School discipline bill passes Texas House, heads to Gov. Greg Abbott's desk
The 89th Texas legislative session ends in less than a week. Here are outstanding bills
The 89th Texas legislative session ends in less than a week. Here are outstanding bills
The 89th Texas legislative session ends in less than a week. Here are outstanding bills
A bill that would allow suspensions for students from pre-K to second grade passed in the Texas House late Wednesday night and is off to the governor's desk.
House Bill 6 details how to discipline students in pre-K through second grade and homeless students when there is a repeated and significant disruption. It would overturn Texas laws that previously protected those students.
Senators have previously softened those guidelines, which gives individual schools more autonomy to discipline students. The latest version allows in-student suspensions for as long as the school sees fit, as long as principals review placements every 10 days.
Under HB 6, students can be suspended if there's an offense related to weapons; if students threaten the immediate health and safety of others; or if they repeatedly or significantly disrupt the classroom, as determined by the campus administrator.
"It's common sense to give teachers the authority to remove disruptive students from classrooms," Gov. Greg Abbott posted on social media after the bill was passed. "We must restore discipline in our schools."
Two Kennedale ISD educators recently told CBS News Texas their pros and cons of the bill.
"I watched a 5-year-old tear up a kindergarten classroom, and when I say tear it up, I mean destroy it. It's real," said. Kennedale ISD superintendent Dr. Chad Gee. "And how are those teachers supposed to educate all the students in their classrooms with that going on?"
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Bill requiring that Texas sheriffs work with federal immigration authorities heads to governor's desk
Texas would further cement its role in enforcing immigration laws under a bill the state Legislature sent to the governor Sunday that would require most sheriffs to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Gov. Greg Abbott has signaled support for such an idea, and President Donald Trump — whose administration could receive a big personnel boost for its mass deportation ambitions if Texas joins the effort — endorsed the proposed law Friday as state lawmakers worked on the latest compromise. The version of Senate Bill 8 that lawmakers ultimately voted to send to the governor would require sheriffs who run or contract out operations of a jail to request and enter agreements with ICE under a federal law that lets ICE extend limited immigration authority to local law enforcement officers. The bill would cover approximately 234 of the state's 254 counties, according to a bill author. Over the weekend, SB 8 received strong condemnation from some Democrats, high praise from immigration hardliners who had pushed all legislative session for a more sweeping bill, and ultimately a final green light from the GOP-dominated Legislature: The Senate approved the bill 20-11 and the House 89-52. 'It's not just about securing the border, it's about public safety,' Rep. David Spiller, a Jacksboro Republican who carried the bill in the House, said Sunday after the House vote. 'The focus previously before President Trump got back in office was mainly [to] secure the border. That's being done, but we still have to deal with what's happened over the past four years — and quite frankly the years before that — so the focus is still the same but it's slightly directed more toward just a public safety concern.' The federal government offers three kinds of partnerships, known as 287(g) agreements, that local authorities can enter with ICE. SB 8 previously required sheriffs only to enter into agreements involving serving administrative warrants in jails. The final version allows sheriffs to request any of the three agreements, including one that lets ICE authorize local officers to question people about their immigration status while doing their daily policing in the field. The Trump administration revived that program after it fell into disuse due to allegations that it led to racial profiling. Seventy-three law enforcement agencies in the state already have 287(g) agreements with ICE — including the state National Guard and the Texas Attorney General's office, according to statistics published by ICE. Most of the agreements are for the two jail programs. Before the votes in each chamber, Democrats raised concerns that SB 8 will erode immigrant communities' trust in law enforcement, result in racial profiling by law enforcement and place a financial burden on counties that have long complained that such agreements add new responsibilities for already-strapped law enforcement agencies. Sen. Charles Schwertner, a Georgetown Republican who co-authored the bill with Houston Republican Sen. Joan Huffman, dismissed the worries during the upper chamber's Saturday debate, arguing in part that voters asked for it. He also highlighted a grant program under SB 8, expanded under the final version, that would help to offset costs not covered by the federal government and said sheriffs would have discretion to select which program to participate in. 'The people of the United States and of Texas spoke very clearly last November regarding their concerns of illegal immigration and the concerns of criminal illegal aliens doing great harm to communities to Texas cities and counties,' Schwertner told his colleagues. 'That's why I filed this bill.' Sen. Roland Gutierrez, a San Antonio Democrat who is an immigration lawyer, brought up a racial profiling documentary about Texas police pulling over and harassing Black drivers, whose belongings — like cars and jewelry — they would confiscate through forfeiture cases that became a boon for a local government, he said. 'Are you not afraid of the potentiality for racial profiling by police if they see what presumably looks like Mexican or Hispanic people in a truck, that they will not be pulled over simply because of the color of their skin?' he asked Schwertner. 'Senator, our world is not racially blind, color blind,' Schwertner responded. 'There are obviously inherent biases of individuals. That said, there are ways to properly train … there is training to address the concerns of racial profiling.' 'Well, I'm glad that you agree with me that racism is still alive and well in this country,' Gutierrez said. The Trump administration is trying to shorten training for the program, according to Schwertner's testimony during a Senate panel hearing on the bill in March. During debate on the House floor, some lawmakers pointed to evidence of racial profiling, most notably by the sheriff of Arizona's Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, whose deputies regularly engaged in misconduct that violated the constitutional rights of Latinos stemming from the program, according to a federal probe. 'It is one of the most inhuman models,' state Rep. Barbara Gervin-Hawkins, D-San Antonio, said. SB 8 would become the latest move state lawmakers take to carve out the state's lane in immigration enforcement. Other states have followed suit by passing similar laws that together could recalibrate states' role in what was long held by courts to be the federal government's sole responsibility. Texas is home to about 11% of immigrants in the United States and an estimated 1.6 million undocumented persons — the second-most in the country after California. Two years ago the Legislature approved a bill to grant Texas police the authority to arrest people suspected of being in the country illegally. During the Biden administration, the U.S. Justice Department sued Texas to stop the measure from going into effect, as did civil rights and advocacy groups. The incoming Trump administration swiftly dropped the lawsuit, and the state has argued for the dismissal of a related legal challenge, arguing that the Department of Homeland Security and Texas law enforcement are already cooperating to enforce federal immigration laws. Before then, the state in 2017 prohibited local government policies that prevent a peace officer from asking about a person's immigration status, targeting municipalities that declared themselves 'sanctuary cities' and directed local police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials during Trump's first term. 'SB 8 will not make our communities safer, but it will force sheriffs to do the work of ICE in support of the federal government's shameful mass deportation efforts,' Sarah Cruz of the ACLU of Texas said in a statement Sunday. 'The legislature should not strip local communities of their ability to make decisions about what keeps them safe.' First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Bill to scrap STAAR test dies in the Texas Legislature
A legislative effort to scrap the STAAR test to respond to concerns that the test puts unnecessary pressure on students died in the last days of the legislative session. House Bill 4, authored by state Rep. Brad Buckley, would have swapped the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness test for three shorter tests given throughout the school year. The Senate and House failed to come out of closed-door negotiations with a compromise in time, missing a key legislative deadline this weekend. Legislators in the House and Senate agreed that Texas schools needed to do away with the STAAR test. But in the end, the two chambers could not close the gulf over what they wanted to see out of the new test and from the A-F ratings system, which uses standardized test results to grade schools' performance. Tensions had come to a head in recent years when a dispute over how ratings should be calculated led to two years of scores to be held up in court. The Senate wanted to solidify the Texas Education Agency commissioner's authority to set stricter standards for the ratings system. And to discourage schools from taking legal action again, the upper chamber's version of the bill gave the TEA commissioner authority to appoint a conservator to districts that initiate lawsuits. The House version, meanwhile, required the TEA to get approval from the Legislature before making major changes to the ratings system. And it left an avenue for districts to sue to challenge the TEA in the future, while setting up a fast-track court process so those lawsuits would not halt the release of the ratings. The two chambers also differed over whether to keep or do away with a mandatory social studies test, with the House in favor of less testing. The session started with nearly identical versions of the legislation in the House and Senate, but when senators slammed school districts in committee hearings and on the chamber floor for participating in the recent lawsuits, few superintendents came out to testify in front of the Senate Education Committee. Instead, the school leaders were in talks with House representatives about their lack of trust in the state's accountability and testing systems. The House's rewrite of the legislation to reflect school leaders' concerns eventually came late in the session, leaving little time for negotiations between the chambers to reach a compromise. To the Texas State Teachers Association, the current high-stakes STAAR test takes instructional time away from the classroom and is not an accurate measure of student success. But the group was holding their breath when the two chambers were in closed-door negotiations. 'We think we are better off that there is no bill at all than what the Senate wanted to do,' said Clay Robison, a spokesperson for the group. 'We thought the Senate gave far too much authority to the unelected state commissioner.' The Texas Tribune partners with Open Campus on higher education coverage. Disclosure: Texas State Teachers Association has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - School choice tax credits can help students with disabilities, like me
School choice reforms have been taking off across the country since 2020. The most recent example is in Texas, where Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law his school choice bill last month. However, we may now be getting school choice at the federal level, as a measure to create $5 billion in annual school choice tax credits, starting next year, just passed the House Ways and Means Committee. The funding is private, coming from charitable contributions to Scholarship Granting Organizations. Although the tax credits have still yet to be distributed, and the actual amount of money each student will receive from this credit has yet to be fleshed out, I can say that school choice like this would have prevented a lot of trauma for me in my academic journey, because I would've been able to attend a special needs school without having to go through an emotionally burdensome litigation process. From kindergarten through sixth grade, I spent most of my time in special education. I was placed there because I was very behind my general education peers in socializing and academics. In fact, while I was in eighth grade I was reported to have the reading level of a fourth grader. When my family and I requested accommodations tailored to my needs, my public school instead opted for traditional, 'cookie-cutter' accommodations that turned out not to be very helpful at all. Unfortunately, by the time that was clear, I was already in middle school and unprepared for its level of general education. I ended up failing most of my classes. Once it became apparent to my family that the accommodations my public school offered did not help me, we sued and ultimately won. The school then had to pay for me to attend a neurodiversity-affirming non-public school made for special needs students like me, since their promise that their accommodations would help me did not come to fruition. However, my life completely changed when I got to attend a school made for students like me. It was there that I got my ambitions, learned to love learning, and saw college as a real possibility for me. Now I am an undergraduate political science student at UC Berkeley and president and founder of Mentoring Autistic Minds, a California-based nonprofit that aims for a neurodiversity-affirming country through mentoring and education. It was at this school that I blossomed. I blossomed because this school was tailored for autistic students like me. My sister, who also has autism and Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder, was also only able to leave the school that wasn't working for her through litigation. It shouldn't have to be this way. My family and I shouldn't have had to put up such a large fight just to get the accommodations we needed. If I had access to school choice, I could have avoided the experience altogether, along with the emotionally burdensome process of litigation, and attended a neurodiversity-affirming school the moment my family and I knew things weren't going right. This is why I believe in school choice, especially for students with disabilities. Other people should have access to the same opportunity. However, not everyone thinks that school choice is beneficial for special education and special needs students. Some well-meaning activists argue that school choice, on the contrary, actually hurts students with disabilities. One of their main arguments is that school choice ends up reducing funding for schools, because some students leave, and then there are fewer resources made available for the remaining students. However, we have evidence that school choice actually increases competition (and thus quality) among schools, helping even students who continue to attend public schools. Another concern I've heard from fellow disability advocates about school choice is that, because federal protections provided in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Section 504 don't apply to private education providers, special education students in particular will be left behind. As NPR pointed out, 'among the measure's strongest critics are advocates for students with disabilities, who argue it would not protect them from being poorly served or even turned away by private schools.' Is that how families of special education students feel, though? A 2003 analysis of Florida's McKay Scholarship Program, an education voucher made for special education students, showed that the overwhelming majority of participants were satisfied with the program. Additionally, a Morning Consult survey from 2022 showed that the overwhelming majority of special education parents spoken with supported school choice. There are multiple arguments for and against school choice. There are also instances where vouchers haven't worked. I simply want to argue in favor of letting special needs students like me be able to have a chance to try out schools specifically tailored for needs like mine. What's the harm of letting me have a choice? David Rivera is president and founder of Mentoring Autistic Minds, a California-based nonprofit that aims for a neurodiversity-affirming country through mentoring and education. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
