Tag: Texas

Don’t let Texas criminalize free political speech in the name of AI regulation

This essay was originally published by the Austin American-Statesman on May 2, 2025.

Texans aren’t exactly shy about speaking their minds — whether it’s at city hall, in the town square, or all over social media. But a slate of bills now moving through the Texas Legislature threatens to make that proud tradition a criminal offense.

In the name of regulating artificial intelligence, lawmakers are proposing bills that could turn political memes, commentary and satire into crimes.

Senate Bills 893 and 228, and House Bills 366 and 556, might be attempting to protect election integrity, but these bills actually impose sweeping restrictions that could silence ordinary Texans just trying to express their opinions.

Take SB 893 and its companion HB 2795. These would make it a crime to create and share AI-generated images, audio recordings, or videos if done with the intent to “deceive” and “influence the result of an election.” The bill offers a limited safeguard: If you want to share any images covered by the bill, you must edit them to add a government-mandated warning label.

But the bills never define what counts as “deceptive,” handing prosecutors a blank check to decide what speech crosses the line. That’s a recipe for selective enforcement and criminalizing unpopular opinions. And SB 893 has already passed the Senate.

Vague laws and open-ended definitions shouldn’t dictate what Texans can say, how they can say it, or which tools they’re allowed to use.

HB 366, which just passed the House, goes even further. It would require a disclaimer on any political ad that contains “altered media,” even when the content isn’t misleading. With the provisions applying to anyone spending at least $100 on political advertising, which is easily the amount a person could spend to boost a social media post or to print some flyers, a private citizen could be subject to the law.

Once this threshold is met, an AI-generated meme, a five-second clip on social media, or a goofy Photoshop that gives the opponent a giant cartoon head would all suddenly need a legal warning label. No exceptions for satire, parody or commentary are included. If it didn’t happen in real life, you’re legally obligated to slap a disclaimer on it.

HB 556 and SB 228 take a similarly broad approach, treating all generative AI as suspect and criminalizing creative political expression.

These proposals aren’t just overkill, they’re unconstitutional. Courts have long held that parody, satire and even sharp political attacks are protected speech. Requiring Texans to add disclaimers to their opinions simply because they used modern tools to express them is not transparency. It’s compelled speech.

Besides, Texas already has laws on the books to address defamation, fraud and election interference. What these bills do is expand government control over how Texans express themselves while turning political expression into a legal minefield.

Fighting deception at the ballot box shouldn’t mean criminalizing creativity or chilling free speech online. Texans shouldn’t need a lawyer to know whether they can post a meme they made on social media or make a joke about a candidate.

Political life in Texas has been known to be colorful, rowdy and fiercely independent — and that’s how it should stay. Vague laws and open-ended definitions shouldn’t dictate what Texans can say, how they can say it, or which tools they’re allowed to use.

The Texas Legislature should scrap these overbroad AI bills and defend the Lone Star state’s real legacy: fearless, unapologetic free speech.

Source link

May 2, 2025
How it Could Impact Schools Nationwide – The 74

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

This story was originally reported by Nadra Nittle of The 19th.

“A direct assault on the Texas public education system.”

That’s how social justice groups like the Texas Freedom Network are describing the passage of a bill that would create a $1 billion school voucher program in the state. The Texas House passed Senate Bill 2 early Thursday, with support from Gov. Greg Abbott, who has championed school vouchers. These taxpayer-funded subsidies divert money away from public schools, allowing families to use them to cover their children’s tuition at private or religious schools.

“This is part of a coordinated strategy to dismantle public education statewide and nationally, since Donald Trump literally called Republicans and told them that they had to vote yes on this voucher scheme,” said Emily Witt, spokesperson for the Texas Freedom Network, a grassroots organization of religious and community leaders. “Republicans have done a very coordinated job of framing this as something that it’s not. It’s certainly not ‘choice.’ It’s going to really devastate a lot of public schools and rural communities here in Texas.”

The voucher bill’s passage has been characterized as a win for both Abbott and Trump. Abbott tried unsuccessfully to get voucher legislation passed in 2023. Trump, in January, issued an executive order directing the education secretary to explore ways to route federal funding to states and families interested in school choice initiatives, which give students the option to attend their preferred public, private, charter or religious school. Critics of vouchers, a controversial way to facilitate school choice, worry that they take away valuable resources from public schools. They also argue that private schools may exclude students with disabilities or who are LGBTQ+ or have LGBTQ+ parents. Students from low-income or rural areas may also struggle to access private school, as may those from certain ethnic groups or religious backgrounds. The voucher program does not guarantee students admission to private schools.

The approval of a voucher program in the nation’s second most populous state could create a ripple effect across the United States, where the voucher movement has gained momentum in recent years in places like Arizona, Arkansas, Florida and Wisconsin — often with the help of billionaire backers. The Texas bill next goes to the state Senate, where lawmakers in each chamber are expected to work out the disparities in their voucher plans such as how much money participants should get and which participants should be prioritized.

“It is absurd for Gov. Abbott and his pro-voucher allies to claim that a diversion of $1 billion in tax funds to private schools over the next budget cycle will not hurt our underfunded public schools, where the vast majority of our students will remain,” Ovidia Molina, president of education labor organization the Texas State Teachers Association, said in a statement. “That voucher drain will increase to $3 billion by 2028 and more than $4 billion by 2030 if this voucher bill becomes law, the Legislative Budget Board projects.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott sits before President Donald Trump arrives to speak at an education event and executive order signing in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Thursday, March 20, 2025. (Ben Curtis/AP Photo)

In Texas, most students attend public schools, with an estimated 6 percent enrolled in private schools. Rural communities overwhelmingly attend public schools because of the dearth of private schools in such areas. Accordingly, voters in the country have typically opposed school vouchers, perceived as vehicles to help families in cities send their kids to private school. Even with the school voucher program, experts do not expect private schools to be inundated with new students from public schools.

“Most kids are still going to have to be served by public schools,” Witt said. “We do know that in other states where vouchers have passed, that most of the kids using those vouchers already were in private schools.”

While vouchers have been promoted as a way to help low-income families choose a quality education for their children, the subsidies often aren’t large enough to cover the tuition and fees associated with a private school education. The school voucher program the Texas House just approved is generous, as it will give families who qualify up to about $10,000 per child. The average K-12 private school tuition in Texas is over $11,000, with tuition for schools that specialize in special education topping $19,000 and elite institutions reaching as high as $40,000. Parents would need to make up the difference for tuition costs that vouchers don’t cover, a move critics of the subsidies say is out of reach for disadvantaged families.

“So it’s still going to benefit mostly wealthy families,” Witt said. “Let’s say that it does cover the cost of tuition. It’s not going to cover extracurriculars. It’s not going to cover transportation. Private schools are not required to offer free transportation to and from school like public schools are, and they also don’t have to accept every child.”

Religious institutions, she said, could turn away students who don’t belong to the faith affiliated with the school. A private school could accept a student with a disability only to discharge them later if the school doesn’t have the resources to educate that child or is no longer interested in doing so.

“They could essentially reject a child that they feel just doesn’t meet the culture of their school,” Witt continued. “That could be because a child comes from a low-income family. It could be because they’re not White. It could be because they’re LGBTQ or their parents are LGBTQ or not married.”

Private schools also don’t have to use standardized tests, like the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR), used in public schools to track student progress. The GOP-run Texas House, she said, rejected an amendment that would have required private schools to use standardized testing to measure student outcomes just as public schools do.

“I don’t know how we’ll see if this program works and how it benefits kids, especially kids with disabilities,” she said.

House Republicans tabled 44 amendments to the legislation, including one that would have led to a referendum on school vouchers in November, effectively blocking voters from deciding the issue.

The bill is an additional blow as public schools slash programs and raise class sizes under a budget crunch, Molina said in her statement.

“Texas already spends more than $5,000 less per student than the national average, ranking Texas 46^th among the states and the District of Columbia,” she said. “The school finance bill also approved by the House will not come close to ending the state’s financial neglect of public education. The House’s $395 increase in the basic allotment, which hasn’t been increased in six years, will provide only a third of what is needed to cover districts’ losses from inflation alone.”

Supporters of the voucher program may not be happy with it a year from now, Witt predicts. In 2022, Arizona passed its universal school voucher program. It covers expenses related to private school tuition, homeschooling and related academic needs, but now the program faces a backlash as the costs associated with it have led to questions about oversight and funding for public schools.

“Republicans have sold people a lie,” Witt said. “They’ve said repeatedly that it won’t harm public schools, and there’s just no way that it won’t. And I do think that’s their goal. I genuinely think that their goal is to eliminate public education, and this is the first step there. A year from now, people are going to see that the neighborhood schools in their communities are shuttering or having to cut resources for students, and they’re going to be really upset. And I think that there’s going to be hell to pay at the ballot box.”

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Source link

April 25, 2025
Texas State Helps Students Bounce Back From 2.0 GPA

As more colleges and universities consider initiatives, processes and policies to create a more student-focused campus, they are zeroing in on two areas of concern: academic probation and academic recovery.

A growing body of research highlights the way negative life experiences and competing priorities impact students’ academic achievement, sometimes exerting a stronger influence than prior academic preparation.

Texas State University has established a new initiative, Bobcats Bounce Back, to help students whose grades have fallen below a 2.0 learn self-efficacy, resiliency and strong study skills.

The background: The university has a goal of increasing its first-year retention rate from 77 percent in 2012 to 85 percent by 2025, said Cynthia Hernandez, vice president for student success. Early on, officials recognized that the institution lacked a strong academic recovery program, so Hernandez and her team prioritized devising a proactive solution to reduce the number of students who fell into poor academic standing.

Since 2009, the university’s policy has been that students who fall below a 2.0 cumulative GPA must meet with an academic adviser at least once a semester. The intervention has proven mostly successful, in that some students have moved back into good academic standing—though not everyone has, said Jason O’Brien, assistant director for academic engagement at Texas State.

An analysis of institutional data revealed that students who improved their academic trajectory used support services at least once a month, or four times per term.

“If students are [showing up], I know they’ve got the time and they’ve got a goal, they know what they’re working on,” O’Brien said. The challenge is getting each student to be proactive and engage early, not wait until the end of the semester, before finals.

Using institutional data, Texas State leaders revamped academic probation requirements to encourage students to make at least four connections with support services each semester; those who don’t, receive personalized outreach.

How it works: In the Bobcats Bounce Back program, students with a 2.0 GPA or lower are asked to participate in at least four support services, which could include success coaching, tutoring or a student success webinar. Students must meet with an academic adviser for at least one of their mandatory check-ins and they receive weekly communication from the office of academic engagement to encourage them to meet their goals.

A few weeks into the term, O’Brien’s team runs a report that identifies students on academic probation who have yet to engage with a support office. Students who live off-campus receive communication from the academic engagement team and those in the residence halls receive outreach from their residence life director.

“We’re not asking, ‘How are your classes going?’” O’Brien said. “We’re saying, ‘How are you doing? What’s going on in [your] life right now? Do you feel safe? Are you able to eat? Do you have any needs that aren’t met? Is your family OK?’ We’re trying to make sure that all of those basic needs, all that it takes to be a successful human is on track, and then from there we move on to, ‘OK, talk to me about classes.’”

The aim is to be human-centered and conversational in order to learn from the student and bridge any gaps in services and resources the university can provide to promote student success.

Sometimes this means helping students understand ways to correct their academic transcript, such as repeating a course or asking for an administrative withdrawal when relevant.

“We make a lot of asset-based assumptions,” O’Brien said. “My assumption is that no student is choosing to fail a course; they are choosing to be successful in something else out of necessity,’” which could include prioritizing their health, caring for a family member or working extra hours to make ends meet. “What we want to do is find out about those early enough to prevent it from impacting a transcript.”

The impact: During the inaugural program term in fall 2024, Bobcats Bounce Back supported 1,706 undergraduates; this term it is assisting 2,579 students. (Most academic recovery programs see higher rates of participation in the spring term because first-year students are most likely to face academic challenges in their first term, which can dramatically impact their GPA, O’Brien said).

During fall 2024, Bobcats Bounce Back participants engaged, on average, with support resources 3.11 times, up 270 percent compared to students on academic probation in 2023 (who averaged .84 engagements). The university also saw a 3 percent increase in the number of students who regained good academic standing from fall 2023 to fall 2024, and a 7 percent decrease in academic suspensions.

At the 12-week mark in spring 2025, average engagements among students on academic probation were up 74.8 percent, from 1.31 to 2.29.

The data illustrates the program’s success so far, and O’Brien believes it’s due in part to their responsiveness to student needs. As the program has grown, more students are willing to seek out the office and engage. “They’re starting to have faith in us and ask for the support they need,” O’Brien said.

Program participants also have an opportunity to submit a guided reflection, called a B3 Field Note, every four weeks to build their socioemotional skills. Each prompt is rooted in research-backed strategies to improve academic self-efficacy and engagement. O’Brien has been amazed at the thoughtful responses he’s seen thus far and plans to conduct a critical discourse analysis project to identify students who may need additional support based on their field note submissions.

In the future, college leaders hope to target additional students who may be at-risk, but haven’t quite fallen below the 2.0 cumulative GPA threshold, a group Hernandez called the “murky middle.”

If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

This article has been updated to clarify average engagement rates for program participants in fall 2024 and how that growth compared to the previous fall.

Source link

April 23, 2025
FIRE and ACLU of TX: University of Texas must drop unconstitutional drag ban

AUSTIN, Texas, Apr. 22, 2025 — A pair of civil liberties organizations are joining forces today to demand the University of Texas System Board of Regents rescind its ban on campus drag shows — a clear First Amendment violation.

In a joint letter, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression called on the UT System to drop its drag ban that is currently chilling and infringing upon the speech of more than 200,000 students across its nine campuses.

“Banning performances because government officials disapprove of their message is a textbook example of unconstitutional government censorship,” said FIRE Attorney Adam Steinbaugh. “The First Amendment protects the right of students at public universities to express themselves through art and performance, and that includes drag.”

In March, University of Texas System Board of Regents Chair Kevin Eltife, citing unspecified “executive orders,” publicly declared that “our public university facilities, supported by taxpayers, will not serve as venues for drag shows.” Eltife’s statement followed a letter from Tarrant County Judge Tim O’Hare, which complained that drag shows “denigrate women” and suggested they violated an executive order from President Donald Trump that said “federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology.”

But as a public university system, the UT System is required to abide by the First Amendment, which protects expression even if it offends state officials, campus administrators, or fellow students. And the justifications O’Hare cited are the same arguments from the Texas A&M University System that a federal judge in Texas roundly rejected when holding that system’s drag ban unconstitutional. On March 24 — just days after UT announced its drag ban — Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas struck down Texas A&M’s drag ban, ruling that drag “is speech and expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.”

The UT drag ban violates the First Amendment in a number of ways. First, it creates a prior restraint on speech, silencing artistic performances before they can even be held. This is a form of censorship that the Supreme Court has held to be “the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.”

Second, by seemingly being issued to comply with Trump’s executive order targeting “gender ideology,” the ban is viewpoint discrimination; government institutions can’t gag speech based solely on whether they approve of the ideology being expressed. Lastly, UT’s drag ban is unconstitutionally vague. Because “drag” and “gender ideology” are undefined by the Board of Regents, students have no way of knowing whether their speech will fall afoul of regulations.

West Texas A&M President cancels student charity drag show for second time

News

West Texas A&M President Wendler enforced his unconstitutional prior restraint by canceling a student-organized charity drag show for the second time.

Read More

“The University of Texas System must immediately rescind its unconstitutional anti-drag policy, which is an affront to its students’ First Amendment rights and its stated commitment to free speech and academic freedom,” said ACLU of Texas staff attorney Chloe Kempf. “The UT System’s vague and discriminatory ban on drag performances will make its campuses less free, less fair, and less welcoming for every student — especially LGBTQIA+ students. Texans expect state institutions to vigorously protect our fundamental rights and freedoms, no exceptions.”

UT’s drag ban doesn’t just contradict the Constitution and recent court rulings in Texas — it also contradicts its own expressed values. Just last year, the UT System Board announced a “Commitment to Freedom of Speech and Expression,” which held that “it is not the proper role of the UT System or the UT institutions to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.”

“The UT Board of Regents laid down its marker last year that it would uphold the First Amendment and protect speech that may offend others,” said FIRE Supervising Senior Attorney JT Morris. “Now’s the time to put their money where their mouth is and stand up for the constitutional rights of all its students, instead of bowing to political pressure.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

The ACLU of Texas is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization that works with communities, at the State Capitol, and in the courts to protect and advance civil rights and civil liberties for every Texan, no exceptions.

CONTACT:

Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

Kristi Gross, Press Strategist, ACLU of Texas, media@aclutx.org

Source link

April 22, 2025
Does Texas Have a Teacher Retention Crisis? – The 74

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Texas teachers may be increasingly fed up with their job, but they’re still staying in school.

State data shows Texas public school educators continue to return to the classroom at somewhat similar rates as years past, despite multiple surveys showing the large majority of them have contemplated quitting the profession.

While teacher turnover has slightly increased over the past decade, state data show there hasn’t been a large exodus of experienced teachers. In fact, the average years of experience for Texas public school teachers hasn’t notably changed since 2014-15, nor has the share of first-year teachers hired by districts.

The numbers run counter to years of warnings that Texas teachers are primed to bolt en masse out of frustration with the job. At the same time, Texas does still face widespread issues with morale, as well as big challenges in finding certified teachers and filling several types of positions, including special education educators and bilingual teachers.

Steady hands in schools

While much has changed in Texas classrooms over the decade, students continue to be educated by mostly veteran teachers. The average tenure for Texas teachers has held steady during that stretch, ranging from 10.9 to 11.2 years of experience.

The state did see a slight dip in the share of first-year teachers — who, on average, have less positive impact on student achievement than other educators — during the late 2010s, then a slight uptick over the past few years. Still, novice teachers account for fewer than 1-in-10 Texas educators.

A small rise in turnover

Teacher turnover, a measure of how many educators don’t return to teach in the same district each year, has ticked higher since the pandemic. While it once hovered near 16 percent, it’s reached roughly 20 percent over the past two years.

Ultimately, a 4 percentage point difference equates to about 15,000 more teachers who aren’t returning to a classroom in their district. However, state data shows teachers of all experience levels are leaving at similar rates.

Still stressed

Teachers might be sticking with their jobs, but that doesn’t mean they’re happy about it.

A 2024 poll of 1,100 Texas teachers by the Charles Butt Foundation, an Austin-based education advocacy nonprofit, found nearly four-fifths of educators surveyed had seriously considered quitting the profession in the past year. Pay, quality of campus leadership and a sense of feeling valued ranked among the biggest factors in whether teachers had considered quitting.

Separate polls by two of the largest Texas educator unions — the Texas American Federation of Teachers and Texas State Teachers Association — also showed about two-thirds of teachers had considered leaving the profession.

Texas education leaders also are worried about the state’s ability to retain teachers and hire tough-to-fill positions. A state panel convened by the Texas Education Agency examined the issues and made numerous recommendations in 2023, though few of its proposals have been put into action.

As teachers leave Texas schools, district leaders are increasingly filling those positions with uncertified teachers, who generally leave the profession sooner than certified teachers.

This article first appeared on Houston Landing and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Source link

April 12, 2025
VICTORY: Federal court blocks Texas A&M’s unconstitutional drag ban

HOUSTON, March 24, 2025 — A federal judge today upheld the First Amendment rights of a Texas A&M student group by blocking an attempt by officials to prohibit the group’s upcoming drag show on the College Station campus.

In her ruling, Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas held that a student organization, the Texas A&M Queer Empowerment Council, was likely to succeed in showing the drag ban violated the First Amendment. The court held that drag is theatrical expression protected by the First Amendment and that the university’s justifications for prohibiting the student-funded, student-organized “Draggieland” performance fell short. Draggieland will now take place as planned on Thursday evening.

“In recent years, the commitment to free speech on campuses has been both challenging and challenged,” ruled Judge Rosenthal. “There have been efforts from all sides of the political spectrum to disrupt or prevent students, faculty, and others from expressing opinions and speech that are deemed, or actually are, offensive or wrong. But the law requires the recognition and application of speech rights and guardrails that preserve and protect all our treasured First Amendment rights.”

“Today is a resounding victory for the First Amendment at public universities in Texas,” said Adam Steinbaugh, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, who argued last week at the district court. “The court reaffirmed that state university officials cannot block student expression they claim is offensive. State officials should stop trying to score political points at the expense of students’ First Amendment rights.”

Every year since 2020, students at Texas A&M University-College Station have held “Draggieland” (a combination of “Drag” and “Aggieland”) on campus. But in February, citing a recent executive order issued by President Donald Trump on “gender ideology,” the Texas A&M University System Board of Regents abruptly voted to ban drag performances across all 11 campuses, claiming drag was “offensive” and “inconsistent with” the “core values of its universities, including the value of respect for others.”

That vote canceled Draggieland’s March 27 performance, which the Queer Empowerment Council plans and hosts in a campus theatre open to all student groups. But the regents’ edict clearly violated the First Amendment, which does not allow public university officials to censor student performances based on nothing more than their personal dislike of its content or perceived ideology.

FIRE sued on the Queer Empowerment Council’s behalf earlier this month seeking to have the ban overturned on First Amendment grounds, and filed a motion for an injunction that would allow the show to go on while the case made its way through the courts.

“We’re overjoyed with today’s decision,” said the Queer Empowerment Council. “This is another display of the resilience of queer joy, as that is an unstoppable force despite those that wish to see it destroyed. While this fight isn’t over, we are going to appreciate the joy we get to bring by putting on the best show that we can do.”

“Texas A&M, like any public university, has the utmost duty to respect the First Amendment rights of students,” said FIRE Supervising Senior Attorney JT Morris. “As public officials, they can’t banish speech from campus just because it offends them, any more than they could shut down a political rally or a Christmas pageant.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

CONTACT:

Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

Source link

March 24, 2025
Texas Bill Would Limit Uncertified Teachers in Schools – The 74

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Lawmakers want to turn the tide on the growing number of unprepared and uncertified teachers by restricting who can lead Texas classrooms. But school leaders worry those limits will leave them with fewer options to refill their teacher ranks.

Tucked inside the Texas House’s $7.6 billion school finance package is a provision that would ban uncertified teachers from instructing core classes in public schools. House Bill 2 gives districts until fall 2026 to certify their K-5 math and reading teachers and until fall 2027 to certify teachers in other academic classes.

Texas would help uncertified teachers pay for the cost of getting credentialed. Under HB 2, those who participate in an in-school training and mentoring program would receive a one-time $10,000 payment and those who go through a traditional university or alternative certification program would get $3,000. Special education and emergent bilingual teachers would get their certification fees waived. Educator training experts say it could be the biggest financial investment Texas made in teacher preparation. Rep. Brad Buckley, the Salado Republican who authored the bill, has signaled the House Public Education Committee will vote on HB 2 on Tuesday.

District leaders, once reluctant to hire uncertified teachers, now rely on them often to respond to the state’s growing teacher shortage. And while they agree with the spirit of the legislation, some worry the bill would ask too much too soon of districts and doesn’t offer a meaningful solution to replace uncertified teachers who leave the profession.

“What’s going to happen when we’re no longer able to hire uncertified teachers? Class sizes have to go up, programs have to disappear…. We won’t have a choice,” said David Vroonland, the former superintendent of the Mesquite school district near Dallas and the Frenship school district near Lubbock. “There will be negative consequences if we don’t put in place serious recruitment efforts.”

A floodgate of uncertified teachers

Nowadays, superintendents often go to job fairs to recruit teachers and come out empty-handed. There are not as many Texans who want to be teachers as there used to be.

The salary in Texas is about $9,000 less than the national average, so people choose better-paying careers. Teachers say they are overworked, sometimes navigating unwieldy class sizes and using weekends to catch up on grading.

Heath Morrison started to see the pool of teacher applicants shrink years ago when he was at the helm of Montgomery ISD. Many teachers left the job during the COVID-19 pandemic, which accelerated the problem.

“This teacher shortage is getting more and more pronounced,” said Morrison, who is now the CEO of Teachers of Tomorrow, a popular alternative teacher certification program. “The reality of most school districts across the country is you’re not making a whole lot more money 10 years into your job than you were when you first entered … And so that becomes a deterrent.”

As the pool of certified teachers shrunk, districts found a stopgap solution: bringing on uncertified teachers. Uncertified teachers accounted for roughly 38% of newly hired instructors last year, with many concentrated in rural districts.

The Texas Legislature facilitated the flood of uncertified teachers. A 2015 law lets public schools get exemptions from requirements like teacher certification, school start dates and class sizes — the same exemptions allowed for open enrollment charter schools.

Usually, to teach in Texas classrooms, candidates must obtain a certification by earning a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university, completing an educator preparation program and passing teacher certification exams.

Teacher preparation experts say certifications give teachers the tools to lead a high quality classroom. To pass certification tests, teaching candidates learn how to plan for lessons and manage discipline in a classroom.

But the 2015 law allowed districts to hire uncertified teachers by presenting a so-called “district of innovation plan” to show they were struggling to meet credential requirements because of a teacher shortage. By 2018, more than 600 rural and urban districts had gotten teacher certification exemptions.

“Now, what we’ve seen is everyone can demonstrate a shortage,” said Jacob Kirksey, a researcher at Texas Tech University. “Almost every district in Texas is a district of innovation. That is what has allowed for the influx of uncertified teachers. Everybody is getting that waiver for certification requirements.”

This session, House lawmakers are steadfast on undoing the loophole they created after new research from Kirksey sounded the alarm on the impacts of unprepared teachers on student learning. Students with new uncertified teachers lost about four months of learning in reading and three months in math, his analysis found. They missed class more than students with certified teachers, a signal of disengagement.

Uncertified teachers are also less likely to stick with the job long-term, disrupting school stability.

“The state should act urgently on how to address the number of uncertified teachers in classrooms,” said Kate Greer, a policy director at Commit Partnership. The bill “rights a wrong that we’ve had in the state for a long time.”

The price of getting certified

Rep. Jeff Leach, a Plano Republican who sits on the House Public Education Committee, said his wife has worked as an uncertified art teacher at Allen ISD. She started a program to get certified this winter and had to pay $5,000 out of pocket.

That cost may be “not only a hurdle but an impediment for someone who wants to teach and is called and equipped to teach,” Leach said earlier this month during a committee hearing on HB 2.

House lawmakers are proposing to lower the financial barriers that keep Texans who want to become teachers from getting certified.

“Quality preparation takes longer, is harder and it’s more expensive. In the past, we’ve given [uncertified candidates] an opportunity just to walk into the classroom,” said Jean Streepey, the chair of the State Board for Educator Certification. “How do we help teachers at the beginning of their journey to choose something that’s longer, harder and more expensive?”

Streepey sat on the teacher vacancy task force that Gov. Greg Abbott established in 2022 to recommend fixes to retention and recruitment challenges at Texas schools. The task force’s recommendations, such as prioritizing raises and improving training, have fingerprints all over the Texas House’s school finance package.

Under HB 2, districts would see money flow in when they put uncertified teachers on the path to certification. And those financial rewards would be higher depending on the quality of the certification program.

Schools with instructors who complete yearlong teacher residencies — which include classroom training and are widely seen as the gold standard for preparing teacher candidates — would receive bigger financial rewards than those with teachers who finish traditional university or alternative certification programs.

Even with the financial help, lawmakers are making a tall order. In two years, the more than 35,000 uncertified teachers in the state would have to get their credential or be replaced with new, certified teachers.

“The shortages have grown to be so great that I think none of us have a really firm handle on the measures that it’s going to take to turn things around.” said Michael Marder, the executive director of UTeach, a UT-Austin teacher preparatory program. “There is financial support in HB 2 to try to move us back towards the previous situation. However, I just don’t know whether the amounts that are laid out there are sufficient.”

Restrictions like “handcuffs”

Only one in five uncertified teachers from 2017 to 2020 went on to get a credential within their first three years of teaching. Texas can expect a jump in uncertified teachers going through teacher preparatory programs because of the financial resources and pressure on schools through HB 2, Marder said.

But for every teacher who does not get credentialed, school leaders will have to go out and find new teachers. And they will have to look from a smaller pool.

The restrictions on uncertified teachers “handcuffs us,”said Gilbert Trevino, the superintendent at Floydada Collegiate ISD, which sits in a rural farming town in West Texas. In recent years, recruiters with his district have gone out to job fairs and hired uncertified teachers with a college degree and field experience in the subjects they want to teach in.

Rural schools across the state have acutely experienced the challenges of the teacher shortage — and have leaned on uncertified teachers more heavily than their urban peers.

“We have to recruit locally and grow our own or hire people who have connections or roots in the community,” Trevino said. “If we hire a teacher straight out of Texas Tech University, we may have them for a year. … And then they may get on at Lubbock ISD or Plainview ISD, where there’s more of a social life.”

Floydada Collegiate ISD recruits local high school students who are working toward their associate’s degree through what is known as a Grown Your Own Teacher program. But Trevino says HB 2 does not give him the time to use this program to replace uncertified teachers. From recruitment to graduation, it takes at least three years before students can lead a classroom on their own, he said.

School leaders fear if they can’t fill all their vacancies, they’ll be pushed to increase class sizes or ask their teachers to prepare lessons for multiple subjects.

“Our smaller districts are already doing that, where teachers have multiple preps,” Trevino said. “Things are already hard on our teachers. So if you add more to their plate, how likely are they to remain in the profession or remain in this district?”

At Wylie ISD in Taylor County, it’s been difficult to find teachers to keep up with student growth. Uncertified teachers in recent years have made up a large number of teacher applicants, according to Cameron Wiley, a school board trustee.

Wiley said restrictions on uncertified teachers is a “good end goal” but would compound the district’s struggles.

“It limits the pot of people that’s already small to a smaller pot. That’s just going to make it more difficult to recruit,” Wiley said. “And if we have a hard time finding people to come in, or we’re not allowed to hire certain people to take some of that pressure off, those class sizes are just going to get bigger.”

Learning suffers when class sizes get too big because students are not able to get the attention they need.

“This bill, it’s just another obstacle that we as districts are having to maneuver around and hurl over,” Wiley said. “We’re not addressing the root cause [recruitment]. We’re just putting a Band-Aid on it right now.”

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2025/03/15/texas-school-funding-uncertified-teachers-shortage/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Source link

March 22, 2025
DOL files fresh appeal of a Texas decision vacating its new overtime rule
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- The U.S. Department of Labor has appealed a Texas federal judge’s 2024 decision blocking its Biden-era final rule which sought to expand overtime pay protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to a Feb. 28 court filing.
- Last December, Judge Sam Cummings of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled against DOL in Flint Avenue, LLC v. U.S. Department of Labor, vacating and setting aside the final rule. Cummings’ decision came just over one month after another Texas judge similarly vacated and set aside the rule in a separate lawsuit filed by the state of Texas and parties including the Plano Chamber of Commerce.
- The appeal takes Flint Avenue to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court in which DOL filed an appeal of the decision in the State of Texas case last year. DOL’s public affairs staff did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The U.S. Department of Justice, which represents the DOL, did not respond to a request for comment submitted via its online form.
Dive Insight:

The Feb. 28 notice of appeal may come as a surprise to employers who expected the Trump administration to abandon the final rule; attorneys who previously spoke to HR Dive said that the rule was effectively “dead” despite DOL’s State of Texas appeal because of the Trump administration’s conservative policy stance on overtime.

In fact, the new administration had already filed motions in the 5th Circuit pertinent to overtime rule litigation. On Jan. 22, two days after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, DOJ attorneys sent a letter to the 5th Circuit requesting a 30-day extension on the deadline set by the court to file an opening brief in the State of Texas appeal. The court granted the request and the agency’s filing deadline is currently set to March 7.

The April 2024 final rule proposed a two-step process that would have eventually raised the minimum annual salary threshold for overtime pay eligibility under the FLSA from $35,568 to $58,656 by Jan. 1, 2025. The rule would then have implemented a mechanism for automatically adjusting the threshold every three years using current wage data beginning in July 2027.

But a series of Texas court decisions froze the rule. The judge in State of Texas held that the rule exceeded DOL’s authority and was unlawful. Likewise, Cummings said in his decision that he found the State of Texas judge’s reasoning “persuasive,” and he adopted the same reasoning in ruling for the plaintiffs.

There is some intrigue in how the 5th Circuit might rule on the two appealed judgments given that the court signed off on DOL’s overall use of a salary basis test for determining overtime pay eligibility in last year’s Mayfield v. U.S. Department of Labor. The Mayfield plaintiffs alleged that the salary basis test had no basis in the FLSA’s text, but the 5th Circuit disagreed. The court did hold, however, that DOL “cannot enact rules that replace or swallow the meaning” of the FLSA’s text, adding that particular salary threshold may raise legal issues because of their size.
Source link
March 7, 2025
LAWSUIT: LGBTQ student group sues to overturn Texas A&M’s unconstitutional drag ban

HOUSTON, Texas, March 5, 2025 — The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of an LGBTQ+ student organization to block a new policy from the Texas A&M University System that bans drag performances on its 11 public campuses — a clear violation of the First Amendment.

FIRE is asking a court in the Southern District of Texas to halt Texas A&M officials from enforcing the drag ban, abruptly adopted on Friday afternoon. The lawsuit is on behalf of the Queer Empowerment Council, a coalition of student organizations at Texas A&M University-College Station and the organizers of the fifth annual “Draggieland” event that was scheduled to be held on campus on March 27.

“We refuse to let Texas A&M dictate which voices belong on campus,” said the Queer Empowerment Council. “Drag is self-expression, drag is discovery, drag is empowerment, and no amount of censorship will silence us.”

Texas A&M students first held “Draggieland” (a portmanteau of “Drag” and “Aggieland,” a nickname for Texas A&M) at the campus theatre complex in 2020, and the event has been held on campus annually ever since. But last Friday, the Board of Regents suddenly voted to ban drag events entirely across all 11 Texas A&M campuses.

“The board finds that it is inconsistent with the system’s mission and core values of its universities, including the value of respect for others, to allow special event venues of the universities to be used for drag shows,” the board’s resolution reads. The regents also claimed that drag performances are “offensive” and “likely to create or contribute to a hostile environment for women.”

“Public universities can’t shut down student expression simply because the administration doesn’t like the ‘ideology’ or finds the expression ‘demeaning,’” said FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh. “That’s true not only of drag performances, but also religion, COVID, race, politics, and countless other topics where campus officials are too often eager to silence dissent.”

The regents’ attempts to justify the drag ban as anything other than illegal viewpoint discrimination are feeble. The board admits they want to ban drag on campus because they find it “demeans women,” “promotes gender ideology,” or runs contrary to their “values”—- but the First Amendment squarely protects speech that offends and even angers others. And in all cases, it prevents campus officials from silencing speech because they disagree with the “ideology.” As a taxpayer-funded university system, Texas A&M campuses cannot treat some student events differently simply because they dislike the view being expressed.

“Even putting on an on-campus production of Shakespeare or Mrs. Doubtfire, or taking part in powderpuff, could be banned at A&M if some hostile administrator thinks they ‘promote gender ideology,’” said FIRE senior attorney JT Morris. “But if the First Amendment means anything, it’s that the government can’t silence ideologies they don’t like — real or perceived.”

Title IX’s prohibition on creating a “hostile environment” also does not give public universities the ability to run around the First Amendment. FIRE has long seen efforts to suppress speech on the basis that it might contribute to a “hostile environment” because someone finds it offensive, but if speech can be suppressed because someone believes it is offensive, no speech is safe. The First Amendment does not permit public universities to suppress speech because someone thinks it is inappropriate.

In order to fit the definition of harassment the Supreme Court has established, speech must be “objectively offensive” AND “severe” AND “pervasive.” A once-a-year drag show in an enclosed theatre that requires a ticket to enter doesn’t even come close to satisfying those strict conditions.

“If other students dislike or disagree with Draggieland, the solution is simple: don’t go,” said FIRE attorney Jeff Zeman. “Or they could organize a protest, as students opposing drag have in the past. The First Amendment protects drag and the ability to criticize drag — and it forbids the government silencing the side it disagrees with.”

Finally, the regents’ motion notes that “there are alternative locations for such events off-campus.” But that violates the First Amendment, too. The government cannot censor speech in places the First Amendment protects it, just because a speaker might express themselves elsewhere. “Draggieland” highlights why that principle is so vital: if a student group can’t reach their campus community with their message, then their message can’t fulfill its purpose.

In the face of unconstitutional censorship, Draggieland organizers have remained unbowed. They have announced to supporters that they will hold an on-campus “Day of Drag” protest on Thursday and that they are committed to holding the event even if forced off-campus.

“We are committed to ensuring that our voices are heard, and that Draggieland will go on, no matter the obstacles we face,” the Queer Empowerment Council announced.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

CONTACT:

Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

Source link

March 5, 2025
VICTORY: District court blocks Texas social media law after FIRE lawsuit

AUSTIN, Texas, Feb. 7, 2025 — After a lawsuit from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and Davis Wright Tremaine, a district court today stopped enforcement of a Texas law that would have blocked access to broad categories of protected speech for minors and forced websites to collect adults’ IDs or biometric data before they can access social media sites.

Northern District of Texas Judge Robert Pitman granted FIRE’s motion for a preliminary injunction against provisions of the Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment Act (SCOPE Act) requiring content monitoring and filtering, targeted advertising bans, and age-verification requirements, ruling that these measures were unconstitutionally overbroad, vague, and not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.

“The court determined that Texas’s law was likely unconstitutional because its provisions restricted protected speech and were so vague that it made it hard to know what was prohibited,” said FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere. “States can’t block adults from engaging with legal speech in the name of protecting children, nor can they keep minors from ideas that the government deems unsuitable.”

The SCOPE Act would have required social media platforms to register the age of every new user. Platforms would have been forced to track how much of their content is “harmful” to minors and, once a certain percentage is reached, force users to prove that they are 18 or older. In other words, the law would have burdened adults who wanted to view content that is fully legal for adults, serving as an effective ban for those who understandably don’t trust a third-party website with their driver’s license or fingerprints.

The law also required websites to prevent minors from being exposed to “harmful material” that “promotes, glorifies, or facilitates” behaviors like drug use, suicide, or bullying. That definition was far too vague to pass constitutional muster: whether speech “promotes” or “glorifies” an activity is inherently subjective, and platforms had testified that they would be forced to react by censoring all discussions of those topics.

Today’s ruling should serve as yet another warning to states tempted to jump on the unconstitutional bandwagon of social media age verification bills.

“At what point… does alcohol use become ‘substance abuse?’” asked Judge Pitman in his ruling. “When does an extreme diet cross the line into an ‘eating disorder?’ What defines ‘grooming’ and ‘harassment?’ Under these indefinite meanings, it is easy to see how an attorney general could arbitrarily discriminate in his enforcement of the law.”

FIRE sued on August 16 on behalf of three plaintiffs who use the Internet to communicate with young Texans and keep them informed on issues that affect them. A fourth plaintiff, M.F., is a 16-year-old rising high school junior from El Paso who is concerned that Texas is blocking his access to important content.

Lead plaintiff Students Engaged in Advancing Texas represents a coalition of Texas students who seek to increase youth visibility and participation in policymaking.

Nope to SCOPE: FIRE sues to block Texas’ unconstitutional internet age verification law

Press Release

Texans browsing your favorite websites, beware. If the state has its way, starting next month, the eyes of Texas may be upon you.

Read More

“Young people have free speech rights, too,” said SEAT Executive Director Cameron Samuels. “They’re also the future voters and leaders of Texas and America. The SCOPE Act would make youth less informed, less active, and less engaged on some of the most important issues facing the nation.”

Earlier, Judge Pitman enjoined the content moderation requirements while ruling on a separate lawsuit from the Computer & Communications Industry Association and Netchoice. Judge Pitman ruled in August that Texas “cannot pick and choose which categories of protected speech it wishes to block teenagers from discussing online.”

“This is a tremendous victory against government censorship, especially for our clients—ordinary citizens—who stood up to the State of Texas,” said Adam Sieff, partner at Davis Wright Tremaine. “The Court enjoined every substantive provision of the SCOPE Act we challenged, granting even broader relief than its first preliminary injunction. We hope this decision will give other states pause before broadly restricting free expression online.”

Texas lawmakers perhaps could have predicted today’s ruling. Age verification laws have been enjoined by courts across the country in states like California, Arkansas, Mississippi, Ohio, and even initially in Texas, in another law currently before the Supreme Court for review.

“Today’s ruling should serve as yet another warning to states tempted to jump on the unconstitutional bandwagon of social media age verification bills,” said Corn-Revere. “What these laws have in common is that they seek to impose simplistic one-size-fits-all solutions to address complicated problems.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

CONTACT:

Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

Source link

February 7, 2025