local grievance process, and requirements for parent engagement polices among others. Most of the other bills on the committee’s agenda were related to topics addressed in either SB 12 or SB 1565.
Besides gutting policies and programs that have been shown to be enormously beneficial for students, the bills create additional heavy administrative burdens for districts. Though Texas AFT supports sustained parent involvement in public education and is in favor of several of the smaller transparency measures introduced, they do not balance the harm these bills might otherwise inflict.
The other major piece of legislation introduced was SB 13 by Sen. Angela Paxton. This is a newer version of a similar bill filed by Paxton last session. In the name of keeping obscene and harmful materials out of the hands of children, the bill would create a local library committee, similar to the existing school health advisory committee (SHAC), that would be responsible for reviewing purchase requests as well as challenges related to library materials. It would also allow a parent to specify an additional list of books that their student would not be allowed to access.
Aside from being an attack on the freedom to access information, this would place an undue burden on a campus librarian (assuming there is a librarian). Testimony was mixed, but many students were present to speak eloquently on their experiences of “finding themselves” in a book and how important it is for them to access information and stories that help to make connections within themselves and their broader community.
All bills were left pending in committee.
Senate Passes SB 26 Unanimously, with Possible Pay Raises for Some Teachers
Senate Bill 26 is $4.3 billion bill, authored by Senate Education K-16 Committee Chairman Brandon Creighton, that would also significantly expand the Teacher Incentive Allotment (TIA) pay-for-performance plan that relies heavily on standardized test scores.
Our Alliance/AFT members in Dallas ISD, who were recipients of this bonus program, have come to the Legislature on several occasions to testify against similar bills. Their message: Although they received bonus pay, a substantial number of other educators on their campuses got nothing because they teach subjects that aren’t tested. Showing the meaning of solidarity, our members have testified that they’d rather forego their own bonus if it came at the expense of their colleagues who contribute just as much to students’ success.
A critically important change in SB 26 is the elimination of the automatic pay raise language currently in statute that requires that 30% of any increase to the basic allotment must be spent on educator pay. Notably, when Creighton was asked about this on the Senate floor, he conceded that removing this 30% cap could mean that a greater percentage of a basic allotment increase could be spent on teacher pay. Then again, it could also mean educators get less than that amount spent on their raises.
There are other elements of SB 26 that provide cause for concern. Currently, National Board Certified (NBC) teachers who work in school districts participating in the TIA may earn a “Recognized” designation and generate an allotment for their district to be able to pay them a bonus. However, when SB 26 was heard in committee, Creighton added a committee amendment stripping NBC teachers’ ability to earn “Recognized” status in the TIA.
After many stakeholders complained about the NBC being eliminated from TIA recognition, Creighton offered a floor amendment that would effectively guarantee current NBC teachers their designation under the TIA until its expiration or for three years, whichever is shorter. All other teachers in the process of or planning to seek this certification would no longer qualify for automatic TIA designations.
Sen. José Menéndez was able to add an important floor amendment that requires the Texas Education Agency to provide examples of locally implemented teacher designation system for teachers of special populations, including special education and bilingual education.
The bill also creates a Teacher Retention Allotment (TRA) that would entitle districts to receive funding based on student enrollment. If a district has fewer than 5,000 students, the district would receive $5,000 for each teacher with three to five years of experience and $10,000 for teachers with five or more years of experience. If a district has more than 5,000 students, it would receive $2,500 for each teacher with three to five years of experience and $5,500 for teachers with more than five years. Although the 5,000 cutoff in student enrollment is intended to provide additional support to rural schools, charter schools that are all located in urban areas would benefit, as would wealthy, smaller districts like Alamo Heights ISD in San Antonio.
Notably, this TRA is only planned to last for two years.
House Public Education Committee Holds First Meeting
At the House Public Education Committee’s first hearing on Tuesday, Chairman Brad Buckley gave an opening statement discussing the committee’s work, including the expectation of some contentious bills, getting rid of the STAAR test, and reforming the A–F grade system for campuses and districts.
Commissioner of Education Mike Morath was the first invited testifier and mostly discussed teacher pay and the number of uncertified teachers now in our schools. Although Morath’s presentation showed an increase in teacher pay, when the numbers are adjusted for inflation there is actually a decline, something we’ve discussed at length in our report, The Lost Decade. It was only after Rep. James Talarico asked Morath for adjusted numbers that Morath conceded, “I can tell you it’s lower. If pay rises 15% and inflation is up 24%, then real pay is down.”
Rep. Gina Hinojosa and Rep. John Bryant also questioned Morath on teacher pay and asked what “fair” compensation would be, considering educators make less than professions with similar skills and degrees.
Hinojosa explained that she recently attended a roundtable discussion with teachers. She heard story after story about overwhelmingly large class sizes, and she asked Morath about TEA’s practice of easily granting class-size waivers for school districts. (Districts with District of Innovation (DOI) status, meanwhile, don’t need a waiver if they included a class-size exemption in their DOI plan. Some DOI districts likewise have exempted themselves from having to notify parents of ballooning class sizes and whether their child has an uncertified teacher.) Hinojosa also offered that her own son had no permanent teacher throughout his fifth-grade year in Austin ISD.
During a discussion of the Teacher Incentive Allotment (TIA), Morath touted the program and said participation is increasing slowly. Chairman Buckley expressed concerns about the use of STAAR scores in the TIA program and the fact that critically important educators would be left out of the program. Buckley called for TEA to provide some best practices and a framework for how other educators could participate, including those who teach fine arts and career and technical education.
On the issue of the number of uncertified teachers in the state, Rep. Jeff Leach and Rep. James Frank both registered alarm. After receiving confirmation that the “vast majority of teachers now who are entering the profession in Texas are uncertified,” Leach asked the commissioner what TEA’s authority is to investigate what has led to this moment, when 11% of Texas educators are uncertified. Morath alluded to a law passed in 2015 DOI law, which allows districts to exempt themselves from numerous quality measures. An alarming number of school districts have exempted themselves from certification requirements, which has made the DOI law a major driver of this uncertified hiring trend.
Morath acknowledged that performance data shows a “stark” contrast between certified and uncertified educators. He also noted that TEA and the State Board for Educator Certification cannot sanction or discipline uncertified educators, which is a safety concern. Leach firmly stated, “The standard should be the same for any employee on a campus.”
Buckley noted data and research that shows worse student outcomes for students with uncertified teachers. Morath confirmed this, adding that data shows attendance rates, along with student performance, decline when students have an uncertified teacher.
Leach asked if the state had made any investment into helping uncertified teachers get onto a path toward certification. Morath said the state has not invested in certification, and that while some local districts had, they are not required to.
Morath encouraged the committee to spend considerable time and resources to address the certification issue while reiterating that teachers are “the most important in-school factor impacting student outcomes.”
The House Public Education Committee will meet on Tuesdays going forward. Next Tuesday, the committee will hear invited testimony about House Bill 2, a major school finance bill discussed below.
HB 2: Texas AFT Urges Greater School Funding
HB 2 by Rep. Brad Buckley includes some positive steps, such as increasing the per-student basic allotment and expanding teacher incentives (something we support when teachers have reasonable base pay), but the proposed $220 increase per student is far too low. To keep up with inflation and ensure quality education, schools need at least a $1,340 increase per student.
Furthermore, key areas need greater funding investments than HB 2 allots:
- Teacher Pay & Retention: All teachers and staff deserve salary increases, not just those in select incentive programs. Texas needs across-the-board raises and retention bonuses to keep quality educators. One positive change in the bill is that 40% of new funding from the basic allotment would be allocated to teacher and staff compensation, an increase over the current 30%.
- Special Education & At-Risk Students: Although some of the allotments are increased in the bill, more funding through the basic allotment is critical to support special education, bilingual programs, and economically disadvantaged students. Increased mental health and counseling support is also necessary.
- School Infrastructure & Resources – Public schools need state funding for classroom expansions, HVAC systems, safety measures, and facility improvements—funding that HB 2 does not adequately provide. Instead, HB 2 hands over a massive gift of approximately $100 million per year to the charter industry for new facilities. In other words, charter schools will get more per pupil than real public schools will get per pupil through the basic allotment increase.
Texas AFT urges lawmakers to significantly increase the per-student funding allotment, provide guaranteed raises for all teachers, and boost funding for special education and school infrastructure. Texas schools deserve real, sustainable investment—not just incremental fixes. Notably, these priorities are already covered in a bill filed in this legislative session: HB 1257 by Rep. John Bryant.
HB 2 will be heard in the House Public Education Committee next week twice: once for invited testimony on Tuesday and then for public testimony on Thursday. If you’re interested in testifying, please come to our Testifier Training on Monday!
Looking Ahead: Comparing the Dueling Voucher Bills
The House Public Education Committee will also consider HB 3, the House’s private school voucher bill, on Tuesday, March 11. Both the Senate and the House have introduced bills — Senate Bill 2 and House Bill 3, respectively — proposing the establishment of education savings account (ESA) programs (vouchers).
While both bills aim to provide families with state-funded accounts to cover educational expenses, they differ in several key aspects:
Funding Allocation
- SB 2: Proposes allocating $10,000 per student annually for families to use toward private school tuition and other approved educational expenses. For students with disabilities, the allocation increases to $11,500 per student annually. Homeschooling families would receive at least $2,000 per student annually.
- HB 3: Proposes allocating 85% of the estimated statewide average state and local funding per student in daily attendance — $10,198 in 2026 and nearly $10,500 in 2027. Students with disabilities would receive the special education allotment funding, capped at $30,000 per student. Homeschooling families would receive at least $2,000 per student annually.
Eligibility Criteria
- SB 2: Any school-age child who is eligible to attend public school but could be a private school student or homeschooled student. SB 2 has income requirements if “excessive” voucher applications are received, requiring that up to the first 80% of slots be reserved for students who were enrolled in public school the prior year and have a disability or have a household income at or below 500% of the federal poverty line. (For reference, currently, 500% of the federal poverty line for a single parent with one child is $105,750 and 500% of the federal poverty line for a family of 6 is $215,750.)
- HB 3: Each priority category must be filled before the next category becomes eligible:
- Students with a disability from a household at or below 500% of the federal poverty line
- Students from household below 200% of the federal poverty line
- Students from household above 200% and below 500% of the federal poverty line
- Students who are part of a household at or above 500% of the federal poverty line
Accountability & Oversight
- SB 2: Does not impose STAAR testing requirements on private schools receiving voucher funds, but it does require the use of a nationally norm-referenced exam, leading to concerns about the lack of comparable accountability measures between public and private schools.
- HB 3: Participating students would be required to take either the state-required assessment or a nationally norm-referenced exam.
Financial Impact on Public Schools
- SB 2: Allocates $1 billion annually to fund the ESA program. However, the fiscal note on SB 2 states it will cost a whopping $4 billion per year by 2030 and could get so large that it could jeopardize the solvency of the Teacher Retirement System pension fund.
- HB 3: Although the House budget allocates $1 billion in vouchers, the full financial implications of HB 3 on public school funding are not yet detailed. We expect to see a fiscal note and an actuarial statement before the hearing for the bill on March 11. If SB 2 is any indication, the cost of HB 3 will be billions of dollars redirected to unaccountable private actors that will come directly from our neighborhood public schools.
We encourage all active and retired educators, as well as public school families, to contact your representative to demand fully funded public schools and to protect TRS pensions by rejecting private school voucher proposals.