-: Members are gonna come together.
Okay. We thank everyone for being here today,
to our Friday, June 25th, 2021 meeting
of the Texas State Board of Education.
We will be starting on our committee
of the Full Board meeting.
We had two items that we did
not complete on Wednesday, so we're gonna go back.
And we are convening as the
committee of the Full Board.
We will take up items three and four,
that we did not get to
from our agenda on Wednesday.
After that, we will close the meeting
of the committee of the Full Board
and reconvene the meeting of
the Texas State Board of Education,
to take up our normal Friday agenda.
Any questions on that?
Okay. We will move to item
number three from our Wednesday agenda,
which is legislative update,
and I'm gonna call on Hunter Thompson.
Members. It's on page I-38 of your board agenda.
-: Thank you Charles and members, I'm here to present
your legislative update for
the 87th Legislative Session overview.
So I believe you each have
a packet in front of you.
Those are the same slides that
will be covered in this presentation as well.
So just reminder, the legislative cycle is a
two-year cycle, and we are currently
in about halfway through the odd year.
So we're just through session
and now we're working on
agency implementation of bills,
the reports, those things.
And so I will be covering some
of those bills with you here today.
Next slide. So it is complete.
TEA program staff is currently still
working through some of the last minute changes,
some of the conference committee reports,
and some of those other items.
If you have detailed questions
on any of the bills, please
feel free to contact me or my office,
and we'll be glad to get back
to you with any questions or
any answers we have for your questions.
So how many bills were there?
There were 947 Public Education bills passed,
or at least filed, during this legislative session.
That is a considerable decrease from last session.
271 were heard in the house
Public Education Committee,
and 139 in the Senate Ed Committee.
Of those 947 bills that were filed,
only 124 passed both chambers.
So you had many legislative priorities.
The SBOE did and not a lot
of action was taken on a majority of those.
So I'll cover those kind of briefly here.
Next slide please.
So for assessment and A-F accountability,
no legislative action was taken
on the SBOE priority.
For charters, no legislative action
was taken for your priorities.
Next slide.
For counselors and mental health services,
there was a priority to increase funding.
No legislative action was taken to
increase funding for that particular priority.
However, S.B. 179 did require the
counselors spend at least 80% of
their time on counseling duties.
So that is positive towards
that particular priority.
On education, vendor contracts
and safe and healthy schools,
no legislative action was
taken on those priorities.
Next slide, please,
For technology and instructional materials,
there was a lot of action taken
regarding technology and instructional materials,
but not a lot of action taken
on your particular priorities.
Next slide, please.
There are a few miscellaneous
priorities that the State Board of Education
had for the 87th Legislative Session.
There were two where there was some action taken.
Number one for mathematics
and literacy achievement academies.
Those were fully funded by the legislature
and also for TEA's Exceptional Item.
Many of those components
for the Exceptional Item were
actually funded through other means,
but not specifically stated as an
Exceptional Item or Rider for TEA.
Next slide please.
And that's the Exceptional Item.
Next slide.
So key bills of the 87 session.
There were many key bills.
I believe the Commissioner went
through some of them for you earlier in the week,
and I'm just gonna be covering
them quickly here with
just some of the major highlights.
So Senate Bill 1, that is the State budget bill.
Public Education funding was
increased to about 2 billion or 4.5%
in general revenue.
It does fully fund the State's
commitment to Public Education and
all the changes made by House Bill 3.
That was a big discussion item
prior to session, and the legislature
did fully fund House Bill 3.
There were no major funding reductions
beyond the 5% funding reductions
in the LAR for TEA, and no major Rider changes.
There were a few additional Riders,
but no major Rider changes either.
There were increase in funding
through pre-K through 12,
and of course some COVID-19
interventions and assistance
brought out through 1525.
So Senate Bill 1232,
Permanent School Fund Corporation bill.
This is a bill that received some attention.
And of course, a lot of attention
from folks in this room.
It was a creation of the PSF Corporation.
So it allows the State Board to create
the Texas Permanent School Fund Corporation,
which would merge the
SBOE and School Land Board portions
of the PSF into a standalone entity.
The bill was brought about in order
to create greater returns in distributions.
This will bring the management
of the PSF under one roof,
which would allow for better
coordination of investments,
The transfer of staff and duties.
This won't begin no sooner than January of 2023,
but all PSF staff and investments
that are currently part of TEA,
would transfer to the corporation.
Required implementation report
by September 1st of 2021.
So TEA has to do a report
on our implementation plan.
If there's any questions on this particular bill,
we'll be glad to answer those as well.
On House Bill 1525, I believe the Commissioner
covered this in his earlier comments,
but just to give you some of the highlights.
Extends our reading academy
deadline by one year to 2022/2023,
it does restore the Gifted and Talented Allotment.
There was a lot of conversations
through this board and through other committees on
the Gifted and Talented.
Updates to CTE funding weights,
updates to Fast Growth Allotment,
updates Comp Ed funding,
especially dealing with those students,
experiencing homelessness, CCMR bonus expanded to
include students receiving an associate's degree.
That was just an omission by HB 3.
And so they wanted to make
sure they added that back in.
Increased technology, purchase reimbursements
and provides new funding for COVID-19 support.
This is where a lot of the federal funds
and the COVID support funding is outlined.
It's in House Bill 1525.
So you have P-TECH, learning acceleration support,
tutoring and reimbursements for districts
that are otherwise not receiving a lot of federal funds.
So also some winter storm
reimbursements in there as well.
Senate Bill 1365 is the accountability
and interventions bill.
This formalizes interventions for
de-rated campuses,
and improves procedural clarity with
special investigations in the school systems as well.
House Bill 4545, accelerate instruction.
This is also another one that
I believe the Commissioner spent
some considerable time speaking on earlier.
This eliminates grade retention
requirements and grades 3 through 8,
and retesting in grades 5 and 8.
Also schools are required to
provide accelerated instruction
to struggling students.
And then on House Bill 3261,
that is online assessments.
If you remember from last session,
House Bill 3906, asked the Texas Education Agency
to come up with a plan,
and start moving towards online assessments.
However, that plan had to be codified
through the legislature and the
87th Legislative Session before
we could move forward,
and House Bill 3261 is the bill that does that.
So it changes statute to
confirm that the State will be
doing online assessments by 2022/2023.
It also broadens the eligibility for the
Technology and Instructional Materials Allotment,
and now allows uses for services,
equipment, and technology infrastructure
needed to ensure internet
connectivity and adequate bandwidth.
And for training personnel.
So those are new uses for the
Technology and Instructional Materials Allotment.
So there are several bills that
pertained to the State Board of Education,
as far as actions that you will
be needing to take with regard to
TEKSs and other matters.
So I'll be going over those
pretty quickly as well.
On House Bill 690 school safety
training for school boards,
school board trustees are
required to take training,
on school safety and the SBOE in coordination
with the Texas School Safety Center
wants to develop that training
House Bill 2681, the elective
courses for study of the Bible.
This expands some of the current law to grade 6.
It was previously only grades 9 and above,
and now it's 6 and above.
The teacher must also hold a
certificate in Language Arts,
social studies or history,
and the legislation must
be implemented only if the
legislature appropriates funding.
So there's a couple of bills
that have this amendment or
this language in there.
And we'll be working with
you guys to figure out what bills
need to be implemented due
to that particular amendment.
And this of course applies with
the 2021/2022 school year.
Next slide.
House Bill 3261. Online assessments.
So this is what pertains to 3261
with regard to the State Board of Education.
So star assessments must
be administered electronically.
TEA is permitted to establish
a grant program to begin to
support those school districts
as they implement online assessments
and there's waiver authority for assessment on
the first day of the week.
If you recall, previously,
Mondays are the first day
of the week were prohibited from
having a state assessment.
That has now been allowed as a
waiver authority for the Commissioner
if a school district has to
have that first day testing.
As far as the technology and
instructional materials is concerned,
this broadens the eligibility.
Again, I mentioned this a little bit earlier.
So they can now be used
for service equipment technology
infrastructure and ensure the
internet connectivity and adequate
bandwidth for those school districts.
The Commissioner of TEA must provide
an estimate of the cost
of the technology resources
and provide that to the
State Board of Education prior
to your consideration for your
Technology and Instructional Materials Allotment.
Next slide.
3979. This was a social studies
curriculum in public schools.
This bill received a lot
of press and a lot of attention with regard to the
State Board of Education's actions needed.
The SBOE must review and revise
the TEKS for the social studies curriculum before
December 31st of 2022,
and applies beginning with
the 2021 and 2022 school year.
And of course the amended TEKS
would apply the next year.
The SBOE must adopt TEKS
that develop each student's civic knowledge,
including statutorily defined
topics that are in the bill as well.
And the bill is about an eight-page bill,
so there's a lot of requirements
of what should be included in
the TEKS that you guys will be working on.
-: Hunter. I'm gonna interrupt for just a moment.
When we get to the TEK
update item, next, Shelly will
provide some additional information
related to this and another social studies.
-: Okay. Next slide.
House Bill 4509 instruction on
informed American patriotism and public schools.
This is effective in June 18th.
The objectives of public education
are changed a little bit, and updated to require
that educators cultivate in students
an informed American patriotism,
and lead students to a close study
of the founding documents as well.
On Senate Bill 123.
This is instruction in positive
character traits and
personal skills in public schools.
There's additional personal skills,
self-interest skills and interpersonal skills,
and responsible decision-making skills
are added to the established requirements
for instruction on positive character traits.
And that applies with the
2020 to 2023 school year.
On Senate Bill 801 development
of an agricultural education program
for public elementary schools,
TEA is required to do the following,
and of course, one of them is
to work with the SBOE,
but TEA is required to develop
an agricultural education
program for elementary school students,
and to encourage the appreciation,
and improve students'
understanding of agriculture.
Also to coordinate with the
Texas Department of Agriculture,
and nonprofit organizations,
with expertise in agricultural education,
to develop this program.
Also to develop a list of
agriculture education programs approved
by the agency and the State Board of Education,
that may be used as part of the
curriculum for this program.
Next slide.
Senate Bill 1063.
Courses in personal financial literacy
and economics for high school
students in public schools.
This comes about every session
and this bill actually did pass this session.
So the one half credit for
graduation requirement in economics,
can now also be satisfied with one half credit
in personal financial literacy and economics.
So the State Board must ensure
that a personal financial literacy
and economics course taken,
to comply with the requirement,
allocates two thirds of the instruction time
to personal financial literacy,
and one third to economics.
And this applies beginning with
the 2022/2023 school year.
So one other item of note,
I just wanted to remind this board
that TEA does have a legislative briefing book,
and you can find last session's
legislative briefing book on TEA's website,
at the government relations side.
And this briefing book basically
outlines all of the bills, gives a brief summary,
and any major deadlines that the
agency has for the bills.
And so, if you'll go to the next slide.
After each legislative session,
we produce a book that summarize
every passed legislation.
So if you're curious what passed last session,
and you don't want to read
the entire 300, some odd page of HB 3,
you can go to our briefing book
and read our summary of what passed in HB 3.
And of course, in about a month,
we'll be finished with the
87th Legislative Session's briefing book.
And you can also go in there
and look at any of the bills
that passed for the 87th session.
And with that, that concludes
my brief summary of what happened during the
87th Legislative Session.
-: Thank you, Hunter.
Members, are there any questions?
Let me ask a couple of things.
You talked about 3979.
I know when the Governor signed that,
he made some specific comments that
this would likely be brought up
in the special session.
So I assume your office
will be paying close attention to that,
because that could change what
we have to do in relationship to 3979. Correct?
-: Correct. So anything that happens in the
special session, obviously just like a regular
session, changes legislation
that was passed previously,
a special session could change
anything passed previously.
So I checked this morning
just to double-check that bill,
or a correction or fix or whatever was not on the
call so far, so I'm unaware if
that plans to be on the call or not.
That of course is up to the Governor's office,
But he has made mention,
and it's been in the press,
so it could be on the call.
-: Okay. The other bill that
I wanna kind of retouch on as Senate
bill 1232, the Permanent School Fund.
We had a conversation a little bit
about that PSF yesterday.
And a comment was made.
This is probably the most important
bill that no one's heard about.
I think this is truly monumental
about what it's doing with the PSF.
I know as with everything, it's pretty complex.
So Mr. Maynard, did you have
any additional comments you wanna
make about S.B. 1232?
-: Yeah, sure.
I think that when you kind of hear that is that
some members will kind
of recall a little bit and feel like
maybe that something has been taken from us.
And that's really not the case.
So the 1232 is essentially it creates
a delegation to a corporation.
But what it really does is that
it reunites the fund.
And one of the things that happened
in the early 2000's of course,
is the legislature authorized
the school and board to retain
earnings and created an
investment portfolio of its own.
Well it was limited to real assets.
What that did is that created
an unintended consequence.
And I know that that's shocking
that anything that the legislature does,
creates unintended consequences,
but without getting into the minutia,
it created a $4 billion pool of
essentially uninvested cash
that was dragging the overall
returns in the growth of the fund.
1232 puts the investment Corpus
all back together under a corporation,
with a nine-member board,
and five of those nine members
are members of this body.
And so the State Board of Education
has a majority vote on the nine-member board.
The other four members of that board
are the land Commissioner,
an appointee of the land Commissioner,
and two appointees of the Governor.
But the other thing too,
that I think is important to note,
is that this bill also, there's always been a little
bit of a discussion, a little bit of what we call
the governance flaw And the governance flaw is
that the State Board of Education is
constitutionally mandated to
manage the Permanent School Fund,
But the staff of the Permanent School Fund
don't actually work for the board.
They work for the Commissioner.
And there's always been
a little bit of a rub in there about that.
A lot of the language of 1232
was actually language that we
drafted back in 2013.
And when this started happening,
we actually pulled that language back up.
And so a lot of 1232 was language
that we actually crafted back in 2013.
So people say, "Well, is it like UTIMCO?"
Well sort of. But when UTIMCO
was created, the staff
one day working for the State,
the next day they weren't
working for the State.
That's not what we've done here.
This is a little bit more like
the Treasury Trust Corporation,
which is sort of a governmental corporation 2.0.
And so the good news for the staff
is that their status as State
employees does not change.
And so it is UTIMCO
like it's a corporation managing
educational funds,
but just in terms of its structure,
it's more like the Treasury Trust Corporation.
The third thing I think
is really important to notice
is that the staff of the fund
has to work under TEA procurement regulations.
There's no other fund in town
that it has to work in under
State procurement regulations.
And frankly those are regulations,
really not appropriate for managing a major fund.
And so what this is gonna do is
that it's gonna make their procurement
procedures a lot more like UTIMCO,
are a lot more like ERS or TRS,
or like all the other funds in town.
So the staff is excited.
They are excited.
So what it's gonna do is it's gonna
actually not only reunite the firm,
it's also going unite the staffs.
So there's actually an investment staff
over at the General Land Office,
that's gonna come under that umbrella,
under the corporation.
It is gonna kind of create a few
challenges that are unresolved at this time,
because the plan was to put the
PSF in the new building,
but I think that they planned
for about a staff of 85, but in the long run,
it's gonna be a staff of about 130.
And so we're not sure what that's gonna look like.
But that's the Reader's Digest version.
Anyone have any questions about that.
-: Cortez.
-: So under this new structure,
I know this is a conversation
we've had since I came on,
is the fear that the legislature
wants to take this fund and control it themselves.
We've had this conversation
I think every year,
since we've served together, at least.
This corporation wants to stop the
legislature in the next session to say,
"Well, maybe it shouldn't be under the SBOE.
Maybe we should control it at the Governor's office.
Or the Lieutenant Governor's office."
-: Well, the legislature has always
had the authority to do that.
-: It's easy now under cooperate structures.
I guess what I'm saying.
-: Well, but understand too, is that remember that
we still have article seven of the constitution.
And so this represents a delegation of the
State Board of Education's authority
that under the constitution,
and that's why we have a
majority vote on the board.
And so understand that to completely
remove it from State Board of Education
would require a constitutional amendment.
And so the legislature couldn't
just do it unilaterally.
-: But, and I guess I'm
just playing devil's advocate.
-: Really?
-: So, could they?
I mean I suppose that they could.
But that just crossing out a scenario.
Like when we deal with ESPEC issues,
it's an entirely different structure.
It's an appointed body.
-: Yep.
-: But that stuff doesn't make it through,
unless this body upholds it.
-: True.
-: I assume that something similar can be done to
comply with that concern you just raised it.
-: Yeah.
So that's actually a really good question.
I think you should know that first of all,
this board has to decide to form the corporation.
That authority rests with this board.
Secondly is that then there
has to be articles of incorporation.
And again, that comes from here.
Thirdly, once the corporation is formed,
the corporation board has to create bylaws.
The governing documents for that corporation.
Those have to come back to this board.
They have to be approved by this board as well.
And so that State Board of Education
is still in the driver's seat.
Also, this board will still do its distribution.
Now, a lot of times is that the water
gets really muddy here.
Because remember that there's
actually two different distributions.
There's our distribution,
and then there's the distribution
under 5G of the constitution.
And where that came from is
that back about, I think it's like, I don't know.
Hunter, is it like 2011?
I think the legislature decided they weren't
getting money fast enough.
And they created a mechanism for the
School Land Board to
contribute directly to the ASF.
And to get more money faster.
I guess, is what they're trying to do.
So that was a way that they bypass this.
Well, the corporation,
that 5G distribution will still be
in that corporation.
And I think it it'll just remain in
that corporation.
But our distribution will remain the same.
Now, the other thing too is
that the revenues from the General Land Office
will come into the fund back to the corporation.
I think we thought that probably
the legislation gave the General Land Office
a little too much latitude in terms
of how that happens.
But that sometimes legislating
is sometimes the art of the possible.
Sometimes you have what you would like to do,
but then you have to realize
what is politically possible.
And so, we had to sort of just
concede a little bit of that.
-: Okay. Well, I guess I would just ask,
and you guys have done a great job on PSF.
There's no question.
But as we're sitting down figuring out
what our processes are, I think we need to
I guess approach this from the
lens that at some point in the future,
what we do here is in an effort for them
to take this from this body.
And I think every one of us in here
want to maintain that intergenerational equity.
To make sure that this fund is there,
for not just my grandkids,
but my great grandkids and their kids.
And if we let that pink building
take control over this fund at
any point in the near future,
because we did something wrong
in developing these articles of incorporation,
then that's on us.
So I would just ask us all to be real
cautious of how we approach this,
because they're already taking money from TIMA.
T. I. M. A now.
And so, where else are they gonna
look to slice this pie up?
And so, if you all think this is a good idea,
then we'll figure it out
the best way to get through it,
but just with our eyes wide open.
-: Yeah. Without a doubt.
And I understand it.
And I tell people pretty frequently,
that every State in the United States
at one time, had a School LAND Trust.
And I think there's only 23 of them left.
And the lesson in that is you never put the
School LAND Trust in the
hands of the appropriators.
Because if you do, you won't have one.
-: Yep. Mr. Cortez, I think your points
are very well taken,
and are really a 100% aligned with
how we approach that process.
There was a bill in the previous
legislative session that would have
taken the Permanent School Fund
and turned it over to a board that
was a nonmember board,
that was all appointed by the Governor.
What that particular bill required is
also an SJR, Senate Joint Resolution
which would have begun the process
of a constitutional amendment, which he said.
That's what we were very,
very particular is* Senate Bill 1232
was going through did not have a Joint Resolution.
In other words, a way to
call for a constitutional amendment.
So once that got past that point
where that was not part of that bill,
there is no way, there was no avenue
for this to become something that could
be taken away from us in the constitution.
So that point was* very well.
And yeah, you're right.
In the future anything is possible.
But I think to your point,
we were very careful to make sure
that this doesn't take us
to a step that's much easier.
I think even after this is all done,
we're at the same place and protecting
our constitutional duty of the
Permanent School Fund that we would
have been before this, if nothing ever happened.
-: Follow up. As you were speaking,
it reminded me of something, member Maynard said
If this board chooses to.
So if we choose not to, will it stay the same?
Or are we required?
-: Well, this board has to.
The legal question I suppose,
is that, what if the board does nothing?
Well, I think if the board does nothing,
the next time the legislature comes to town,
they are gonna do something.
And we're probably not gonna like what they do.
-: So, Von*, if we did nothing,
and again, I'm just wanting to know.
In the event of the worst-case scenario,
we know how our friends across the street,
they've been jonesing, I guess, if you would,
for this money for a long time.
And if this is one step closer for
them to take this pot of cash,
that we don't want them to have,
we want to protect it for generations of children.
What happens if we took no action?
-: Well, I think under the bill,
at least from an initial reading,
it is permissive on the State Board of Education
to make this delegation.
And under the bill what it requires
is for you to first establish these
articles of incorporation which
would tell the new corporation, how it would act.
Now you would have some authority in there,
but I would also remind you,
at least from my initial reading of 1232,
that once articles of incorporation are up,
that corporation can modify that in some ways.
But these are things that we
will explore in a lot more depth
I think over the next year.
I don't believe the bill has anything
in that says what happens if
you don't take that action.
So presumably the status quo would remain,
except as a few members have mentioned
if this was an expectation of the legislature,
that expectation may become a requirement.
-: So, just to follow up on what you just said,
if I understood correctly.
This body sets up the articles of incorporation,
puts that body into place.
If a year down the road,
that body votes to change the
articles of incorporation
and ask the State legislature
to make it its own agency
or a separate entity, it could?
-: Well, I mean, the corporations.
-: To make substantive changes
that could begin the process of separation.
-: Yeah.
-: The corporation itself,
I don't think can change.
Like it's structure of nine,
or that it comes back to the board.
The legislature as we talked about,
could move forward a constitutional
amendment to change it.
Where is the line between how much control
you have to have over the corporation,
where this is a legitimate delegation and
you still maintain your constitutional authority?
Where that line is,
I don't know where that line is.
I think the legislature felt in 1232
that the structure set up
where you have a majority of
that corporation controlled by members
of this board with input from others,
that that fell within the constitutional
parameter of maintaining control
by the State Board.
So could they ask the
legislature to change it? Yes.
How much could they change
statutorily versus seeking a
constitutional amendment?
I don't know where that line is.
If that's something the board wants to explore,
that's something we certainly can.
You probably want someone with a
little more financial savvy than me doing that,
but you do have folks on retainer
right now through your PSF.
-: That's fair enough. And to the question of,
if we did nothing, what happens?
-: Yeah. So if you did nothing,
then the status quo remains.
I think there are a few other changes
there like they've broadened
your investment policies here.
As I look in 43.003.
But as I said, under the legislation
as I read it, there's not a mechanism
that says what happens if you don't pursue.
-: Mike Meyer, Deputy Commissioner of Finance.
So the bill is kind of divided into two articles.
The first one describes your ability to
delegate the authority of the corporation,
and the composition of the board,
and what the corporation would look like.
And then the second article describes kind
of operations and management,
transition of assets, transition of FTEs.
That sort of information.
And then at the tail end of the bill,
it says that article, the second article,
takes no effect if you don't
delegate to a corporate or create the
corporation by December of 2022.
So that first part of the bill would still be effective,
describing your ability to delegate authority,
but all of that's sort of transfer provisions
would not be effective.
-: Mr. Cortez, as you probably will know,
the State Board of Education and
PSF also has our own Fudiciary Council,
Chuck Campbell*.
And he is actually employed by
the State Board of Education.
I've actually got him on the zoom call.
Chuck* are you available?
-: I am. Yes.
-: Okay. Is there anything that
you would like to add to the
questions that Mr. Cortez brought up.
-: Actually* would be the status quo.
And the transfer provisions would
not just come into effect that second*.
-: Yeah. And the only reason
I ask Mr. Chair, these questions
is because at the end of the day unfortunately,
sometimes I think a lot of what happens
in this board doesn't come down to...
it comes down to people in
higher offices that have the thumb
on their scale and can easily pick up the
phone and call members of this body.
And if the Governor has got two appointments,
and there's five of us in the Land Board.
Governor's Office can very quickly call
anybody that they want.
And they're gonna drum up
whatever votes that they need to.
We've seen that over and over in this body.
And that's my fear.
At least right now you've got a body of 15,
who while we may disagree on some things,
agree that this fund is the treasure
and needs to be protected for generations to come.
And so, I'm a little concerned about
this piece of legislation.
And so, I don't know where are we go next,
but I am concerned.
-: I appreciate that.
These are very well... Go ahead Mr. Campbell.
Did you have something?
-: I would like to follow up on what
SBOE has to approve any changes
to the articles of corporation.
And it same with the bylaws.
Any changes to the bylaws that
the corporation established,
also has to be approved by the SBOE as well.
So, there are layer of protections
in the legislation to ensure
that the SBOE maintains its
authority with respect to
the management of the fund.
-: I think another important point is the
fact that what Mr. Maynard talked about
earlier is the distribution.
So, I think Mr. Cortez your real main concern,
is about protecting this for future generations.
And what I see happening with this
new corporation is to really control the
actually investment decisions.
So we have the investment decisions,
which are asset allocation.
How much are we are gonna
have in equities and bonds,
and all those different things,
and then you have the distribution.
That distribution part,
actually, as Tom was saying in
section 5.8* of the constitution
stays completely here.
We do our normal biennial distribution
prior to legislative session.
We set our distribution right.
That will stay exactly the same.
The School Land Board right now has an extra
600 million that they can distribute a year.
That happened with proposition 7, 2 sessions ago.
That will stay actually the same.
So I think your real main concern,
about the intergenerational
equity with the distribution
actually does not change.
What the new entity will be doing is really
working on the actual
investment to asset allocation,
all those high-level decisions of
how we should be investing.
Chuck*, did I say that correctly also.
-: That's right.
Even though the State Board of Education
maintains its distribution authority,
and while the corporation
does have some distribution authority,
it's limited under the constitution under 5G*.
And so the SPOE will still be
the primary driver of the distribution.
-: And I think that's an important point,
Mr. Cortez I think to you.
'Cause that's where the we protect
the future of the fund.
Is to make sure that we
set an appropriate distribution.
-: I had a question from Ms. Perez Diaz*.
-: Thank you, Chair.
Yes. So, my question is specifically
around HB 3979.
So, I'll preface this by saying this bill
was incredibly abhorring.
It was shocking that it passed.
And so, I know that if it hasn't
already been filed,
there is conversation about litigation.
And so I'm wondering if litigation ensues,
then what does that mean in terms
of the work that SBOE has to do regarding HB 3979
and implementation of that billing which...?
-: Well, I mean, so first of all, just the filing
of litigation doesn't necessarily hamper anything.
This House Bill 3979 is the law of the land right now.
And all agencies are moving forward
with implementing the new law of the land.
And regardless whether there
are potentials for litigation on it.
If litigation is filed,
then we would just have to wait to
determine whether or not there is an
injunction that is created.
And so, until we know that from the court,
we wouldn't know whether there
is anything to pull back on.
So, these are all questions that can't
be answered without a specific fact scenario.
And as we talked about earlier,
there is a severability clause within
the legislation itself.
So ultimately a determination that one
part is invalid does not invalidate
the whole bill.
And you may think of the bill
as having several parts,
but one part is just a requirement
for you all on what you do with
your social studies TEKS.
Another part is a requirement on
the folks that deliver a social studies
curriculum and what they
can or cannot speak to.
I'm sure those would have
different grounds that folks
would be moving forward
if they filed litigation.
-: * I have a follow up. And I know.
But I'm wondering what organization
actually talked to* or worked
with worked with create this Bill?
Because it seems really far removed from
what's actually happening in engine*.
-: This is Hanno* Thompson* again.
You would have to talk to the Bill
author and the coauthors on who
they spoke to and who they
discussed when writing their bill.
-: All right. Thank you.
-: I've got Ms. Hardy*.
Are you following up on that particular one,
or do you have a new line of questions?
Okay, let me go to Ms. Hardy* then I'll...*.
Okay.
-: I'm addressing Member Cortez's concerns.
I have been on the State Board of Education,
Permanent School Fund committee
off and on for a long time.
And I will say we're considerably better off
today with this new bill than we have been in
all my previous years of different iterations,
of different aspects of the bill.
And I'm appreciative very much of
Tom, Maynard and Kevin for the work they did.
Because even two years ago,
it was on shaky grounds.
And we are much better off than we've ever been.
And I feel like there are a lot of parameters
put on this that are very healthy,
or I wouldn't feel so strongly about it.
So, I have a lot of confidence
in that particular thing.
Member Maynard said that there
are 23 States with PSFs.
They don't even begin...
What's was ours? 50 billion now?
-: We're up to 50 billion.
-: We're up to 50 billion right now.
And no one even comes close.
So the State Board has done,
against a lot of odds.
And you're right there's a lot of people have done
everything they could to check us
and to convince us that they
should be able to be in charge of it.
But we do have the constitution.
But this one, this particular action,
is the healthiest we've taken on
in all of this time period, I do believe.
And thank you gentlemen
for what you've done.
-: I appreciate you sharing that.
And again, my issue is not
with any anybody in this room.
We may disagree on social studies
and science and other issues,
but when it comes to that PSF fund,
I think we've been united a 100%.
Because we understand the value of that money,
for every child that we serve in this State.
For generations to come
after we're no longer on this body
and I still have some concerns,
but I hope we can work through some of that.
-: Thank you.
I just wanted to follow up on
member Pérez-Díaz on HB 3979.
I think you mentioned there was
a lot of press and a lot of people
wrote about that.
And I've read the bill and I didn't just...
I'll cut to the chase.
I got a postcard from a teacher,
he or she was anonymous,
and said something about prohibiting
the teaching of slavery.
Is that prohibited?
Teaching the history of slavery in
this bill or any other bill you saw the session?
-: I don't believe so.
The bill did go through a number of changes as it
went through the process.
And so, depending on when that
particular individual read the news,
or read the bill at that stage,
it could have been in there at one point.
I don't actually know the history of the bill.
We as an agency did not have
a lot to do with that bill.
So I don't have a lot of information
on the different iterations of that bill.
It is an eight-page bill.
It is a rather short bill.
So, I would advise anybody with
any questions to of course,
just read the eight pages.
It's not as long as it started.
-: One thing that the bill required to be done,
is to make sure that we teach the slavery law of 1793
and the slavery law of 1850.
So, I would think if the
bill requires that we teach those laws,
that it requires that we teach about slavery.
-: Mr. Chair, my question is, I guess, more for you.
What are the next steps?
I mean, we have this section here that says, I guess,
"Bills with SBOE action needed."
And I see some dates as early
as September 1, or just overall.
I mean, I assume there's some rule TEKS
that we may have to do,
or something that we have to put forward.
Are we gonna have a special call board meeting?
-: I think we can probably address
these in the next item which is
we have a TEKS update.
Is there anything you wanna add now?
-: I will just say Mr. Cortez,
we typically put together a calendar
of the action that you need to take,
and we'll make sure that we keep
track of all that for you.
So, Shelly's gonna go through some
of those timelines and the next item.
There's at least one bill
that's not actual rulemaking.
And so we are still working on
gathering all that information.
And we'll work with the Chair to
get the right items on your
agenda at the right time.
The one distinction that I would
call your attention to is,
we often have immediate effective
dates are September 1 effective dates,
but then there's also language in
the bill that talks about when it applies.
So there might be language that
like the bill is effective,
but the SBOE is required to take action.
As Hunter mentioned by December 1, 2022.
So we will reconcile all of those dates,
and we'll make sure that you have
opportunity to hit those deadlines.
-: Okay. And that's why I was asking.
'Cause some of them say effective September 1,
but applies beginning 21/22.
And if we're not gonna meet
till we're actually here on September 1,
and it starts 21/22 school year,
then we've missed the boat on that one.
-: Well we have in the past though
interpreted the 21/22 school year
to be not when the school year starts,
if it applies during that school year.
We work hard to communicate
to offices that your rulemaking
process takes six months,
and that if they expect you to
adopt rules by September 1, that can't happen.
And so there have been times
in the past when you haven't
met certain deadlines not because
of inaction on your part,
because it's just not possible with the public
comment period and all the steps you have to take.
I think you see the results.
Some of the offices were very
responsive to our feedback and
pushed some of that implementation out.
Not everyone did,
but we also try to work with Hunter
and his team to communicate to
offices that you're working as quickly as
laws and rules will enable you to take action.
-: Mr. Chairman
-: Let me finish on that one.
Mr. Cortez, I think your point's taken
and the fact that we'll call
whatever meetings we need to do.
We'll get our work done.
But I think she raised a point
like on 3979, it talked
about its implemented in September,
but it had to be done, as you were referencing,
by the end of 2022.
There's another similar bill on
informed patriotism that its effective
September 1.
It doesn't give that 2022.
But essentially when you read the bill,
it says at our next revision.
So it goes into effect immediately,
but it doesn't say we have to have
that inputted* in our TEKS on September 1, 21,
as Ms. Martinez says would be technically impossible.
But it's something that when
we next do our next revision,
we would bring those things
such as informed patriotism into that.
Okay, Mr. Maynard.
-: And just as a follow-up to
your question related to 1232,
is that on that one,
I will tell you that the devil's in the details.
And I mean, every time you peel
that onion layer back, you find more.
And there's a lot.
Staffs working on a punch list,
and it's considerable.
And so, but good news is,
I mean, and I will tell you this,
is that our staff and actually the GLO staff
have actually had a long relationship.
And they actually work very well together,
and they've had a good positive relationship.
And so those guys are on board
and they're working together.
And it's gonna be a pretty long list,
that sort of thing, but we're working pretty hard
and we're committed to that,
and are getting it right.
But yeah, those are those are in motion.
-: All right.
Any other questions from members on the legislative update,
Mr. Thompson, thank you
for your patience and appreciate ya.
And that will close item number three on our agenda,
and we will move to item number four
on our Wednesday agenda, which is a TEKS update.
And I will call on Ms. Ramos.
-: Yes, sir. Thank you.
So for a few topics to talk to you about
for your TEKS update this meeting,
because as you know, you've got several subject
areas under review all at the same time,
or several subject areas that are about to start.
So we do have a handout for you,
several handouts for you that
Lenny's gonna bring around.
One of those handouts is your format calendar.
So if you recall, we try and keep
you up-to-date with what events are
happening between now and your
next State Board of Education meeting.
So that'll be the top document and handout.
If you have any questions on that,
just let me know while I'm up here.
I wanna just kind of briefly touch on
each of the subject areas that you
have under review right now.
So firstly, science.
I mentioned on Tuesday
that your work group F is scheduled
to meet twice in the month of July,
hopefully to finalize those recommendations
for science TEKS.
And you'll see the dates of those meetings
on the calendar when it makes its way around to you.
If you would like to participate in those virtual meetings,
please just let SBOE support staff know,
and they can get you the information that you need.
Then moving on to CTE,
Yolanda sent you on a Wednesday I believe,
the list that was requested for the CTE courses
that had received business and industry feedback,
and the list of courses that have not yet
received business and industry feedback.
If you happen to reach out
to business and industry,
to ask them to provide us feedback,
a couple of things,
one is, you can feel free to put
them in touch with Jessica or me and
we'll get them what they need.
Or you can send them to the draft
recommendations on the website, if that's easier.
And we would ask that if they
are gonna submit any feedback,
if possible to get it to us by the end of July,
so that then we can make determinations
on whether or not we need to bring
the work groups back to do some additional
work before your September meeting.
Lastly, on the topic of CTE,
there are three other programs
of study that still need to
come in and do some work as part of this cycle.
That is cybersecurity, agriculture,
food and natural resources, and renewable energy.
So we would anticipate sometime in September,
bringing in work groups to start that work.
But by then, you should be wrapping up
your other programs of study for CTE.
Moving on to technology applications.
So you have begun that process.
If you recall, every process begins
with a survey and applications.
Thank you for those of you
that have been approving the
applications for technology.
Applications that we've been sending to you.
We are a little bit light on K5 teachers.
So for those of you who keep
in contact with districts in your district,
I would just ask that to encourage any
K5 teachers to submit an application
to serve on those work groups.
We do have enough people
to get that process started.
And so at the end of July,
we would anticipate bringing in work group A,
and your content advisors are working on feedback.
So, as soon as we have that feedback from them,
we'll send that to you and we'll be
ready to convene our work group A meeting.
So that's sort of where we are
with technology applications.
The second handout in your packet there,
is the survey results.
I mentioned that we start the process with the survey.
So we've provided you with aggregate level
survey results for technology applications.
If you would like to dig deeper into the data,
just let me know, and we can get you
the free responses probably sometime next week.
This goes to work group A,
and to the content advisors.
And we ask them to take a
look at it because it may guide the
recommendations that they make for the TEKS.
So that's it for technology applications.
And then I'll move on to your
next subject area that's coming up for review,
and that is social studies.
So as Monica mentioned to you,
and as you heard Hunter tell you,
there are a couple of pieces
of legislation that will impact
the TEK review for social studies,
Senate Bill 1063, House Bill 3979, and House Bill 4509.
And as you all have had that conversation,
House Bill 3979 establishes that these
TEKS should be adopted by December 31st of, 2022.
So because it was already your
next subject area for review,
we made some minor tweaks to the schedule.
And we have you on track to adopting
those standards in November of 2022.
I will caution you that those timelines as you well know,
those of you been on the board for some time,
can run off schedule for any number of reasons.
So we'll be giving you updates
and reminders and letting you know,
if there are things we need from you,
to keep the process moving on track.
So to that end, the last handout in your packet,
has two things on it.
One, is it has that proposed timeline for social studies.
So you can see right now
we're in the preparation stages.
We're working on the survey,
we're working on the application for educators,
and I'll talk to you in just a second
about identifying content advisers,
'cause that's the first thing we usually start with.
Then we'll work on getting recommendations
not only from the board,
but also from your content advisors,
as the second stage in the process,
that'll happen this fall.
And then from about November to May,
we'll be convening your work groups.
So that's pretty much, obviously in any review,
the bulk of the time is spent
with the work groups.
So we'll be doing that.
We haven't made a decision,
but we are exploring moving
back to face-to-face meetings.
So that will probably be a positive,
I think, for folks.
Face to face meetings of those work groups,
but then of course, supplementing
it with virtual as needed.
And so bottom line is we've got you on track.
That's your timeline,
just to give you a very high level
understanding of what we have planned.
On the reverse of that document is
my ask-of-you for today.
So this is your homework assignment.
This is a very important homework assignment.
So I've mentioned a couple
of times your content advisor.
So this is the time to start thinking about identifying
content advisors for your social studies TEK review.
As in the past, it requires two
State Board of Education members to agree
to designate one content advisor.
So find yourself a Betty*
and designate a content advisor.
Because this is a foundation subject,
your process also calls for
two content advisors to be named
by the Commissioner of Higher Education
to represent Texas Colleges and Universities.
So it's possible that you could have up to seven
designated by State Board of Education members,
plus two from the Commissioner of Higher Education.
So we can have as many as
nine content advisors for this review.
There is a deadline for you of July 30th,
to identify your content advisors.
So just wanna remind you of that.
And Yolanda's* wonderful.
And she'll give you updates periodically
to remind you of that deadline.
We do ask that you send us
their contact information,
and if you have a resume or CV,
and you can send that all to SBOE support by July 30.
Any questions about content advisors?
-: I just had a clarifying question on the timeline.
And I've only been here a couple of years.
But I do see that we get off track
sometimes on the TEKS revision schedule.
But we can't get off track.
Ain't that right?
We have to have it by November, by that law?
Well, as Monica mentioned,
sometimes for various reasons,
you don't quite meet the timeline established in law.
I think we're going to urge you to
stay on the timeline because it does have
downstream impact for your other subject areas.
-: So that law is not definite then?
-: Well, so I would say in order to be
in compliance with the law,
you need to stick with this timeline.
-: Yeah. I think it's pretty straight forward, ain't it?
-: Yeah.
-: We did include the requirements for qualifications,
for content advisors on that handout.
So you have that with you.
You can hang it on your refrigerator
when you get home as a reminder to you.
All right.
So the last thing I wanted
to visit with you about today.
You heard both Monica and Hunter
talk a little bit about the legislation
and how there are certain topics
that will need to be addressed in
your social studies TEK review.
So there are two handouts.
The two thicker handouts in that packet.
We did a comparison of the topics that are required
by House Bill 3979, and by House Bill 4509,
to what you currently have in your current TEKS.
So on the left-hand side,
you'll see the topic from the bills.
And then we tried to make a general
statement about the current TEKS.
And then on the right-hand side,
we provide you with the actual language
from your current student expectations.
So I think what I would say,
and what you'll see in looking at the document,
is many of those topics are
already addressed in your current standards.
There are some obviously that are not,
and would need to be addressed by the work groups.
There are some that are addressed in different ways,
maybe not to the level of specificity
that's required in the legislation.
But for those of you who aren't
familiar with those two pieces of legislation,
we wanted to kind of give you this
as background information so that you're aware.
House Bill 4509 is,
Dr. Ellis mentioned it a moment ago,
about informed patriotism.
It also includes some topics.
Many of those topics are the
same as those identified in House Bill 3979.
So we didn't repeat those.
We only provided for you in the second handout,
the ones that are unique to House Bill 4509.
So this is all information of course,
that we'll share with your content advisors
and with your work groups,
Once we get to that point,
but with the exception of content advisors,
we're still a little bit away from starting
the social studies TEK review process.
We are planning at the beginning
of August to post a survey and an application.
We will let you know in case you
want to message that to
your superintendents in your district.
-: Thank you, Ms. Ramos.
And before I go on any questions,
I do wanna point out one thing on 3979,
if you all have not seen that document before.
The side by side.
If you flip through that, the right hand column is
our current student expectations.
And as you go through that 18-page document,
almost every single one of those columns
has something in there where
we're already teaching that.
There's just a handful.
So a majority of 3979* is already on our TEKS,
except for a few small items.
That being said, any other items
or any other questions for Ms. Ramos?
I would highlight the content advisor,
that is going to come up very quickly.
And so I think that's your take-home job
as soon as we leave our meeting
today to start working on that,
because we want to make sure that
we have high quality individuals on that.
And that's not something you
can just recruit someone overnight.
So I echo her comments about
the importance of getting ready for that by July.
We have someone over here.
Ms. Pérez
-: And just as a reminder,
cause we get this question
every time with content advisors,
we do provide them specific
details about the charge that they have.
There is a stipend provided.
We do personal services contracts
with these individuals.
It's not a lot of money, but it is a small stipend
that they'd get paid for this work.
-: Ms. Little.
-: Shelly, can you give us an update
of where we are on the Asian American Studies
and the Native American Studies Courses?
-: Yes ma'am. So we have heard,
and Ms. Pérez-Díaz
might be able to give a little bit of update,
but there are some districts
and parents that are working
together on a draft of an application
for an innovative course for
the Asian American Studies Course.
And I know that they and Pérez-Díaz,
have been in contact with our staff
who oversee innovative courses.
The application for innovative
courses isn't due until the fall.
But it's a good sign that
they've gotten a head-start on that work.
If you have individuals that
are interested in that process,
'cause I know some of you have
mentioned that to us,
I'd be happy to put them in touch
with the group that's currently working
on that so that everybody who wants to,
can be involved in that.
-: Okay.
-: *When will that*
-: We don't have an update.
We haven't heard very much on the
topic of a Native American Studies Course,
but some board members may know more than we do.
-: Miss Hardy.
-: Brian Pri ISD*. We'll be teaching.
I think they're working on the...
I'm surprised you haven't heard from them.
-: Because application hasn't posted,
it's not unusual for us not to hear about them.
But some applicants just wanna get a
head start and they're more than welcome...
-: They wanted to do it in the fall.
-: Great.
-: They're planning the innovative course in the fall.
So I'm gonna get them to check back with you.
-: The contact information is on the website,
and I will be happy to reach out to them*
-: I've already told them to do it,
and I thought that they had.
-: I just wanna be clear here on timelines.
So for courses to be taught as innovative courses
in the fall of 2021, that deadline has passed.
So the next deadline that Shelley's
talking about is for courses that
would be implemented as
innovative courses in 2022.
It may be that a district is
planning to work on something
through special topics in social studies
or some other means while they
develop an application,
but I don't wanna create too
much confusion out there.
There is not enough time for us
to receive and approve an application
for an innovative course for fall of 2020.
-: And they don't plan to.
I've been in contact with Grand Prairie,
they're taking their time
and they're still developing.
They have no plans on submitting that soon.
They wanna make sure it's right.
-: And am I correct in
understanding too in the process,
that a district can develop a local course in teaching
under special topics,
which is what* the Mexican American State.
So I think it's been past precedent
for them to develop it, teach it,
learn from their own students,
how that course works before they
get to the next step,
which is the innovative courses.
And then as we've done with some of
those courses that are innovative courses,
make them teach space* course.
-: That's absolutely true.
In fact, the revised innovative course process,
the board rules encourage districts
to pilot it before applying.
-: Right. And just kind of one
more fine point on that discussion.
I think many years ago,
the first ethnic studies course we adopted
was Mexican American Studies.
And at that time, or might've been,
we adopted them African American Studies,
we called for a total of four courses,
the Mexican American Studies,
African American Studies, Asian American Studies
and Native American Studies.
Is that correct?
-: I wanna be careful about the language I use.
There was an official call, but the language in your
operating procedures, and now in your rules,
does identify courses such as,
and it does include some of those.
Yes, sir.
-: And Ms. Pérez-Díaz had something to add I think.
-: You have all the instrumental in help
in the US Senate timeline that we're working with.
I have been working with several experts
nationwide and Statewide who
already developed a draft proposal.
It's ready to go for the application bid*
We used the Mexican American Studies and
African-American Studies framework.
So that we were in line with the different
strands that have been a pretty consistent route*.
And so afterthat pretty valid first draft,
I'm excited to share that once the professors
I'm working with feel comfortable that
we're in a place that they can share out.*
But all that to say, we have representatives* in
from Houston to Dallas, to the San
Antonio area and even beyond Texas,
just to get a little more perspective
from the conversations* taking place.
And so there are some pretty significant individuals
in the field that are a part of this conversation.
So I'm very excited about it.
Anybody that wants to be involved,
I'm more than happy to have conversations
with any of my colleagues,
anybody that wants to offer up additional individuals
who would like to participate.
Absolutely, the more the merrier.
I think that we're in a place where we're
ready to start presenting.
So thank you all so much.
If you have any questions,
feel free to reach out to me.
Or Kelsey* also has a lot of that information too.
Like I said, she's been helping me
with the timeline and what the process
should look like for the two* American studies.
-: Would it be possible for us to see a draft
of that Asian-American Studies Course?
-: We've not received one and the...
-: Ms. Pérez Díaz, would you wanna respond
to Ms. Little's request.
-: Yes. *should have something solid by mid-July.
And so, I'm happy that*
-: We're losing her, but it sounded like she
would have a draft ready by mid-July.
So she can pipe back in a little bit
if she's able to restore that.
Alright. Any other questions from members?
Alright, Ms. Ramos, thank you very much.
And that concludes our items for the
Committee of the Full Board.
So members that concludes our Wednesday
agenda items for the Committee of the Full Board
for Wednesdays agendas.
So without any objection, we will adjourn that meeting.
And now we will move to open the State Board of Education,
June 25th, 2021 meeting
of the Texas State Board of Education.
Another welcome to everyone. Welcome to our meeting.
I do wanna say something in response to earlier in the week.
I wanna remind everyone on this
board that we have an expectation that
all individuals will conduct themselves with decorum
at all times when participating in our meetings.
The board does wanna hear from all individuals,
regardless of point of view, who wished to provide
testimony on issues of public policy
that the board is considering.
Individuals should remain focused on the issue at hand,
and refrain from personal attacks of any kind.
Such as the language that we have
in our board operating procedures.
That our board operating procedures does establish
that the presiding Chair may direct disruptive individuals
into the gallery area and be removed as necessary
to preserve the decorum during our meetings.
And individuals who conduct themselves
other than in a professional and respectful
manner could be removed from the meeting.
So I just wanted to point that out before we get started,
I want to begin with our virtual student performance
that we have today.
And I believe Ms. Pérez-Díaz,
will be doing the introductions.
Do we have her back?
-: I'm here*
-: Okay, we've got ya.
-: Alright, well, so good morning fellow board members,
our TEA team, and all of our guests who are tuning in,
whether they are virtual or there in person.
It's my honor to introduce our first,
since my tenure on the board began,
if not ever, summer student performance group.
So in 1984, the Mariachi Nuevo Santander
group from Roma Texas, brought to
life a tradition that is near and dear to
my heart for over 27 years to the valley*.
So this phenomenal group of young artists supported
by superintendent Carlos Guzman,
and under the direction of
their musical director, Eloy Garza,
are part of a long tradition and legacy of award winning
cultural and artful celebration and vibrancy,
Mariachi Nuevo Santander has won 14 national titles,
performed on Season 12 of America's Got Talent,
they had an online performance that
went viral during the pandemic, and they've
been featured on The Kelly Clarkson Show.
Three weeks ago, the US Department of Education
actually reached out to the Texas Education Agency
to see if we could identify Mariachi performance group
to showcase at their virtual summit
on Building Equitable Learning Environments in Our Schools.
Roma ISD, their Mariachi came together in just about a week,
and put together this amazing performance
And so without further ado, I wanna introduce
Roma's ISD's Mariachi Nuevo Santander
-: Hello, secretary Cardona,
and hello US Department of Education,
we are Mariachi <v ->Nuevo Santander
-: From Roma High School and my name is Eloy Garza,
musical director, Speaking Spanish*
-: We're honored to share with you
a piece of Mexican folk music
known as Speaking Spanish*
from our beautiful morning* town,
in the city of Roma, Texas to DC*.
-: We hope you enjoy our music, Speaking Spanish*
and that it delights your hearts with joy and happiness.
-: Feel free to get up, dance, and let the music movie you
-: We present to you the award winning nationally recognized
Mariachi Nuevo Santander, from Roma High School.
Enjoy.
(Classic music palying)
(Audience clapping)
-: That was fantastic. And I wanna thank very much
the Roma High School for participating
in our meeting today and bringing that to us.
We will now call him Mr. Hickman to bring
us the invocation and lead us in the pledges.
-: Will you please stand with me for
the invocation and the pledges.
Father God. I pray today for the State Board of Education,
who you haven't trusted leadership in this State.
And for our families that share
the responsibility in burdens.
I pray that you'll help bring us together,
rise above and seek the larger vision of your will.
Give us calmness, encouragement and humility.
Give us wisdom to know what is right,
and courage to make decisions aligned with your will.
We commit this meeting to you.
I pray all of this in Jesus name. Amen.
Have a pledge to US flag.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God,
indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
And the Texas flag.
Honor the Texas flag.
I pledge allegiance to thee Texas.
One State under God, one and indivisible.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, Mr. Hickman.
And I will now call on Ms. Martinez to call the roll.
Ms. Pérez, Mr. Cortez, -: Here.
-: Ms. Pérez-Díaz,
Mr. Allen*, -: Present.
-: Dr. Bell-Metereau,
-: Present.
-: Mr. Hickman,
-: Here.
-: Dr. Robinson,
-: Present.
-: Dr. Yang*
-: Here.
-: Mr. Maynard,
-: Ms. Hardy,
-: Here
-: Mrs. Little,
-: Here. Present
-: Mrs. Melton-Malone,
-: Here.
-: Dr. Johnson,
-: Here.
-: Dr. Ellis,
-: Here, and please note Ms. Pérez present also.
Alright, thank you. A quorum is present.
The first business to be considered
is the approval of the minutes
of the State Board of Education meeting
from April 16th, 2021.
Are there any corrections to the minutes?
Hearing none. There are no corrections
then the minutes are approved.
Next business and orders is the presentation of resolutions.
Ms. Pérez, please present the resolutions.
-: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This morning, it is one of our favorite days,
because we are recognizing
our student heroes from each of our districts.
So to each of you who visited, or were unable to visit,
but sent a virtual message and
had their awards sent to them.
Thank you all for that.
And we received quite a bit of wonderful feedback
from our students this year,
who are so proud to have received these awards.
Whereas the State Board of Education
Student Heroes Award was created in 2015,
recognizing Texas public school students who engage in
unselfish acts of kindness and service that
benefit their fellow students or communities.
And whereas State Board of Education
members selected outstanding students across
the State as recipients of the 2021 Student Heroes Award.
And whereas Arianna Suniga,
senior at Medina Valley High School
in Medina Valley Independent School District,
demonstrated leadership skills
by organizing a canned food drive,
and collected over 600 nonperishable
food items for local families.
And whereas Julia Gilliam,
a junior at Flour Bluff High school in Flour Bluff ISD,
has a passion for helping others by organizing
the Nueces County Jr Livestock for kids with special needs,
and firmly decided to make this project
her high school legacy,
that will continue beyond graduation.
Whereas Michael Frere, a junior at
International School of the Americas in Northeast ISD
has been an inspiring leader in the
Students Of Service organization,
leading his own, 'Make it Happen' project,
that created arts and crafts opportunities for students
in the San Antonio Metropolitan Ministry's homeless shelter.
And whereas Paridhi Latawa, a junior at the
Liberal Arts and Science Academy in Austin ISD
has stellar leadership qualities,
that led her to organize SparkED,
that hosts science, technology, engineering,
and math literacy camps, webinars,
and mentoring opportunities,
that are meant to be an inclusive and equitable opportunity.
And whereas Byron Randon II a senior
at Sweeny High School, in Sweeny ISD,
is a published author of a children's book called
Be Something Great,
which shares his story of perseverance through
football while challenging kids to be great.
Encouraging them to not just play sports for fun,
but also to apply their learning to develop
discipline, teamwork, bravery, and hard work.
Whereas Connelly Cowen,
a junior at Mount Pleasant High School,
in Mount Pleasant ISD, started Connelly's Classroom*,
at age seven and annually collects school supplies
through a donation box at her local
church in lieu of her birthday presents.
After a lot of preparation, she delivers
the boxes to Refuge International.
A non-profit organization, in Longview, Texas
that makes regular mission trips to Guatemala.
And whereas Aubrey Hollingsworth, a sophomore
at Hutto High School at Hutto ISD,
is a leader at her school's Leo Club.
With a heart for service, she led a food drive
and serving 508 families, including 1,278 children
who also received toys, but more than anything,
led the district's Leo, to raise $1,217 benefiting the
organization called Austin Sunshine Kids.
And whereas Brock Bergen*, a junior at
Lawrence Dale Bell High School in Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD,
is a volunteer mentor who focused on improving
the reading skills of elementary children,
and as a servant at local organizations,
he founded Brock's socks*.
Which collects and donates socks.
And on his 16th birthday, he sponsored a campaign
supporting the Tarrant Area Food Bank that raised
$1,500 and provided over 6,000 meals to area families.
And where Camavi Ravi*, a junior at
Centennial High School in Frisco ISD
is passionate about the power of kindness.
She founded the nonprofit organization
called Kindness For All*
and raised funds that benefited over 50,000 people
in monetary and in kind donations,
from three different kindness* projects.
And whereas the Zeriah Griggs,*
a senior at Harmony School of Excellence in Dallas,
has a genuine heart for developing others
through mentorship.
She has a passion for volunteering her time and talent,
whether at school or at her local church,
where she is a true runner for success.
Whereas Romella Spitzer, a fourth grade student at
Williams Ledger Elementary School in Copperas Cove ISD
was a true hero when she raised money to buy
artwork materials for students in special education,
that allowed the students to showcase their artwork
during a Valentine show with all -you-can-eat chocolates.
The event raised almost $1,900, which helped
purchase sensory classroom equipment for her district.
And whereas Ivy Pham a senior at
Hirschi High School in Wichita Falls, ISD is a student
with a servant's heart.
Who pursues challenging coursework
while volunteering at local hospitals
as a translator for Vietnamese patients,
leading the student council and key club,
and serving as a teaching assistant
during Sunday school at her local church.
And whereas these amazing students have modeled
caring and compassion in their communities.
Now, therefore it be resolved
that the State Board of Education
extends its heartfelt thanks
to each of these kind-hearted students,
and commends them for their unselfish volunteerism,
good character and integrity.
And be it further resolved
that this resolution be presented to each them.
And that a copy be included in the permanent
records of the State Board of Education.
Please witness our signatures this
25th day of June, 2021 in Austin, Texas.
Dr. Keven Ellis, Chair, and myself, your secretary.
-: Thank you, Ms. Pérez
And I wanna say congratulations.
All those in favor of adopting the resolution of the
2021 Student Heroes Award recipients,
do so by saying, "Aye."
-: Aye
-: Alright. And the resolution is adopted.
Alright. Members, we'll now move to public testimony.
I believe we have four testifiers who are signed up.
So I'll call on staff to call on the testifiers.
I would remind the board that these are testifiers who are
signed up to testify on something that we
didn't have on the agenda in the other
portions of our meeting,
and therefore as it is not on the agenda,
we are not able to open a dialogue with these testifiers.
We're simply here to hear from the public.
By rule and by law, we are allowed to
ask them clarifying questions,
or direct them to the appropriate staff only.
Okay. I'll call on staff.
-: Perla Muñoz Hopkins,
-: Tristin Chizik*, Brandi Berkman*, Paul Gotea*.
Perla Munios Hopkins.
-: Good morning. My name is Perla Muñoz Hopkins.
I was blessed to advocate for the interstate compact
on educational opportunity for military
children back in November to this body.
And I must say that our service members,
over 1.4 million veterans living in the State of Texas,
are very grateful and thankful to every school and
agency that supports our military kids.
Many of us worked on increasing awareness for the compact,
and hoping to update its elements over the past few months.
So thank you to Mr. Maynard,
for not only connecting with me,
but also for your advocacy of House Bill 3932,
which brings in the Compact Advisory Council.
My grave concern however, are the continued violations
to education and constitutional law and basic
civil rights by Leander ISD leadership.
That is just down the road in Austin.
They have been violating article three of Chapter 162,
by not identifying or tracking
the military connected children
whose parent has a retired status.
In fact, on April 1st of this year,
I found out that no enrollment form,
which has this military status block,
was ever produced for my eldest child.
Therefore, not executing any other elements of the
compact for this student.
Right now there are children of fellow veterans in LISD
who are being denied GT testing,
and there's also issues with corresponding GPA in courses.
Most importantly as our parental rights are being stripped
more and more each day.
I am really concerned about
the severe and high level of hate crimes towards any
parents that speak up at our school board.
I have been called a pedophile, and it is linked to school
board members, friends of school
board members of Leander ISD.
And some of us were afraid to speak up.
-: Go ahead and wrap up your comments.
-: Okay. Please, please connect with any parent, myself.
There are great* things going on.
And Leander ISD HB 3979 is a good thing.
(Speaking Spanish)
-: Thank you very much.
Any clarifying questions from members Mr. Maynard.
-: Ms. Hopkins, you and I have had a number
of lengthy conversations.
And thank you for making the effort to come
and to let your voice be heard.
I think it's important.
Just to just out of curiosity,
in terms of the violation of the law, as you see that.
Has anything been done in terms of
filing a complaint with the Commissioner of Education?
-: Sir, I have reached out to TEA.
I have had to refinance my house and seek attorney help.
As of this past week, Leander ISD has wanted
me to meet with Walsh Gallegos Trevino, Kyle law firm.
None of my public information requests are usually accepted.
They are sent to the Attorney General
and the information needs to be redacted,
or I need to accept redactions.
There are many cease and desist letters
that many of us parents have had to file.
Parents have received hate crimes as
far as Bratislava in Europe.
I'm sorry for the bad views.
I'm here speaking for many, many that are affected.
-: It's my understanding that there is a process
is that if the law has been violated,
that I believe that the Commissioner
has authority to address that.
Legal counsel, is that correct?
-: Generally, yes.
We have a complaints process that can be filed,
at which point we would begin an initial
investigation and depending upon the
severity or what's going on.
It may leverage up into what
will now be called a special investigation.
It used to be called special accreditation investigation.
-: There's also a grievance process at the school districts.
-: Right.
-: And that can be appealed to the Commissioner.
Which is separate from the complaints process.
There's two parallel processes here.
-: Right
-: And it could be used.
-: Well, Ms. Hopkins, let's see if we can connect
you to the right people in this building.
Alright. Thank you.
-: Tristen Chizik.*
-: My name is Tristan Chizik *and I'm a concerned
parent with three children from Leander ISD.
I'm here to share concerns we have regarding
administration and board members in breaking the law,
In June, 2021 board meeting, many parents
raised concerns for two AP social studies
books that will violate HB 3979.
However, in the June 17th meeting,
the board voted to approve those books.
In 2020, the board approved
a long list of unvetted books for middle
school and high school book clubs.
These books include detailed
descriptions of gang rape, incest,
drug use, self-mutilation, and more.
A child can't walk into a rated R movie
without a parent, or the theater can be sued.
However, Leander ISD is handing sexually explicit
and violent books to our students,
including through online library resource tool
with the no safety filter.
Teachers are afraid to speak
out for fear of losing their jobs.
They have been threatened and told that they can
leave the district, if they refuse these teachings,
including being told Christianity is white supremacy,
Trustee Dholakia broke quorum on June 17th, 2021,
by telling the woman speaking to "F off."
In March 2020, Leander ISD hired two
political activists to do a community survey on equity.
Their summary suggested that Christianity was the primary
reason for anti LGBTQ, bigotry and racism in the district.
In June, 2020 Trustees said that teachers
who don't want to take the equity
training can leave the district.
Administration has not responded to multiple inquiries
and grievances regarding why the song
"F the police," by N.W.A. is being
used in our ELA curriculum.
Our first amendment rights
are violated at every board meeting.
As we are told we are not
allowed to list any names of individuals
during our speeches,
and we're not allowed to clap.
When parents or teachers speak out,
about objections to the changes in curriculum,
or pornographic books, we are instantly labeled,
racist, bigots and Christian radicals.
And often attacked for purposes of
intimidation behind the scenes.
I was personally one of them.
These are some examples of ongoing issues
that we're facing within Leander.
The list is long.
I'm here to ask what can we do to fix these issues
and stop these illegal actions
and are you able to help our district?
-: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Trizic
Any clarifying questions from members?
-: Thank you very much.
-: Randy Berkman,
Paul, go TA,*
Go ahead.
-: Good morning.
Last week, Governor Abbott signed to law HB3979.
In doing so, the law states, the schools in Texas cannot
teach in such a way
to make children feel bad about themselves.
A teacher, administrator,
and other employees of State agencies,
school district charter schools, could not require or engage
in training orientation therapy that present any form of
race, sex, stereotyping, or blame,
on the basis of race or sex
and could not require or make part of a course
or concept that, one race or sex
was inherently superior, the other race or sex.
Yet last Thursday night at 10:45 PM,
Leander ISD did just that by choosing books
in its curriculum for this coming year
that are biased and racist to some
people's races, color and even religion.
Some of the dates of important
events are also wrong and inaccurate.
I know the state professionals have governmental immunity.
While ISDs also enjoy immunity though broad,
it is not absolute, citing 1978 T S C bar versus Bernard.*
And while the State of Texas professionals
are not answerable to negligence
while exercising government functions,
I would argue that Leander ISD board
is answerable when they break the laws of Texas,
while exercising governmental functions.
I ask the State School Board to hold Leander ISD
accountable for their lawlessness.
In 1923 the US Supreme Court observed that parents
have a constitutional protected right to control
their children's upbringing.
Meyer v. Nebraska.
However, it's extent in the educational context is limited.
While constitutional law generally does
not support parents right in public schooling,
Texas statutory law
provides significant support for parents.
Indeed, the first objective of the
public education system as specified in the
State Education Code is that parents will be full partners.
-: Thank you sir. Any clarifying questions from
members I got Ms. Davis and Mr. Maynard
-: I do. I think this is more for staff.
So, I just wanna clear this cause they keep
accusing on Leander of doing something illegal,
but the 3979 isn't even effective as of right now.
So, a vote in June wouldn't have been illegal.
I'll just wanna make clarity on that.
-: I believe you are correct.
Even though it had an immediate effect of clause*,
the certification of the votes does not appear
that received* two thirds from both chambers.
-: I think it's September 1 effective date.
-: Thank you.
So that's not an illegal thing they're saying Leander.
I just want to clear that up.
-: The bill is not effective yet. So that's correct.
-: I'm just curious.
I know that in our process,
that any instruction materials we adopt
have to be factually accurate.
That's in the statute. But does that not extend
to if a School District adopts
something locally that has not been
vetted through the State Board of Education,
that still applies, does it not?
-: I'd have to look that up.
But I don't recall a statute that imposes that on
the School Districts.
However, like reason would suggest,
that if you're teaching the TEKS,
you need to teach something that's factually accurate.
-: But the Instructional materials adoption,
in other words,
we can reject something is factually inaccurate,
but if a School District goes out on its own
and adopts something with that on its own,
that does not necessarily apply.
Is that what I'm hearing?
-: I think that's correct. Mr. Maynard.
I don't think there's anything in the statute that
provides any parameters for districts other than
they have to certify that they are covering all of
the essential knowledge and skills.
-: Alright very good.
-: Thank you. Member Davis' question is well-placed.
But just a general question, I think, for our legal staff.
If a School District is violating the law,
is the TEA an enforcer or policemen,
or would the public or parents?
Who would enforce against a
School District that's violating the Education Code?
-: So, I think it depends on what the violation is.
The agency does have some jurisdiction as
we had indicated before both through
a grievance process there's an appeal to
the Commissioner for violation school laws of Texas.
There's also a complaint process
that can be filed with us.
However, some of the allegations that
were made were failure to respond
appropriately to Public Information Act.
Those are generally handled by the AG's office
and not by the agency.
So, it depends on the thing.
I would also need to tell you is like
the Education Code does not allow the agency
to submit or to substitute its judgment for
that of a School Board
as long as the School Board is operating
within the bounds of the law.
So that's how the Education Code tries to
maintain local control while still having a
regulatory process.
-: Several years ago.
Senate Bill 6 took the power
away from the State Board of Education of
requiring every book made a 100% of the TEKS.
But it didn't say each book,
you have to provide a 100%.
In other words, if this human
geography book is the only book
that they're covering as their text,
then it must meet a 100%.
If they have this book and something else,
together can make up 100%.
But my question is, who's checking this?
-: So, the Education Code requires every
School District to annually submit a
certification that they have materials
that cover a 100% of the TEKS.
-: I know that, but does anyone ever do a followup*,
an opportunity to say we would like to
have that checked out?
-: We don't have authority Ms. Hardy to do
that kind of monitoring.
-: I know.
-: I mean the district certifies,
we take and maintain record of that certification,
but we don't have the authority to go
to check and see if that is in.
-: But from a legal standpoint, the parents could
have that checked, right?
-: I'm not aware of the standing issues like if they
were to go to court and try to get that.
If you're asking, could they ask
a School District for the certification,
that should be a public record.
And the knowledge of all the books
so that they could compare to,
does the certification actually match
with the web materials are being used?
-: So, they could ask for copies of the books,
then they can find someone who certifies
that it's teaching the TEKS.
And then they would have that information.
And if they find that that the School District
has been untruthful, what would they be
able to do then?
-: I mean, you can file a complaint with us
if you've got the justification in the materials,
then like we would take that
and then we would call the School Districts
and like, "Hey, we have this allegation.
This is the facts that were provided to us.
What's your facts?"
And then that would be a violation as far as like,
I just can't tell you the standing
requirements of a district court,
if they were to take that there.
Now, if parents were alleging a criminal
violation of something then they
could potentially go to
a District or County Attorney.
-: Okay. Vaughn* you go on that
question* just at the end there.
A violation of law is criminal offense, right?
So you would follow it with the local county D.A.
-: Yeah. Not all violations of law are criminal offenses.
So that's why you do have the regulatory body
of the agency when you look at pieces of the code
where they don't carry a criminal violation,
so that you can have some type of enforcement,
but as I said Texas relies on local control.
So a lot of decisions are left to
local school boards to make those decisions
and are expected to be handled locally.
But there are some criminal violations
that are established both in the Education Code,
as well as other codes of Texas.
And we don't enforce criminal violations.
Those are enforced by County and District Attorneys.
And I may have missed some other folks
that have jurisdiction.
-: I think my question is for possibly Shelly or Monica*,
and it does not require an immediate response
because the two books,
and I'm assuming these are the only two books,
because that's the image on the document.
Yes, sir. Thank you.
The two books that are being referenced
are Human Geography by National Geographic,
and Traditions & Encounters by McGraw Hill.
Are these books that the SBOE adopted?
And so obviously that's not something
you're gonna look up now,
but at some point, if you could please get back
to us and let us know if these are books
that we adopted at some point in time.
Thank you.
-: Yes ma'am.
-: Okay. So, the books in question are lower
reading level and therefore the AP reading.
And as parents we were not given the books
or opportunity to look at the books
until 2:45 Thursday and the meeting is at 6:15.
The opportunity to have a back and forth
as I read this, "Parents will be full partners."
The Leander School District.
I've never seen this before.
I've been in the business of...
Well, I can't really say.
But I've never looked up to school board before.
And I've never seen people act like this.
The first time I ever went to a meeting,
I thought I was at a sexual harassment
and sexual assault seminar.
And the parents that were coming up,
were giving their testimonials.
To which the board, they looked absent.
Completely absent.
And how that ties back to this book.
There were a 100 people in that room.
50 people spoke. 45 were against these books.
Even though we only had two hours
to look at them before the meeting.
You have to sign up by 5:30 to 6:00 to speak.
That's a good majority of people that spoke.
-: Sir I need you to, because of our parameters,
you're able to answer her question
regarding whether this is an adopted SBOE book
or something the district, but I think we need
to keep it to that.
-: Sure. I don't know if it was or not.
-: We'll have staff working on that.
-: Mr. Cortez
-: Maybe I missed it with violations,
and District Attorneys and Criminal Law,
but it appears no law has been broken.
Is there something else that we need to be
discussing? Am I missing something?
If this behavior, or if it turns out then they're
SBOE books that are adopted through our process,
then I guess we're gonna have to
revisit our entire process.
If they're not, then it seems like a moot point
until this legislation goes into effect
and if those practices are still in place at that time.
But today it seems like everything's okay.
Other than parents weren't given the
opportunity to I guess, be a part of this process.
And that gets kind of unfortunately drawn back
to the local level.
We talked about some of those parameters.
A grievance or complaint with the agency.
But am I missing something or?
-: To clarify Mr. Cortez,
you're asking your question to staff?
-: I'm asking to you. You're running the meeting.
I mean, we're having an entire debate
over something that just from what I'm hearing,
nothing illegal has taken place because
this law doesn't take effect yet.
-: For clarification
-: Other than parents not being involved in the process.
And that they've been given by legal
some avenues which is a grievance in
the complaint with the agency.
And now we're gonna investigate some
of the books that at least we know of,
to see if they're a part of our process
and if it is, we've got some stuff to deal with as well,
and we'll know that later.
But other than that, I think we've discussed plenty.
-: So, for clarification,
we're not in a debate for this process.
We're taking public testimony,
we're appointing* time or asking any clarification
questions or directing the testifiers to the
appropriate staff which I think we've been
doing pretty well so far.
I think your points taken. We have discussed this.
I don't think your question raised anything
from staff that really probably hasn't already been
answered unless I'm hearing anything different.
I think it's been addressed.
And again, we're trying to actually avoid a debate
here because that's not what we're posted for.
So is there any further questions from members relating
to clarifying questions?
Okay.
So, then we thank you
that that's the end of the public comment.
-: Yeah. Just to clarify.
So the law was signed last week,
but when does it exactly go into effect?
-: September 1, 2021.
-: So, in a few months.
-: Correct.
-: So, what happens when these books that they approved,
the law goes into effect?
'Cause I bring that up only because
it does affect with the books.
They ran out of the legal time they could use
the old books.
So, these new books are the only ones they can use.
-: Save* the question. I think staff has
outlined that as well as we can,
what the legal process is to your question.
The law goes into effect September 1st.
I know there's a lot of information there.
This meeting is being recorded.
You can go back to it and find the exact details
of the process that's been laid out by staff.
But I think that's the extent of what this body
can do during this agenda item.
So that being said, we will close public testimony
at this time.
-: Thank you for your time.
-: You're welcome.
-: Okay, members, let's take a brief five-minute break,
as we move on to the rest of our agenda items.
-: Members we are going to come back together here.
My script back.
We are, I believe, on item number two,
which is the approval of the Consent Agenda.
So the next business in order is the
approval of the Consent Agenda
The Consent Agenda has been
distributed to each of you.
Take a moment to review the
items on the Consent Agenda.
And we currently have 15 items.
Is there any members who
would like to pull an item?
Got Mr. Maynard first.
-: Mr. Chairman, I believe it's item number 11.
-: Mr. Maynard was asking to pull the selection
of the State Board members,
nominees for Statewide board positions.
Are there any other members
who would like to pull an item?
You may have a moment
And while I'm giving Ms. Pérez just a moment.
I'll make note that the item number 11
was part of the PSF agenda so we will take
that up at a point in time when we're going
through the PSF items, not immediately.
Ms. Davis.
-: Number five.
-: So, we have asked request to pull ratification
of the purchase and sales of the investment
portfolio, the Permanent School Fund for
the months of March and April 2021.
Do I go over these individually?
-: No?*
-: Okay.
You know, still given just a few more moments for
everyone to look through the Consent Agenda.
Anything?
-: I also would like to pull a number 8.
-: So we have review of Permanent School Fund,
Real Estate Class, Real Estate Policy and Tactical Plan.
Alright. And I wanna give everyone plenty of time to
make sure we're good. Okay.
So we will as our parliamentarian notice,
those just at the request of one
member will be pulled off.
I believe all three of those are PSF related items.
So we will take those up at the point in the
agenda when we are at PSF.
Mr. Hickman.
-: Could we also pull 15?
I just have a question for staff on that one.
-: So 15 is the approval of 2021 to 2025 rule
review plan for State Board of Education rules.
Yes. We will pull that off.
When would be the appropriate agenda?
-: School initiatives.
-: So that's school initiatives.
And I'm gonna have to get staff down here.
They are not in the room right now.
So, let me work on.
-: It's simple, you can probably answer.
-: Oh, okay.
There is a simple clarifying question you want to ask?
We could leave that on the consent.
-: The question is if we want to make a change
to one of the rules, how do we do that?
Do we work with staff?
-: Yeah.
Your board operating procedures go
through requesting something to be put on the agenda.
Generally, the Board Chair determines agendas,
and then each Committee Chair determines agendas.
So, if you wanna make a request for something
to be put on an agenda,
you would make a request of one of those two,
that has the jurisdiction over whatever
rule you're wanting to look at.
And if this fails, you can always make a motion
before the Full Board to request something
be put on a future agenda.
-: Okay. That covered.
We can leave it on the consent.
Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
-: Are there any other items
that members would like to pull off?
Alright. Hearing none, the remainder of
the Consent Agenda is adopted.
Alright. So, we will now move to item number 3,
which is the committee of the Full Board.
This has* proposed new 19 TAC Chapter 112,
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Science.
Subchapter C. High School. 112.47 through 112.51.
This is for second reading and final adoption.
This is on your agenda on page I-4.
And is there any discussion from staff?
I think we're good.
Okay. So, we will open this item
up for discussion among members.
Is there any discussion?
Okay.
-: No.
-: Alright. I'm gonna call on Ms. Little
to make the first of the motions.
-: Mr. Chair, I move that the committee of Full Board
recommends that the State Board of Education
postpone further consideration of proposed
new 19 TAC Chapter 112,
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Science
-: Lost her.
Subchapter C 112.47-112.51,
to the September SBOE meeting.
-: Second.
-: Alright. We have a motion and a second,
to postpone further consideration of this
item to the September SBOE meeting.
Is there further we discuss this?
On our previous agenda, earlier in the week.
Is there some more discussion on this item?
So we're at now, is that the current motion
on the floor is to postpone the science
of the four high school courses
to the September meeting.
So as we discussed the other day in this item,
is that there was a discussion to
move it forward to September.
Is there any debate on that process?
Ms. Hardy?
-: I would simply say that from my expert reviewer,
and from another of the expert reviewers,
who said that they would like to see it go.
That would have been final reading this time.
And that we'd go ahead and approve these four electives.
My desire was to let the Energy Council,
it was just a few words, and they did their thing correctly,
to send it ahead of time.
And then there were just simple things to be corrected.
I've been through this process
several times with the science.
And what happens is it just keeps adding on.
I think Monica said to us a long time ago,
"If you give people another chance,
they'll take it and you end up with more and more."
So I think that what's most important for us to do in
September is a really clean K through 8,
vertically aligned well developed science.
And I think that these elective courses,
while they're important,
are not the same as the core courses that all the kids take.
While I would have liked to have had the Energy Council,
I think they had four or five recommendations.
While I rather would have
liked to have had them do that,
I understand that if I open it up to that,
then we open it up to keeping the four
courses moving until September for approval.
So, I personally would rather see us stop debate
on the four elective courses,
and go ahead and approve them
even though I'm not gonna get
those four or five words into the program.
Another thing that our expert reviewers,
the two I talked to said,
was that many of the people who
worked on the TCL staff* were in the committees.
They were on the work committees.
A great number of them were.
And the two questioned why they didn't
say something at the time and stop it then.
Why keep putting it off?
And they had the time in the interim time
when the TEA put it on for public view and so forth
that they could've made the changes or concerns
made known. And they didn't.
So, they felt like that they weren't as significant as
they had made them out to be.
So, I would vote to go ahead and make this second reading.
-: I would point to us into the process.
We have a very thorough process in our TEKS review.
It takes a big document even to outline
the whole process that we go through.
And we followed this throughout that.
Many times as we've had debates about other issues,
there's points made back and forth about
listening to our educators.
Well, honestly, we do have a group
of educators that represent one organization,
but we've had groups of educators from
many others who have expressed
concerns that we are at a good place with this.
And not to mention all the work of our work groups
throughout this entire process.
Our work groups have done a tremendous work.
I'm very appreciative of this.
And this is the point where
our work groups have gotten us to.
It's my understanding from staff that they have
had no contact from the work groups themselves,
that further consideration needs to take place,
that the work groups feel we're in a good place.
So again, as you'll hear me,
not for the first time ever,
talk about process and how important that is,
Ms. Hardy.
-: Another of the groups that was not represented
here is a very important group of science
teachers is STAT.
And the reason they weren't here was because
they were satisfied with those four core courses,
as they were.
-: Mr. Chair
-: Mr. Cortez.
-: Yeah. And I would just wanna add,
and wanna echo that final statement member Hardy
made is that I was told the same thing,
that they were happy with what we had as presented.
And so, if that's the will of the board,
then I'm all too happy to approve.
-: So, for clarification
-: that's presented
-: For clarification what we in front of us
with emotion currently on the floor, is to postpone.
So, if what I'm hearing from member Cortez,
member Hardy, that if that was the will of the body,
this motion would need to be -: Defeated
-: defeated. And then we could take up another
motion to adopt the other four high school
courses at second rating and final adoption.
So that's what's on the floor.
Mr. Maynard,
-: Mr. Chairman, I guess, part of the tree inquiry*.
And so I guess that motion to recommend
was already made,
and that there's actually a pending motion to amend.
So when it comes back,
is that pending motion to amend?
Is that what's there?
-: Mr. Chairman, if I may interject here,
I will point out that there is a pending motion to amend
that was made by the committee of the Full Board.
This however, is a meeting of the State Board of Education
who has before it only a motion to postpone.
Should that motion to postpone be defeated,
there would be no motion on the floor,
and it would be open to another member,
making a motion either to adopt on second reading,
which was the staff recommendation,
or to take up amendments at that point.
-: I would just maybe ask for clarification of
member Cortez, member Hardy, who has been part
of this discussion of the intent of
these members if this motion is defeated.
Is there an intent to take up additional amendments?
-: No, sir.
-: Okay.
-: My understanding is that we're gonna accept it as is.
-: Okay. Alright. Any other discussion on this motion?
Dr. Johnson
-: Just so I'll understand the process.
We can postpone, we can elect to move forward.
If we postpone, we can add amendments
in the September meeting to those that she brought forward.
If we go back to work groups or pass that,
we blew up the whole schedule.
-: Correct.
-: Okay. Okay. I was just to making sure I was seeing it.
-: Dr. Bell mineral*.
-: I appreciate member Johnson's question
because as a new member,
it's a little bit difficult to understand the procedure.
I do not wanna blow up the whole calendar,
that I'm absolutely on board with.
And I do not want to consider extensive amendments.
But I do know that I have heard from a number of people,
that there are a few key elements that are problematic,
and that there's some issues
with alignment between the K through 8
and the high school requirements.
So that there are small issues but they are important.
So, I don't know the best way to deal with those,
or for us all to understand what those issues are.
And I think that science has advanced
so much in this area in recent years,
and it is such an important issue.
Although the class on climate science is an elective,
I think it's an elective that more and more
students are going to want to take
as they see half of the United States
burning to a crisp, floods, record temperatures.
We live on a hotter planet
than humans have ever lived on right now.
Humans have never lived on a planet that
has as high a temperature as the earth has now.
At any rate, I would like for us to
delay this process until our September meeting,
and then finish it then, accept whatever
goes through, and whatever is accepted.
But I would rather get it right and have a
small bump in the road of the usual procedure,
than just say, "Oh well, it's too much trouble to
take the time for the future of our children,
our grandchildren and really an existential threat
to survival of life on the planet."
Even if I'm in the minority, and it's futile,
that is what I would like to do.
I know there's been discussion about what to do,
and I think that there's a consensus of
"Well, oh well, let's just accept it the way it is."
That's my view.
-: Mr Chairman.
-: Yes. Mr. Hickman, let me make one statement
and then I'll recognize you for that.
I would just point out that I don't think anyone
on this board feels that it's too much time to take
for the future of our children or grandchildren.
I think the point that's been being made,
is that we've taken that time to work through the process.
Mr. Hickman, before I recognize you,
is it okay if I take one more question?
Ms. Hardy -: I just wanna say that what
we're talking about right here and now,
is only the four elective courses.
It is not the high school required foundational courses.
-: And the K through 8 has to align with that.
-: Yeah. And the K through 8 needs to align with that.
So, it really wouldn't make that difference anyway.
-: I think we're ready to take the vote.
Is there anyone who has any further debate?
So seeing none, I want to clarify what we're voting on here.
A vote in favor would be to postpone this to
our September meeting,
with no further action by work groups.
Just to postpone it to the September meeting.
A vote opposed would just defeat this motion,
and allow another motion to be presented.
Any questions on that?
Mr. Cortez.
-: Just for clarification.
So, I guess if we start getting a flurry of motions,
after this vote, then I'm probably gonna be
prepared to offer up a significant number of changes.
If that's what happens after this vote.
-: My parliamentarian can chime in.
So normally you can't go back to an item
that's already been defeated,
but I think that might have changed it enough
in our process where you could bring back this
motion to postpone,
if something other than what we've discussed here,
because that would be a change.
Do you see what I'm saying?
That if there began a flare debates,
I believe you would be allowed to
defeat those and bring back this motion.
Because that would have been something
substantially different than where we're
at right now.
-: So we would be allowed to take this action again?
I'm sorry. Not be allowed.
-: We would. If there has been progress in the debates,
such as many other motions being brought forward,
which would be get to your hands.
-: Okay, good.
-: So again, favor of yes, is to
postpone this to our September meeting.
So, I'll ask all those in favor of this motion,
show yes, by raising your hand.
Did we get our online?
-: Ms. Pérez and Mr. Allen, are you voting on? Okay.
So, we have six in the affirmative.
All those opposed, by the same sign.
Okay. Alright.
So, in a vote of six in the affirmative,
eight against this motion is defeated.
So now we would be open for another motion.
Mr. Cortez.
-: I would move at the State Board of Education
approve as is, for second reading and final
adoption proposed 19 TAC Chapter 112
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Science
Subchapter C High School, 112.46 implementation of
Texas Essential Knowledge of Skills for Science
High School adopted 2021 112.47 Aquatic
Science adopted 2021, 1 Credit
112.48, Astronomy adopted 2021, 1 Credit
112.49 or Science Systems adopted 2021, 1 Credit
112.50 Environmental Systems adopted 2021, 1 Credit.
And 112.51 Specialized Topics in Science
adopted 2021, 1 Credit.
And make an affirmative finding that immediate adoption of
the proposed new 19 TAC Chapter 112,
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Science Subchapter
C High School, 112.46
Implementation of Texas Essential Knowledge.
and Skills for Science High School adopted 2021
112.47. Aquatic Science adopted 2021 1 Credit
112.48. Astronomy adopted 2021 1 Credit
112.49. Earth Science Systems adopted 2021 1 Credit
112.50 Environmental Systems adopted 2021, 1 Credit
and 112.51 Specialized Topics in Science
adopted 2021 1 Credit
is necessary and shall have an effective date of
20 days after filing as adopted with the Texas Registrar.
-: I second
-: Alright, we have a motion to second.
Is there a further debate on this item?
Alright.
My understanding it's a two thirds vote on this.
So, where we're at now, for clarification.
We are back to where we were with the staff
recommendations that we came into the meeting.
First time second reading and final adoption
with the document that has been presented to
us from the work groups.
And it will take a two thirds majority for this vote.
-: Parliamentary inquiry, why is it a two thirds vote?
-: Yeah, the two thirds is necessary for it to take effect
for this school year.
Otherwise it's adopted,
but it will take effect the following.
-: So, if we pass it with a majority,
would that be a different motion?
-: I believe you're doing this in one motion.
If it passes with the majority, it's still adopted,
but it just will not have immediate effective date.
But I'm looking at our parliamentarian to see if
that's true.
-: I would actually believe that I would not agree with that,
because part of the motion is the effective date of 20 days.
So, if this motion is defeated,
it could be re-offered again,
without the second paragraph,
the "make an affirmative finding" part.
There it would take a majority,
and then it would have a later effective date.
-: Is that clear for everybody?
Dr. Bell-Metereau.
-: Could you just go over that one more time?
I'm sorry. I'm just...
-: Yes. Ma'am. This is a motion in two paragraphs.
And it's that way on the website where it produces this.
And so, the first paragraph says,
we're gonna prove it for second reading and final adoption.
And the second paragraph says,
we're going to make an affirmative finding that
immediate adoption is required.
And to do that immediate adoption which would
put this in effect this school year,
takes a two thirds vote.
If the motion does not achieve two thirds,
but does achieve a majority,
it could be removed with just the first paragraph,
which would then mean
that it would be effective at a later date.
It would not be effective 20 days after filing is
adopted with the Texas register.
-: Chairman
-: Yes
-: I am probably gonna muddy the waters here,
but I do need to add some clarification.
There is a difference between the effective date,
and the implementation date.
The effective date is when the rule becomes effective.
That means it's published and people can see it.
But if you look at Roman numeral I-IX,
you've got language indicating that the
implementation would be the 24/25 school year.
The reason that we do that,
is so that we have time to communicate changes to the field,
provide professional development,
you have time to adopt instructional materials
with these new standards being effective.
So they will live side by side,
with the existing core standards
until the 24/25 school year.
If you don't have the immediate effective date,
then that means that this rule is out there as adopted,
not yet effective, and nothing can happen
to that rule until it becomes effective.
So, I don't want for folks to be of the understanding
that these revised courses would be implemented
in 21/22 because of that is not correct.
-: So, if I could try to condense what Monica has said there.
If you pass this, even with immediate effective date,
the course isn't going in until 24/25,
but if you don't do an immediate effective date,
you won't be able to modify this for a year.
Because it won't be effective yet.
And you can only take up rules that are currently in effect.
-: Got all that?
-: Okay. Thank you.
-: Okay. So, the motion still stands,
that it would take a two thirds majority
for immediate effective date.
So at this point in time, we have a motion,
we have a second, we've had the discussion.
I would ask all those in favor show by raising your hand.
All those opposed by the same sign.
There are 14 in favor, and 0 opposed,
and the motion is adopted.
Alright, we will now move to item number 4,
which is consideration of the Commissioner of Education's
Generation 26 Open-Enrollment Charter School Proposals.
This is on page I-36 of your agenda.
And let me take just a minute or two break here,
just to make sure we have our motions in order,
and have that squared away.
What were taking up now is the seven recommendations,
that were made by the Committee of the Full Board.
They were not all the same recommendations.
Some were recommendations to take no action,
and some were recommendations to veto.
We will take them up as they were approved
by the Committee of the Full Board.
If those receive the same affirmative vote,
as we did in the Committee of the Full Board,
in other words, if nothing changes,
then as we go each one,
that will finish that particular vote.
If there is a different vote than what was recommended
in the Committee of the Full Board,
then like we did the other day,
we'll take the opposite side of that motion.
Mr. Cortez.
-: Mr. Chair, I guess before we begin.
A lot's been said during testimony
and during the interviews with the charter groups.
And I had a lot of things that I didn't wanna say,
but I'm not even gonna talk about that
as we go, one by one.
What I do wanna say is that
I learned late yesterday and this morning,
that some of the votes in this body might change
as a result of the Governor's Office reaching
out to members on this board.
I don't know why the Governor is so interested
in these charter businesses, but I am very disappointed.
Governor Abbott may think he runs the legislature,
but he does not run the State Board of Education.
If these charters are approved,
I want everyone to know that this is about power,
not about children.
I respect each and every one of my colleagues,
we disagree at times.
But I sincerely hope that you vote your conscience
and not buckle under the pressure of the Governor
who clearly thinks some of us in this room work for him.
We don't. We work for kids.
And I'll remind all of you again.
We work for children,
not for the Governor of the State of Texas.
So, having said that,
I will vote my conscience on those seven.
And that's the last you'll hear from me on this topic.
-: Thank you, Mr. Cortez.
I do wanna point out
that I've been very involved in this process,
and I think from my perspective,
and I've been very involved with this,
those allegations are not accurate.
Dr. Bell-Metereau.
-: I just want to ask if the votes are going to be
the same as the votes we took before.
It was a very confusing voting process.
-: It will be the same confusion.
-: I will go very slow through the process.
We wanna make sure that everyone
votes with a full understanding.
They will be the same as came out of committee,
but I will go through each one individually,
and make sure everyone
is fully aware of what each individual.
'Cause they will be a little bit different.
'Cause we have different coming out.
-: Because sometimes it was vote no, if you were for it,
and then yes, if you were not for it.
And so... -: We'll be very clear on it.
-: Okay. Thank you.
You'll spell it out like,
"This means you want this school."
-: I'll make sure. Yes.
Alright. Any other comments from members?
Okay. I'm gonna call on Ms. Little.
-: Mr. Chair the Committee of the Full Board
recommends that the State Board of Education,
take no action on the Commissioner of Education's
Generation 26 open-enrollment charter school proposal for
Essence Preparatory Charter School, in San Antonio.
-: Okay. Is there any further debate on this item?
So this is a charter that was voted
by the Committee of the Full Board to take no action.
What that practically means is it would be approved.
So a vote in this case of yes, would be to affirm that,
and a vote of yes would approve the charter,
and a vote of no, would be the opposite of that.
Ms. Davis did that answer your question?
-: No, I wanted to have discussion.
-: Okay.
-: Oh, I just wanted to speak in support of Essence Prep.
I think they had a great application.
Everything was very transparent.
They were very honest,
they've been in the community,
and I think they have a great plan.
They wanna make sure they stay right there
and they serve the communities that they know very well.
So I would like to speak in support.
-: Any further debate?
-: Do you need a second on this motion?
-: No Ma'am, they come from the committee
and don't require a second*
-: Any further debate on this one.
So we were ready to take the vote
and I'll remind one more time.
A vote of yes, is for the charter to be approved.
-: Mr. Chair.
Yes. Ma'am
-: May I roll call now?*
-: You may roll call.
-: Can I ask you to call a roll call on each one?
-: I'd love to say that*
-: Yes. So that's your intent for each one?
Okay. So a roll call vote has been requested
for each and every one of those, and that will be accepted.
So I'll call on Ms. Martinez to call the roll.
-: Ms. Perez.
-: No.
-: Mr. Cortez.
-: No.
-: Ms. Pérez-Díaz.
-: Yes.
-: Mr. Allen.
-: Yes.
-: Dr. Bell-Metereau.
-: Yes.
-: Mr. Hickman.
-: Yes.
-: Dr. Robinson.
-: No.
-: Dr. Young.
-: Yes.
-: Mr. Maynard.
-: Yes.
-: Ms. Hardy.
-: Yes.
-: Mrs. Little.
-: Yes.
-: Ms. Davis.
-: Yes.
-: Mrs. Melton-Malone.
-: Yes.
-: Dr. Johnson.
-: Yes.
-: I have 11 in favor and three opposed.
Okay. So there is a majority in favor
in the recommendation is adopted,
which will allow Essence Preparatory Charter School
to move forward.
Alright. Ms. Little
-: Mr. Chair, the Committee of the Full Board recommends
that the State Board of Education veto,
the Commissioner of Education's
Generation 26 open-enrollment
charter school proposal
for Heritage Classical Academy in Houston.
-: Alright, members,
is there any further debate on this item?
Mr. Hickman?
-: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Like a number of these in Houston,
some of them are bordering on my district
and member Allen's district,
but I'll just speak in favor, this is definitely innovative.
I'm not aware of any other public schools
in the area offering a classical.
So for parents and children interested
in that sort of curriculum,
this is for me an innovative approach.
-: Any other members have any further debate on this one?
Okay. So for clarification on this one,
the recommendation of the Committee of the Full Board,
was to veto this charter.
So in an affirmative yes vote here,
will be the opposite of your last vote.
It will be to veto this charter.
So for clarification, that yes vote
is to veto Heritage Classical Academy.
Are we ready or any further questions?
Ms. Martinez, will you please call the roll?
-: Ms. Perez.
-: Yes.
-: Mr. Cortez.
-: Yes.
-: Ms. Pérez-Díaz.
-: Yes.
-: Mr. Allen.
-: Yes.
-: Dr. Bell-Metereau.
-: Yes.
-: Mr. Hickman.
-: No.
-: Dr. Robinson.
-: Yes.
-: Dr. Young.
-: No.
-: Mr. Maynard.
-: No.
-: Ms. Hardy.
-: No.
-: Mrs. Little.
-: No.
-: Ms. Davis.
-: Yes.
-: Mrs. Melton-Malone.
-: No.
-: Dr. Johnson.
-: Yes.
-: Eight votes in favor, and six opposed?
-: Yes, sir.
-: So the motion carries.
There is a majority in favor
and the recommendation is adopted.
The motion carries,
which is a veto of Heritage Classical Academy.
-: Ms. Little.
-: Mr. Chair, the Committee of the Full Board recommends
that the State Board of Education veto
the Commissioner of Education's
Generation 26 open-enrollment charter school proposal
for the Justice Hub in Houston.
-: Aright members, further debate on this item.
This will be the exact same vote as the previous one.
That a yes vote, an affirmative vote,
would be to carry forth the recommendation
of the Committee of the Full Board,
which was to veto the Justice Hub from Houston.
So a yes vote is to confirm the veto.
Any questions on that?
Ms. Martinez, would you please call the roll?
-: Ms. Perez.
-: Yes.
-: Mr. Cortez.
-: Yes.
-: Ms. Pérez-Díaz.
-: Yes.
-: Mr. Allen.
-: Yes.
-: Dr. Bell-Metereau.
-: Yes.
-: Mr. Hickman.
-: No.
-: Dr. Robinson.
-: Yes.
-: Dr. Young.
-: Yes.
-: Mr. Maynard.
-: Yes.
-: Ms. Hardy.
-: Yes.
-: Mrs. Little.
-: Yes.
-: Ms. Davis.
-: Yes.
-: Mrs. Melton-Malone.
-: Yes.
-: Dr. Johnson.
-: Yes
-: 13 In favor and one opposed.
So there is a majority in favor
in the recommendation is adopted,
which will continue the veto of the Justice Hub of Houston.
Perfect. Okay.
Ms. Little.
-: Mr. Chair, the Committee of the Full Board recommends
that the State Board of Education veto
the Commissioner of Education's Generation 26
open-enrollment charter school proposal
for Red Brick Academy Charter School in Houston.
-: Members is there any further discussion on this item?
So we have the same procedure as the last two.
A yes, affirmative vote, would confirm the veto
of the Committee of the Full Board.
A yes vote, is for a veto.
Ms. Martinez, would you please call the roll?
-: Ms. Perez.
-: Yes.
-: Mr. Cortez.
-: Yes.
-: Ms. Pérez-Díaz.
-: Yes.
-: Mr. Allen.
-: Yes.
-: Dr. Bell-Metereau.
-: Yes.
-: Mr. Hickman.
-: Yes.
-: Dr. Robinson.
-: Yes.
-: Dr. Young.
-: Yes.
-: Mr. Maynard.
-: No.
-: Ms. Hardy.
-: Yes.
-: Mrs. Little.
-: No.
-: Ms. Davis.
-: Yes to veto. Correct. Yes to veto.
-: Mrs. Melton-Malone.
-: Yes.
-: Dr. Johnson.
-: Yes.
-: 12 and favor and two against.
So there is a majority in favor
and the recommendation is adopted,
which is to veto
the Red Brick Academy Charter School of Houston.
Ms. Little.
-: Mr. Chair, the Committee of the Full Board recommends
that the State Board of Education
take no action on the Commissioner of
Education's Generation 26 open-enrollment
charter school proposal,
for Rocketship Public Schools in Fort Worth.
-: Members, any further discussion on this item?
Ms. Davis?
-: Yes. I wanted to address some of the things
that were said when we voted previously.
One thing that was said was that
there are no other choices in that area.
But there are four schools
within five minutes of the proposed location.
So for us to think that
either they go to the ISD or nowhere, that's not true.
There are plenty of Uplifts and Trinity Basins and IDEAs,
and other smaller campuses,
right there just a couple of minutes away from the building.
Another thing was that it was said
that all elected officials approved.
We know that member Cortez said
he identified one immediately.
But I spent the night calling
elected officials in that area.
And the three words they use to describe what happened,
was that their community members were used,
manipulated and exploited.
And I don't think we should get into the practice
of having charter applicants come with some of the most
disenfranchised people in our communities,
to try to get guilt into passing the charter.
We all know there was nothing about that academic plan,
that would make the changes and bring the hope
that those community members deserve.
There were three things that they said were innovative.
Three. One was students would rotate through classes.
That already happens in Fort Worth.
Two, it said weekly coaching for teachers.
That already happens in Fort Worth.
Three was annual home visits.
That already happens in Fort Worth.
There was absolutely nothing innovative.
We didn't have any other charter applicants
who are that manipulative,
who lied to us for two years.
And it's beyond me how anyone can say they trust anybody,
when everything they told us has been broken apart.
They already have a building that's paid for and opens up on
July 1st.
So they're depending on knowing that you all
are gonna step in line with what they need.
But I don't wanna be the board that finally caved in,
when so many other boards were strong enough to say no.
And so I'm asking you,
if you want to help the people Stop 6,
this is not the answer.
And to say, "Well, we'll negotiate.
We'll allow this charter to open."
If you just keep it at Stop 6
and keep it out of the rural communities around it."
That's telling me you don't really believe in that charter.
But you believe in it enough
to put it in a community that hurts.
And to say, "Well, when they fail, you know, oh, well."
When they fail, that means those children
have been in a failing school.
And now you have the neighborhood school
that has to figure out,
"How do we get these students back to that grade level?"
So to say, "Just let them open up and just let them fail,"
that means you're letting that community fail even more.
So it's not about the community.
It's not about the people who were up here asking for hope.
And what I've done. I reached out to Fort Worth ISD as well.
We heard people say there were no family supports.
There're family supports, bilingual supports, jobs supports.
There are a lot of things popping into the school.
But when a kid has to go to school hungry, they can't learn.
So it's a lot about the environment
other than Fort Worth ISD.
So I'm asking you not to allow this to happen.
Because we know it's gonna be one school in Stop 6.
But then it's gonna be schools all around Texas.
And they don't know those communities.
And we all know that's what's gonna happen.
And that is gonna be on us.
So I am asking you to vote your conscience,
but I'm asking you to think about all of those people who
did come up and say they needed hope.
The hope that Fort Worth ISD is trying to give,
the hope that Uplift is trying to give.
Dumping more and more lackluster schools in that community,
is not going to solve the problem.
It's gonna make it worse.
So if you care for them, you'll say no to Rocketship.
Thank you.
-: Bell-Metereau
-: I want to thank member Davis for her statement.
The experience of voting against Rocketship,
given all of the people who were here in support,
truly broke my heart.
And the thing that was even more moving to me,
was that after the vote, they were out there
and they accepted me and hugged me and said that
Rocketship would work and that they wanted
me to come up and see it.
And I said, "I will come and visit you."
They did not get mad at me for voting against Rocketship.
But I had done research on Rocketship for hours and hours.
And my discoveries were shocking.
I mean, truly shocking.
There were percentages of students
who had urinary tract infections,
from a regime that made the pupils stay in
and work on those tests to do well on the tests.
So any evidence of improvement that they had,
was really the result of forcing kids to stay
there until they got the tests right.
And there were so many complaints.
I mean, member Perez has given us all of the statistics
that you could possibly need to know,
that this is a company that will do their very best
to make it look good in the beginning,
and then just use methods that are not good education,
not ethical, to get their foot in the door.
And I also plead with you,
you can take my word for it if you want,
from the research that I've done,
you can take the word of member Davis, Perez,
or you can have that emotion of thinking
all of those people there were so enthusiastic.
They want hope so much.
But I think this is a place where
we need to use our rational minds,
the data that we have, to make the right choice.
And this is a choice that will go out into the future,
as more of these schools open up.
And it will damage our public education system
and our students.
-: Well, first of all, I just wanna say,
and I would just remind people that core to
public education in Texas and what's been core to
public education in Texas always,
is that education is a parental responsibility.
That was actually the underlying idea behind
Article VII of the constitution,
as it was fashioned and debated in 1875.
I would remind people, and I understand,
and I'm always a little hesitant,
when we talk about failing schools.
My daughter-in-law taught
in what was termed a failing school.
And the numbers were shocking.
But I will tell you that I believe that the last year
that she taught on that campus,
there were five children murdered,
off of that campus during the course of that year.
And it's really not a failing school,
it is a community in crisis around that school,
that certainly creates that.
And I understand that.
But when you look at the schools and in Stop 6,
we also understand that the numbers are not good.
And to say that the community has not labored for years
to try to address those issues
in those schools would be wrong.
These things have been going on for a long time.
And I think that we owe children our best shot.
And if somebody else can come in and give it a shot,
and give these kids a chance,
and it's very obvious that the parents
of this community want that school.
And who are we to deny that?
There was a lot of conversation
about the autonomy of the board.
And whether or not the charter operator,
based in California would be
micromanaging every move that that made,
and obviously there were some documentation
that what seemed to imply that.
I would remind the board,
such an arrangement would be illegal.
Would not be legal, not be consistent with law.
And so that would not in fact be the case.
And then the question is there were seven conditions
that were presented that would be added to that.
And the question came up and said,
"Well will the CMO agree with that?"
Well, I talked to the CMO.
I had a conversation directly with Preston Smith,
the CEO of Rocketship,
and I have a letter here that they do agree with that,
and they understand that is the law,
and they do not intend to micromanage every move that makes
but that local board,
will in fact be in control of that school.
I think that the members of this community,
this is something that they want for their children,
and I think that it would be egregious
for this board to stand in their way.
And I intend to continue to support this application.
-: Okay members,
is there any further discussion on this item.
Ms. Perez.
-: I would like to point out
that the majority of the testifiers
in support of Rocketship were not parents that
will be sending their children to that school.
So I think if we're going to have a discussion,
at least let's have an honest discussion.
Number two,
some documents that were shared with us last night,
point out that despite the fact that we keep hearing
that the CMO is not in charge,
Rocketship Corporate Board* documents dated February 24th,
show that the land is already purchased
and construction will begin July 1st,
despite the quizzing for quite some time from member Cortez.
At no time were they honest with us.
At no time were they transparent at the podium
for as long as they were questioned.
But construction is already scheduled to begin.
I think that when people show you who they are,
we should believe them the first time.
This is the fourth time.
I think it behooves us not to allow ourselves to be fooled.
-: Dr. Johnson.
-: I live in a part of Texas
that charter schools have little impact on.
But well saying that,
I also hate the duplication of costs at any time,
because I want us to be efficient.
And I think we all need to be good stewards.
And I will tell you that after listening
to all the interviews that I did back in May,
I wasn't prepared to cast their vote in favor of Rocketship.
But after I heard more testimony,
and we played a little bit of chess with them I think,
in the time that we were visiting with them,
we got them to agree.
And I think the Commissioner
will put those in the contingencies.
I think that originally they asked for ten,
then they came down to four.
We whittled it down to two.
And you correct me if I'm wrong in things I'm saying here.
So we have them down to, they will start with two schools.
We also have a contingency that they will not expand.
And I think a lot of us were nervous
about Rocketship expanding quickly.
That's a model of most of them.
They want to get as many in operation.
'Cause that's the way they operate.
But we do have a contingency that
I think the Commissioner will enforce.
And he has that option to. He told me he would enforce that.
That they have to have a B or better
on two campuses before they can expand.
And to me, if they can do that,
they may be a model that we want to look at.
They're in a tough area, and they're telling us they're
going to perform in those two schools at a B level,
that has swayed my vote.
If they can do that, I'll tip my hat to them.
-: Well, we're gonna go around each one.
And we're calling Ms. Pérez-Díaz. So, Ms. Pérez-Díaz
-: care about the community, if I'm in favor of this charter,
is quite misguided. And in fact, I speak in support of
the agency that I think has been taken time and again*
It is a difficult vote for me* I'll be very honest.
I'm one of them board members that sat through each
iteration of this applicant's attempt.
And coming in, I've seen progress each time.
That's not to say that this charter is perfect.
No school is.
And that includes traditional public school districts.
But it taking into account the fact that I feel
as though these families had come in.
We had parents directly tell us that they were offended by
being told that they were manipulated.
And that they were coming.
That takes away agency* from our families,
which is something that
I think has historically and systematically
been done to families who are
in under-resourced communities.
I think that for that reason,
and for the reasons I spoke on a few days ago,
we don't have time to waste on reruns* and really understand
that Fort Worth ISD is making some changes.
Rocketship has tried four years in a row.
And I'm wondering what progress has been made to support
these families in the last four years.
Or what hasn't been done that's speaking to the needs
that they're asking for right now.
So, I'm not *. I haven't been manipulated either.
For me what's important
is the families who are here for a reason*
when we* don't feel that they have them.
And I think in order for me to vote*
I have to listen to families.
As a young mother myself,
I know it's important for families
to be able to make choices.
And I believe in public school.
I absolutely believe in public school.
And I believe in public school options,
because if a family doesn't feel like they're being heard,*
it's their responsibility
to make those decisions for their children.
And who am I to say no,
when they're asking to be heard* over and over again.
So for us to go to the left to the elected officials,
and ask them how they felt
their communities were being served,
I think there's a gap in not going directly to the families.
If that hasn't happened, maybe we need to consider
talking directly to those families that came and testified
as to what their needs are,
and what their understanding is.
Because if there are options, and we don't know about them,
then maybe there's some lack of communication happening.
And that's a learning opportunity
for the school district as well.
But again, I don't think that
because there's a lack of communication,
worries us with time on probation, where it may exist for.
And so, I've voted up,
and I've voted down on charter school.
I am not about traditional versus charter.
I'm about who's doing what for children,
and who's willing to try.
And for me that's, what's important in this vote.
And so while it's a difficult vote,
my my vote won't be changing on this.
-: Are there any other members
who haven't spoken for the first time?
Any other members who would like to speak?
Ms. Davis?
-: I just have a question about the contingency.
I wanna know if it's legally binding,
and I find it kind of funny for the member to say that,
when she voted down a school in her own area,
that had a lot of community support.
So I'm kind of I'm on there with that one.
'Cause it was the same thing and she said, no.
But I do wanna know how legally binding is this
agreement that it will only be two schools?
And again, why are we limiting them to the school
in the black neighborhood?
If it's such a great school,
why don't we make sure that all students have access,
including the white schools that are in the rural areas.
So why do we wanna limit it
to this one little black neighborhood,
if it's such a great school that everybody believes in?
I'm not sure why we wouldn't want it
in my neighborhood district as well.
-: So I'll take a stab at the first point
that I can call on legal counsel.
The charter is not approved by the agency
until all the contingencies.
Now we're talking about one type of contingency here.
As most of us were on the capacity interviews,
and there's oftentimes like a 501 C3
would have something maybe that was relevant
to another entity that they had.
And the contingency with that board
would actually have to change their 501 C3.
And that would be a contingency for example.
And if that is not done by that board,
then the applicant does not receive the charter
from the agency.
So in the same process,
this would be what is documented by the agency at the
point of the TEA granting the charter,
these would be in effect.
Did I get that right?
-: So I'll just to be clear.
So they would have to stick with just two campuses,
no more than that, until both of those campuses,
are an A or B.
And and I just wanna end thus,*
what's on paper that has to happen.
And there's no way to waive that,
and just go around it anyway.
I wanna make sure how strict we are to sticking with that.
If that's what we gonna say that we're going to believe.
-: Well, I mean, just to be clear,
the contingencies are under
the authority of the Commissioner,
to determine whether that they go through.
They're not a binding contract with this body.
However, you have 90 days from June 1st
to decide whether or not to veto a charter.
So, the agency will begin after this meeting,
to be going through the contingencies and moving
forward with the charters that you have voted
to take no action on.
And that is a process that generally is two months,
which bumps up right against your 90-day deadline.
I think it goes a few days over. So, if...
-: So, this is like a gentleman's handshake.
Not really like a legally binding something
that they have to stick to.
-: You have been made aware of what the Commissioner
has before him to do contingencies,
which he will move forward with unless
you veto a charter applicant.
However, that is the Commissioner's sole authority.
So, there is no like a legally binding arrangement.
-: I'll point out to you, Ms. Davis,
this conversation has come up and just* different
is what if the Commissioner did not stick
to what he has told us?
Essentially to your question. Essentially if we were
double-crossed or tricked into that.
And I think what Vaughn is saying,
is we still have 90 days to come back and take action.
And I think that would be definitely considered
an appropriate action.
If this board was such as that,
tricked or double-crossed which I don't anticipate.
-: Right. But we wouldn't know that in 90 days.
We only know the one that they fought* on Berry Street*,
but we wouldn't know in 90 days,
if they went on and decided to do
what they wanted to do anyway.
So, then we would be voting on this, thinking that,
"Hey, this could happen."
Then the Commissioner could change his mind in 91 days,
and now we have nothing we can do after that.
-: I'm gonna call on Dr. Johnson because
I think you're about to address that one.
-: Member Davis. I visited with Commissioner
about that very thing.
I can't speak for him, but our conversation led me to
firmly believe that he would not give waivers
until those contingencies were met.
So, I'm just telling you.
-: Jo that's cute. But he gives waivers like candy.
So, I can't say I can believe it.
-: All I can say is he led me to believe
that wasn't his intent.
Alexa,* I'm not gonna speak for him,
but that's my understanding of our conversation.
-: Is there anyone here who has not spoken for a second time?
Dr. Bell-Metereau.
-: Again, I would return to the history
of this school in California.
And I admire our colleague for getting
in touch with the CMO and the CMO assuring him
that they would have no control over Texas,
but I would not believe the CMO of California Rocketship.
The other point I would like to emphasize,
and this is for member Johnson.
They may well be able to get good results
and turn into a B, but the methods that they use for
that include coercion of the children,
and then dropping children from the schools,
if they don't perform well.
So it's not as if these results constitute
real education or real achievement,
but it's good performance to achieve a result.
And also, they are very good
at PR that gets people very enthusiastic.
And people do not ever want to turn against somebody
that they've developed loyalty for.
So, I would still maintain that this is not a good bet.
It's a risk for Texas.
-: Three members who have not spoken for a second time.
We'll take a brief pause and make sure we have
all our members online.
Okay.
So, I'm going to now call on Ms. Little.
I'm sorry. You did?
-: It's just been so long.
-: It has been a while.
I'll call on Ms. Martinez to call the roll.
Let me clarify that.
-: Yes clarify that.
-: So this will be opposite the last couple.
So, the recommendation from the Committee of the Full Board,
was to take no action.
Which would allow this charter
to move forward in the process.
So, in clarification, a yes vote is to allow
Rocketship Public Schools to be approved.
-: Mr. Cortez.
-: And just have something that's kind of bugging me.
I just want clarification.
Dr. Johnson, you seek out Morath or did he seek you out?
-: He called me.
-: He called you?
A Commissioner is not allowed
to lobby on behalf of any of these charters.
-: No, I think he was asking for clarification*.
-: He didn't call me.
I voted against it.
I'm just saying. I just have to put that out there.
I mean when he stated it,
I'm not sure if I heard what I heard correctly
but Mr. Chair,
General Counsel is this appropriate?
-: Mr. Cortez
-: For the behavior of our Commissioner to reach out
to a member of this body prior to a vote?.
-: Most General Counsel tells me different.
We have called for the vote.
-: I want legal clarification before this vote happens
because if I understood that correctly,
I at least want some interpretation from Vaughn.
-: Mr Cortez. We have called for the vote.
We had time for discussion.
We went around the room each time, one time.
We had others go a second time.
You had the option to discuss this.
-: Your comment was "Any further discussion."
And I said, "Mr. Chair", and you recognized me.
This is my discussion. Now I'm asking the question.
-: After that, I called on Ms. Martinez to call the roll.
So that's calling for the vote.
-: So, you don't wanna have this information
put out on record. Is what you're saying?
-: I have no problem with the information being
put out by record, but by rule and procedure
we have called for the vote.
-: Okay. So, Madam parliamentarian, how do we proceed?
If I would like to get some kind of guidance from
counsel on this, before we do this roll call vote.
-: I believe your best option forward would be a
motion to suspend the rules because the rules
say that once a vote has begun, it cannot be stopped.
So, you are now asking to suspend the rules.
That would be undebatable unamendable,
and would require two thirds vote.
-: That would be my I request.
Just to get this information on record.
-: I have a question based on what she said.
-: Ms. Davis. Hold on just a second.
We have a motion to suspend the rules.
It does require a second. It is not debatable.
And it's not ammendable.
-: I have Parliamentary inquiry based on that though,
before we vote.
-: Okay. What's your parliamentary inquiry?
-: You mentioned that the vote started,
but what constitutes a vote starting because none of
us have actually voted yet.
So just him saying Monica, read the roll call.
That means that the vote has technically started?
-: Generally, once the chair says,
"We're now going to a vote.".
If you weren't voting by roll call would it been
"Those in favor please raise your hand."
Instead he called on Ms. Martinez.
Yes. At that point the voting has begun.
-: But then he called on member Cortez first
and then Ms. Martinez.
So that's what I'm saying
I'm trying to get clarity on how this goes.
Because he said, "Any other comments?"
That's when member Cortez raised his hand.
-: No. I asked any other comments
then I called in Ms. Martinez to call a roll,
And then Mr. Cortez spoke up at that time.
We had already started at that point in time,
But I am recognizing Mr. Cortez's request
to suspend the rules.
It does require a second. Is there a second?
-: Second.
-: Okay. This motion is not debatable and is not amendable.
So, what we will move to now is a vote to suspend the rules,
to allow further debate and questions.
So, what I would ask all those in favor of suspending the
rules for further debate to show by raising your hand.
-: Eight.
-: Okay. We have eight in favor.
Is that included the virtual.
Okay.
All those opposed, by the same sign.
-: Five
-: And I'll vote no also. So that's six.
So that does not reach the threshold
of a two thirds majority.
So, the motion is defeated.
Ms. Martinez, would you please call the roll.
-: If I can understand that last
-: Is this a parliamentary inquiry?
-: Yeah, on the vote that just took place.
-: Please state, "Parliamentary inquiry."
-: Parliamentary inquiry.
-: Yes, sir.
-: Special. K.
So, what I understand right now,
is that in situations of a tie break,
our Chair has the right to cast that vote.
Sometimes the Chair is required or not required to vote.
-: The Chair always has the right to vote.
Usually he only votes when his vote will make a difference.
In this particular instance he chose to vote,
even though his vote did not make a difference.
The threshold for two thirds vote is that there are
twice as many in favor as there are opposed.
So even without his vote
there would not have been two thirds.
-: Thank you.
-: Parliamentary inquiry
-: Ms. Martinez, please call the roll.
-: I have a parliamentary inquiry.
-: Parliamentary inquiry, Ms. Davis.
-: If we go with the vote and we find that
the Commissioner did violate something by reaching out,
then what happens?
Even though we've made a vote and
he's violated something, what happens?
-: That is not a parliamentary issue Ma'am.
-: Ms. Martinez, please call the roll.
-: Can you just restate what we're voting on
because it's been so long?
-: For clarification that is an order.
Thank you, Dr. Robinson.
So the Committee of the Full Board voted to
take no action in committee which is to approve the charter.
So right now a yes vote would be to affirm the
vote of the Community of the Full Board.
So a yes vote would be to approve the charter.
Any questions on that?
Ms. Martinez.
-: Ms. Perez.
-: No.
-: Mr. Cortez.
-: No.
-: Ms. Pérez-Díaz.
-: Yes.
-: Mr. Allen.
-: Yes.
-: Dr. Bell-Metereau.
-: No.
-: Mr. Hickman.
-: Yes.
-: Dr. Robinson.
-: No.
-: Dr. Young.
-: No.
-: Mr. Maynard.
-: Yes.
-: Ms. Hardy.
-: Yes.
-: Mrs. Little.
-: No.
-: Ms. Davis.
-: No.
-: Mrs. Melton-Malone.
-: Yes.
-: Dr. Johnson.
-: Yes.
-: Dr Ellis.
-: Yes
-: So, there's eight in favor and seven opposed.
So, there is a majority in favor and the recommendation
is adopted to allow Rocketship Public Schools
to move forward.
I'll ask Ms. Little to continue.
-: Mr. Chair, the Committee of a Full Board recommends
that the State Board of Education veto the
Commissioner of Education's Generation 26
open-enrollment charter school proposal for
S.H. James Preparatory Academy in San Antonio.
-: Members is there any further debate on this item.
-: Mr. Cortez
-: So, I have a question for legal counsel.
Is the Commissioner allowed to call any member
of this body regarding any of these charters and
give them information that may sway them
one way or another?
What would prohibit him?
He is the Executive Secretary of this board.
He's not allowed to lobby the legislature. I'm asking you,
I mean, you're the lawyer you tell me, well,
I am not aware of something that would,
that he would be violating this isn't the legislature.
It isn't legislative. And that meant he's not using
state funds in order to influence the legislature.
So if you have something in particular that you'd like me to
review, I'd be, I'd be happy to but.
It's not something that comes to mind.
Nothing comes to mind.
And, but then again, I will like in, you know,
in all honesty,
I am hired by the person that you're making an accusation
against,
and it may be more appropriate for you to seek that counsel
somewhere, somewhere else.
If, if you feel that there is a violation,
-: So there's fair statement.
You are hired by the very gentleman that I'm questioning you
about.
Thank you for your honesty members.
Was there any further debate on this item, this Perez Diaz.
However, to state that I did have the opportunity
personally, to meet with the leadership of. As H James,
I have been able to watch the work that they've been doing
in preparation for today. And I'm quite,
was quite impressed with the work that they've done.
They're going into a community, again,
offering opportunities where community members are
specifically asking for support and, and other options.
And they have an incredible amount of community support.
They also have a great board.
One of which was Mr. Milton Harris, who came and spoke.
He's a well-respected gentleman in the community.
And, and I believe in a leader there.
And so for that reason, I will be supporting a Sage genes.
And I would ask that, you know,
as I spoke earlier on listen to community and the needs, I,
I make it a mission of mine to go into the community and
immerse myself and make sure that I'm hearing all
perspectives
and from my perspective on this particular proposal bill
and his team,
just the value that this potential charter could bring.
And so what ask that you all consider that, I mean,
from the member areas, so thank you.
-: All right, members, any further discussion on this item?
All right. Before I asked Ms. Martinez to call the roll,
I will confirm that this is different than the last one.
So the recommendation of the committee of the full* board
was to veto a Saint James Academy
that's Saint James Preparatory Academy.*
So an affirmative vote would be a vote to continue the veto.
So a yes vote is to veto.
Ms. Martinez.
Ms. Martinez: Ms. Perez.
Ms. Perez: Yes.
Ms. Martinez: Mr. Cortez*.
Mr. Cortez: Yes.
Ms. Perez-Diaz: Yes.
Ms. Martinez: Mr. Allen.
Mr. Allen: Yes.
Ms. Martinez: Dr. Bell Maduro*
Dr. Bell Maduro: Yes.
Ms. Martinez: Mr. Hickman.
Mr. Hickman: Yes.
Ms. Martinez: Dr. Robinson.
Mr. Robinson: Again how it is?
Mr.Ellis: * Yes to continue the veto.
Mr. Robinson: Yes.
Ms. Martinez: Dr. Young.
Dr. Young: Yes.
Ms. Martinez: Mr. Maynard.
Mr.Maynard: No.
Ms. Martinez: Ms. Hardy.
Ms. Hardy: Yeah.
Ms. Martinez: Mrs. Liddell.*
Mrs. Liddell: No.
Ms. Martinez: Ms. Davis.
Ms. Davis: Yes to veto.
Ms. Martinez: Mrs. Melton Malone.*
-: [Mrs. Melton Malone] Yes.
Ms. Martinez: Dr. Johnson.
Dr. Johnson: Yes.
Ms. Martinez: Nine in favor.
Ms. Martinez: Yes, sir.
-: So we have nine in favor and five against,
so the veto is upheld.
And just so I get that properly on the record,
there is a majority in favor of the recommendation
is adopted. Correct? Okay.
All right, Ms. Little.
-: Mr. Chair, the committee of the full board
recommends the state board of education
take no action on the Commissioner of Education's
Generation 26 open enrollment charter school proposal
for Thrive Center for Success in Magnolia.
-: Members is there any further discussion on this item?
Okay. So this one is different again than the last one.
So for clarification,
the recommendation from the committee of the full board
was to take no action,
which would allow this charter to move forward.
So a yes vote would be to allow the charter to be approved.
Okay, Ms. Martinez.
Ms. Martinez: Ms. Perez.
Ms. Perez: No.
Ms. Martinez: Mr. Cortez.
(indistinct)
Ms. Martinez: Ms. Perez-Diaz.
Ms. Perez-Diaz: Yes.
Ms. Martinez: Mr. Allen.
Mr. Allen: Yes.
Ms. Martinez: Dr. Bell Metro.*
Dr. Bell Maduro: Yes.
Ms. Martinez: Mr. Hickman.
Mr. Hickman: Yes.
Ms. Martinez: Dr. Robinson.
Dr. Robinson: Yes.
Ms. Martinez: Dr. Young.
Dr. Young: Yes.
Ms. Martinez: Mr. Maynard.
Mr. Maynard: Yes.
Ms. Martinez: Ms. Hardy.
Ms. Hardy: Yes.
Ms. Martinez: Mrs. Little, yes.
Ms. Martinez: Ms. Davis.
Ms. Davis: Yes.
Ms. Martinez: Mrs. Melton Molo*.
-: [Mrs. Melton Malone] Yes
Ms. Martinez: Dr. Johnson.
Dr. Johnson: Yes.
Ms. Martinez: Dr. Ellis.
-: Yes.
There is 14 in favor and one opposed.
So there is a majority and the recommendation
is adopted to take no action
on Thrive Center for Success out of Magnolia.
I believe that concludes the item.
All right, thank you members.
And again, as we've mentioned yesterday,
this has been a long and arduous process,
and I do want to state again, as I did yesterday,
I'm proud of this board.
I'm proud of the time that they put into this,
when we go all the way back
from reviewing the applications
when they're presented to us,
the amount of participation that we had
during the capacity interviews,
I think eight or so, maybe a little bit more hours
of public testimony on Tuesday.
Eight or nine or so hours of additional interviews
that we had yesterday.
The way that we're conducting this house,
the amount of effort and research,
and just time that this board spent,
thoughtful, thoughtful consideration, respectful dialogue.
I do wanna commend the board
for the work they've done on this.
Let's take a few minutes
before we move on to the next item.