Policy  Analysis  

Final  Analysis  of  House  Bill  5  (HB  5):  Relating  to  public  school  accountability,   including  assessment,  and  curriculum  requirements.     Patricia  D.  López,  Ph.D.  and  Angela  Valenzuela,  Ph.D.   June  3,  2013     Introduction   The  final  passage  of  House  Bill  5  (HB  5)  significantly  modifies  the  Texas  Education   Code  regarding  student  assessment,  curriculum  and  graduation  requirements,  and  campus   and  district  accountability.    This  brief  reflects  the  Texas  Center  for  Education  Policy’s   prolonged  engagement  with  the  state’s  transition  to  the  State  of  Texas  Assessments  for   Academic  Readiness  (STAAR)  system  (see  López,  2012),  and  over  a  decade  of  work  on   Texas-­‐style  accountability  and  assessment,  generally  (see  Valenzuela,  2004).   To  begin,  TCEP  acknowledges  HB  5’s  reduction  in  the  number  of  tests  that  students   must  now  complete  to  graduate.    While  that  change  is  noteworthy,  it  does  not  fully  address   the  research-­‐based  criticisms  on  the  detriments  of  high-­‐stakes  testing  in  Texas—such  as   student  and  teacher  push-­‐out  (McNeil  et  al.,  2008),  curricular  tracking  (Valenzuela,  1999),   reduced  student  learning  (Sloan,  2004),  student  retention  (Valencia  &  Villarreal,  2004),  the   denial  of  a  high  school  diploma  (Valenzuela,  1999;  GI  Forum  v  TEA,  2000),  and  diminishing   access  to  college  (Cabrera,  López,  &  Sáenz,  2012)—all  of  which  are  most  severe  for  poor,   minority,  and  emerging  bilingual  students  (Valenzuela,  2000;  USA  and  LULAC  GI-­‐Forum  v.   Texas,  2008).    That  said,  we  hope  HB  5  will  initiate  a  process  for  greater  advancements  in   holistic,  multiple-­‐criteria  assessments  for  students  (see  Valenzuela,  2002)  that  mirror  the   considerations  afforded  to  both  schools  and  districts  as  outlined  in  the  2009  passage  of   House  Bill  3  (see  López,  2009)  and  augmented  in  HB  5  (Sec.  39.0545).  

On  the  issue  of  curriculum,  we  recognize  ongoing  attempts  to  dismantle  the  4x4,   college-­‐ready  expectations  that  the  state  put  in  place  during  the  2007  legislative  session.     As  our  research  shows,  the  tracking  agenda  persists,  primarily  among  select  political  actors   who  continue  to  claim  “college  is  not  for  everyone”  (López,  2012).    That  sentiment  is   expressed  in  HB  5  by  making  the  Top  Ten  Percent  eligible,  Distinguished  diploma  plan   optional,  rather  than  the  default.    With  the  help  of  legislators,  advocates  were  successful  in   adding  multiple  safeguards  and  reporting  mechanisms  that  make  it  harder  for  schools  and   districts  to  funnel  students  off  of  the  Distinguished  diploma  plan  and  college  eligibility,  as   this  brief  will  outline.    This  brief  will  further  demonstrate  how  the  “endorsement”  language   codified  into  HB  5  is  nothing  more  than  a  fancy  title  for  flexible  course  options  that  were   already  offered  in  statute.    By  informing  students  and  parents  on  their  increased  statutory   rights  towards  gaining  college  knowledge,  college  preparedness,  and  Top  Ten  percent   eligibility,  it  is  our  hope  that  this  brief  will  be  the  first  of  many  resources  that  help  to   inform  students,  parents,  and  various  communities,  alike,  on  the  changes  made  by  HB  5.        
                       

Copyright  ©  2013  by  the  Texas  Center  for  Education  Policy  

2  

Student  Assessment     In  response  to  overwhelming  criticism  to  Texas’  use  of  high-­‐stakes  testing,   legislators  have  scaled  back  the  number  of  high-­‐stakes,  end-­‐of-­‐course  (EOC)  exams   required  for  graduation  from  fifteen  to  five.    As  outlined  in  the  final  iteration  of  HB  5,   students  will  now  be  required  to  pass  EOC  exams  in  the  following  five  subjects:  English   language  arts  I  (ELA  I);  English  language  arts  II  (ELA  II);  Algebra  I;  Biology;  and  U.S.  History   (Sec.  39.0232).    As  mandated  in  HB  5,  the  Texas  Education  Agency  (TEA)  shall  find  a   method  for  combining  reading  and  writing  for  English  language  arts  into  one,   comprehensive  exam  (Sec.  39.0232).   House  Bill  5  has  completely  removed  the  minimum  and  cumulative  passing  score   standards,  as  well  as  language  that  required  EOC  performances  to  define  15  percent  of  a   student’s  final  course  grade  (i.e.,  the  “15  percent  rule").    Students  must  now  pass  the  five   EOC  exams  required  for  graduation  at  the  Level  II  Satisfactory  passing  standard  set  by  TEA.   Advocates  were  successful  in  adding  safeguards,  such  as  prohibiting  districts  from  using  a   student’s  performance  on  an  EOC  assessment  for  the  following  purposes:   (1)  To  determine  class  rank,  including  entitlement  to  automatic  admissions;   (2) As  a  sole  criterion  in  the  determination  whether  to  admit  a  student  to  a  general   academic  teaching  institution  in  the  state  (Sec.  39.0232  (b1-­‐b2)).   While  HB  5  is  explicit  in  stating  that  state  EOC  exams  cannot  be  used  as  a  sole  criterion  for   public  college  and  university  admissions,  the  bill  does  not  prohibit  a  general  academic   teaching  institution  from  implementing  an  admission  policy  that  takes  into  consideration  a   student’s  performance  on  an  EOC  assessment  instrument  in  addition  to  other  criteria.   For  those  students  who  do  not  perform  satisfactorily  on  an  EOC  exam,  districts  are   required  to  provide  Accelerated  Instruction  (Sec.  28.0217).    Accelerated  instruction  may  be   offered  before  or  after  normal  school  hours,  and  times  outside  of  the  normal  school  year   (e.g.,  summer  school).   As  outlined  in  HB  5,  school  districts  may  choose  to  administer  diagnostic  tests  in   Algebra  II  and  English  language  arts  III  (Sec.  39.0238).    The  state  does  not  mandate,  nor  do   they  cover  the  costs,  to  administer  these  two  optional  assessments.    For  those  districts  that  

Copyright  ©  2013  by  the  Texas  Center  for  Education  Policy  

3  

choose  to  administer  the  Algebra  II  and  English  III  diagnostic  assessments,  TEA  will  require   them  to  report  the  administration  of  Algebra  II  and  English  III  diagnostic  exams  relative  to   students  enrolled  in  the  course,  including  applied  Algebra  II  courses.    House  Bill  5  further   prohibits  districts  that  choose  to  administer  the  Algebra  II  and  English  III  diagnostic  exams   from  using  the  results  for  the  following  purposes:   (1) For  school  or  district  accountability  purposes;   (2) By  a  school  for  the  purposes  of:   a. teacher  evaluations;   b. determining  a  student’s  final  course  grade;  or     c. determining  a  student’s  class  rank  for  the  purpose  of  high  school  graduation;   (3) By  an  institution  of  higher  education  for  the  purposes  of:   a. admissions;  or   b. to  determine  eligibility  for  TEXAS  grant  (Sec.  39.0238  (f)).   It  is  important  for  parents  and  communities  to  be  clear  that  there  is  no  mandate  in   HB  5  that  requires  districts  to  administer  the  two  diagnostic  exams.    Rather,  this  is  a   locally-­‐based  decision  that  involves  local  school  boards,  district  leaders,  and  ideally,   parents  and  communities.    Parents  whose  children  attend  districts  that  choose  to   administer  the  two  diagnostic  exams  should  ensure  that  district  leaders  do  not  use  results   for  graduation.     Finally,  HB  5  responds  to  the  historical  influence  that  monied  interests  have  had  on   education  policy  in  Texas  (see,  for  example,  McNeil,  2000;  Rapoport,  2011;  López,  2012)  by   restricting  certain  individuals  from  being  appointed  to,  or  serving  on  advisory  committees   (Sec.  39.038).    Specifically,  statute  now  states  that:     The  commissioner  may  not  appoint  a  person  to  a  committee  or  panel  that  advises   the  commissioner  or  agency  regarding  state  accountability  systems  under  this  title   or  the  content  or  administration  of  an  assessment  instrument  if  the  person  is   retained  or  employed  by  an  assessment  instrument  vendor  (Sec.  39.038).   In  the  same  vein,  HB  5  also  prohibits  certain  contractors  hired  to  develop  or  implement   assessment  instruments  (see  Section  39.023)  from  making  political  contributions  or  taking   part,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  in  a  campaign  of  any  person  seeking  election  to  or   currently  serving  on  the  State  Board  of  Education  (SBOE)  (Sec.  39.039).      

Copyright  ©  2013  by  the  Texas  Center  for  Education  Policy  

4  

Curriculum   Changes  in  HB  5  replace  the  current  diploma  plans—i.e.,  Minimum,  Recommended,   and  Distinguished—with  the  following  plans:  Foundation,  Foundation  plus  Endorsement,   and  Distinguished  (Sec.  28.025;  also  see  Figure  1).    House  Bill  5  now  sets  the  “Foundation   plus  Endorsement”  program  as  the  default  high  school  diploma  plan  that  all  students  are   placed  on  when  entering  high  school.  Similar  to  the  current,  Recommended  High  School   Plan,  the  Foundation  plus  Endorsement  diploma  requires  students  to  complete  a  total  of  26   credits  (Sec.  28.025).    Under  the  default  plan,  in  addition  to  completing  the  same  credits  for   the  Foundation  diploma,  students  must  obtain  an  endorsement  in  one  of  the  following   areas:  science,  technology,  engineering,  and  math  (STEM);  business  and  industry;  public   service;  arts  and  humanities;  or  multidisciplinary  studies  (Sec.  28.025).    Each  endorsement   will  require  a  minimum  of  one  additional  credit  of  advanced  courses  in  math  and  science,   respectively,  as  determined  by  the  SBOE  (Sec.  28.025).    Students  must  also  complete  two   additional  elective  courses  under  this  diploma  plan.    School  districts  are  required  to  ensure   that  each  student  entering  the  ninth  grade  indicates,  in  writing,  an  endorsement  that  the   student  intends  to  earn  (Sec.  28.025  (b)).    A  district  must  permit  students,  at  any  time,  to   change  their  initial  endorsement  selection.   All  students  completing  the  Foundation  plus  Endorsement  diploma  will  be  eligible   for  TEXAS  Grant  financial  aid.    Unless  students  self-­‐select  and  complete  Algebra  II  as  a   satisfying  math  course,  they  will  not  be  eligible  for  Top  10  percent  admissions.  Students   and  parents  must  be  clear  that  only  the  successful  completion  of  Algebra  II  and  obtaining   the  Distinguished  diploma  (Sec.  28.025  (b-­‐15))  leaves  students  eligible  for  Top  10  percent   admissions  (Sec.  51.803).   As  mandated  by  HB  5,  the  SBOE  shall  require  that  each  district  make  an  Algebra  II   course  available  to  each  high  school  student  in  the  district  (Sec.  28.002).    This  addition  to   statute  seeks  to  address  issues  of  capacity  and  ensure  that  completing  the  Distinguished   diploma  is  both  an  option  and  accessible  to  all  students,  rather  than  just  a  select  few.  

Copyright  ©  2013  by  the  Texas  Center  for  Education  Policy  

5  

The  Foundation  program  requires  students  to  complete  22  total  credits—four   credits  in  English  language  arts,  and  three  credits  each  in  math,  science,  and  social  studies   (see  Figure  1).   Advanced  courses  in  math  and  science  that  allow  students  to  fulfill  the  Foundation   and/or  endorsement  requirements  can  be  developed  by  the  SBOE  or  locally.    In  terms  of   the  latter  option,  HB  5  allows  local  boards  of  trustees  to  approve  that  a  district  offer  a   course,  training  hours,  or  apprenticeship  options  needed  to  obtain  an  industry-­‐recognized   credential  or  certificate  without  SBOE  approval  if:   (1) A  district  partners  with  a  public  or  private  institution  of  higher  education  and  local   business,  labor,  and  community  leaders  to  develop  and  provide  the  course;  and   (2) The  course  allows  students  to  enter:     a. a  state  career  or  technology  training  program;   b. an  institution  of  higher  education  without  remediation;   c. an  apprenticeship  training  program;  or   d. an  internship  required  as  part  of  an  accreditation  towards  an  industry-­‐ recognized  credential  or  certification.   House  Bill  5  further  requires  each  district  to  report  the  names  of  courses,  programs,   internships,  and  partnering  entities  to  TEA  and  make  this  information  available  to  the   public.    This  data  seeks  to  inform  communities  on  variations  in  accessibility  of  accredited   courses  that  expand  students’  opportunities  during  and  beyond  high  school.    Together  with   special  investigation  reporting  mechanisms  (Sec.  39057),  discussed  in  the  subsequent   section,  HB  5  requires  TEA  to  publically  disclose  patterns  of  student  tracking.    However,  for   students  to  benefit  from  these  added  safety  nets,  state  and  district  leadership  must  collect   and  respond  to  that  data  in  a  positive,  rather  than  punitive,  manner.  By  this  we  mean  that   data  should  identify  needs  and  respond  with  a  relative  infusion  of  resources,  experienced   people,  and  assistance.    Responses  should  not  induce  fear  or  incite  threats  of  school  closure   that  fragment,  rather  than  unite,  people.   In  extraordinary  situations,  students  and  their  parents  can  elect  to  graduate  under   the  Foundation  high  school  program  without  earning  an  endorsement.    Statute  does  not   allow  schools  to  track  into  the  Foundation  program  without  an  endorsement  unless  the   following  criteria  are  met  following  a  student’s  sophomore  (10th  grade)  year:  
Copyright  ©  2013  by  the  Texas  Center  for  Education  Policy  

6  

(1) The  student  and  the  student’s  parent  are  advised  by  a  school  counselor  of  the   specific  benefits  of  graduating  from  high  school  with  one  or  more  endorsements;   and   (2) The  student’s  parent  files  a  form,  adopted  by  agency,  to  the  school  counselor,   allowing  the  student  to  graduate  without  an  endorsement  (Sec.  28.025  (b1-­‐b2)).   Students  completing  the  Foundation  program  will  be  eligible  to  apply  for  TEXAS   Grant  financial  aid.   In  a  further  attempt  to  address  potential  curricular  tracking,  HB  5  states  that  a   school  district  may  not  prevent  a  student  or  parent  from  confirming  a  graduation  plan  that   includes  pursuit  of  a  distinguished  diploma  or  an  endorsement  (Sec.  28.02121).    Statute   also  now  requires  districts  to  ensure  that  all  students  complete  a  personal  graduation  plan   where  they  identify  a  course  of  study  that  promotes  college  and  workforce  readiness,   career  placement  and  advancement,  and  facilitates  the  student’s  transition  from  secondary   to  postsecondary  education  (Sec.  28.02121).    With  the  help  of  the  Texas  Higher  Education   Coordinating  Board  (THECB),  information  explaining  the  advantages  of  the  Distinguished   diploma  plan  (i.e.,  Sec.  28.025  [b-­‐15])  and  endorsement  plans  (i.e.,  Sec.  28.025[c-­‐1])  to   students  and  parents  must:   (1) Discuss  the  benefits  of  choosing  a  high  school  graduation  plan  that  includes  the   Distinguished  diploma  plan  and  one  or  more  endorsements  to  enable  the  student  to   achieve  a  class  rank  in  the  top  10  percent;  and   (2) Encourage  parents  to  choose  a  high  school  plan  described  in  (1)  above.   While  students  can  amend  their  initial  personal  graduation  plans,  doing  so  requires  schools   to  send  written  notice  to  the  student’s  parents  regarding  the  change  (Sec.  28.02121).   Finally,  HB  5  makes  added  attempts  to  bridge  public  and  higher  education   institutions  and  curriculum  by  requiring  districts  to  partner  with  an  institution  of  higher   education  to  develop  math  and  English  language  arts  course  options  (Sec.  28.014).    Such   courses  must  be  designed  for  students  at  the  12th  grade  level  whose  performance  on  an   EOC  does  not  meet  college  readiness  standards,  or  for  those  students  whose  college   entrance  exam  (e.g.,  SAT,  ACT,  etc.)  indicates  they  are  not  ready  to  perform  entry-­‐level   college  coursework.  These  courses  must  be  taught  on  high  school  campuses,  through  

Copyright  ©  2013  by  the  Texas  Center  for  Education  Policy  

7  

distance  learning,  or  as  an  online  course  provided  through  a  partnering  institution  of   higher  education.  Finally,  courses  under  this  section  must  be  taught  by  appropriate  faculty,   where  public  and  higher  education  educators  meet  regularly  to  ensure  that  courses  are   aligned  with  college  readiness  expectations.    Each  district  must  provide  notice  to  students   and  parents  regarding  the  benefits  of  enrolling  in  one  of  these  courses  (Sec.  28.014).     Figure  1:  High  School  Diploma  Programs  and  Course  Requirements  as  outlined  in  HB  5     Foundation Foundation plus Endorsement English  I,  II,  III,   English  I,  II,  III,  advanced  fourth  course   English language advanced  fourth  course   arts (ELA) Algebra  I,  Geometry,  advanced   Algebra  I,  Geometry,  advanced  third   Math third  course   and  fourth  course**   Biology,  Integrated   Biology,  Integrated  Physics/Chemistry   Science Physics/Chemistry  or  advanced   or  advanced  second  course,  and   third-­‐year  course   advanced  third  and  fourth  course   World  History,  US  History,   World  History,  US  History,  Government   Social Studies Government  (.5),  and  Economics   (.5),  and  Economics  (.5)   (.5)   N/A   One  (1)  credit  advanced  math*   Endorsement One  (1)  credit  advanced  science*   Five  (5)   Seven  (7)   Electives One   ( 1)   c redit   f ine   a rts;   One  (1)  credit  fine  arts;   Other Two  (2)  credits  in  the  same   Two  (2)  credits  in  the  same  language  in   language  in  a  language  other  than   a  language  other  than  English;   English;   One  (1)  credit  P.E.   One  (1)  credit  P.E.   ELA  (4)   ELA  (4)   TOTAL Math  (3)   Math  (4)   Core Courses Science  (3)   Science  (4)   Social  studies  (3)   Social  studies  (3)   22   26   TOTAL Credits
*Students  seeking  to  obtain  the  Distinguished  high  school  diploma  and/or  an  Endorsement  may  satisfy   required  elective  credit(s)  with  credit(s)  earned  to  satisfy  additional  foundation  or  endorsement   courses  (Sec.  28.025  (b-­‐16)).   **Students  seeking  to  obtain  the  Distinguished  diploma  must  complete  Algebra  II,  which  subsequently   leaves  them  eligible  for  Top  10%  admissions.    

 

 

Copyright  ©  2013  by  the  Texas  Center  for  Education  Policy  

8  

School  and  District  Accountability     Changes  to  school  and  district  accountability,  as  outlined  in  House  Bill  5,  will  result   in  evaluation  based  on  the  following  three  measures:  (1)  student  test  scores;  (2)  financial   efficiency;  and  (3)  community  engagement  (Sec.  39.0545).    Rather  than  leave  the  process   for  developing  accountability  indicators  in  the  hands  of  the  TEA  Commissioner,  HB  5  has   prescribed  the  state’s  next  era  of  performance  measures.    House  Bill  5  maintains  the  long-­‐ standing  use  of  student  test  scores  in  rating  schools  and  districts,  and  adds  the  community   engagement  indicator  that  will  be  based  on  the  following  performance  measures:     (1) Fine  arts;   (2) Wellness  and  physical  education;   (3) Community  and  parental  involvement;   (4) The  21st  Century  Workforce  Development  program;     (5) Second  language  acquisition  program;   (6) Digital  learning  environment;   (7) Dropout  prevention  strategies;  and   (8) Educational  programs  for  gifted  and  talented  students  (Sec.  39.0545  (b)).     School  districts  will  use  criteria  developed  by  a  local  committee  to  evaluate  the   performance  of  the  district  ’s  campus  programs  and  eight  (8)  community  engagement   performance  measures.    Finally,  each  school  district  will  be  rated  on  its  anticipated  future   solvency,  that  includes  analysis  of  district  and  school  revenues  and  expenditures  for   preceding  school  years,  to  be  developed  by  the  TEA  Commissioner  and  Comptroller  (Sec.   39.082  (a-­‐3)).   The  performances  of  schools,  based  on  the  abovementioned  measures,  will  be   labeled  using  one  of  the  following  ratings:  exemplary,  recognized,  or  unacceptable  (Sec.   39.054).    In  evaluating  districts,  HB  5  requires  the  TEA  Commissioner  to  adopt  rules  and   criteria  for  an  “A-­‐F  District  Accountability  Rating”  system,  where  performances  are  rated   based  on  the  following  letter  grades:  A,  B,  C,  D  or  F  (Sec.  39.054).    A  district  may  not  receive   a  performance  rating  of  “A”  if  the  district  includes  any  individual  campus  rated  as   unacceptable  (Sec.  39.054).  

Copyright  ©  2013  by  the  Texas  Center  for  Education  Policy  

9  

House  Bill  5  will  also  develop  Academic  Distinction  Designations  (i.e.,  “gold  stars”)   focused  on  measuring  outstanding  performance  in  reaching  postsecondary  readiness  based   on  the  following  areas:   (A) Percentage  of  students  earning  a  nationally  or  internationally  recognized  business   or  industry  certification  of  license;   (B) Percentage  of  students  completing  a  coherent  sequence  of  career  and  technology   courses;   (C) Percentage  of  students  completing  dual  credit  courses;   (D) Percentage  of  students  who  achieved  applicable  college  readiness  benchmarks  (e.g.,   PSAT,  SAT,  ACT,  or  ACT-­‐Plan);  and   (E) Percentage  of  students  earning  AP  and/or  International  Baccalaureate  (IB)  credit  by   exam  (  39.2022  (a-­‐e)).     Campus  distinctions  will  further  be  rated  based  on  improvement  in  student  achievement   and  outstanding  performance  in  “closing  achievement  gaps”  (Sec.  39.203).    House  Bill  5   removes  performance  in  fine  arts,  physical  education,  21st  century  workforce  development   programs,  and  second  language  acquisition  programs  as  distinction  measures  for   campuses.   In  terms  of  new  reporting,  school  districts  will  now  be  required  to  report  their   performance  in  the  following  areas:   (A) Percentage  of  students  graduating  on  the  Foundation  high  school  program;   (B) Percentage  of  students  graduation  on  the  Distinguished  diploma  plan;   (C) Percentage  of  students  earning  each  endorsement  (Sec.  Sec.  39.301);   (D) The  availability  of  endorsements  and  the  courses  offered  towards  obtaining  an   endorsement  (Sec.  39.332(b)).   The  following  are  new  reporting  requirements  for  campuses:   (A) Number  of  students—disaggregated  by  major  student  populations—who  take   courses  under  the  foundation  program;  and   (B) Number  of  students—  disaggregated  by  major  student  populations—who  take   additional  courses  towards  earning  an  endorsement  (Sec.  39.301).   As  outlined  in  HB  5,  the  TEA  will  develop  and  maintain  a  Texas  School  Accountability   Dashboard—a  separate,  public  access  website  that  consists  of  accountability  information   for  each  district  and  campus  based  on  a  performance  index  comprised  of  the  following:   (1) Student  achievement;   (2) Student  progress;  
Copyright  ©  2013  by  the  Texas  Center  for  Education  Policy  

10  

(3) Closing  performance  gaps;  and   (4) Postsecondary  readiness  (Sec.  39.209).   The  Texas  School  Accountability  Dashboard  must  also  provide  comparison  data  across   districts  and  schools  that  will  include,  but  are  not  limited  to,  the  following:   (A) Number  of  students  enrolled;   (B) Percentage  of  students  categorized  as  limited  English  proficient  (LEP);   (C) Percentage  of  students  categorized  as  “unschooled  asylees  (see  Sec.  39.027  (a-­‐1));   (D) Percentage  of  students  categorized  as  economically  disadvantaged;   (E) Percentage  of  students  with  disabilities;   (F) Student  enrollment  in  special  programs,  disaggregated  by  race,  ethnicity,  and   special  populations  (Sec.  39.209).    

Copyright  ©  2013  by  the  Texas  Center  for  Education  Policy  

11  

References   Cabrera,  N.,  López,  P.D.  &  Sáenz,  V.B.  (2012).  Ganas:  From  the  Individual  to  the  Community,   and  the  Potential  for  Improving  College  Readiness  in  the  ‘Land  that  Texas  Forgot’.   Journal  of  Latinos  and  Education,  11(4),  232-­‐246.   GI  Forum  et  al.  v.  Texas  Education  Agency  et  al.,  87  F.  Supp.2d  667  (W.D.  Tex.  2000).   House  Bill  5  (2013).  Retrieved  from:   http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/pdf/HB00005F.pdf#navpanes =0   López,  P.D.  (2009,  March).  Public  School  Accountability,  Curriculum,  and  Promotion:  Bill   Analysis  of  House  Bill  3,  invited  testimony  on  House  Bill  3  before  the  House   Committee  on  Public  Education,  March  17,  2009.   López,  P.D.  (2012).  The  process  of  becoming:  The  political  construction  of  Texas’  lone  STAAR   system  of  accountability  and  college  readiness.    University  of  Texas  at  Austin:   Dissertation.   McNeil,  L.M.  (2000).  Contradictions  of  school  reform:  Educational  costs  of  standardized   testing.  New  York:  Routledge.   McNeil,  L.  M.,  Coppola,  E.,  Radigan,  J.,  &  Vasquez  Heilig,  J.  (2008).  Avoidable  losses:   High-­‐stakes  accountability  and  the  dropout  crisis.  Education  Policy  Analysis   Archives,  16(3).   Nichols,  S.L,  Glass,  G.V.  &  Berliner,  D.C.  (2006b),  High-­‐Stakes  Testing  and  Student   Achievement:  Does  Accountability  Pressure  Increase  Student  Learning?  Education   Policy  Analysis  Archives,  14(1),  1-­‐172.   Rapoport,  A.  (2011,  September  6).  Education  Inc.:  How  private  companies  are  profiting   from  Texas  public  schools.  Texas  Observer.  Retrieved  from:   http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-­‐story/the-­‐pearson-­‐graduate   Sloan,  K.  (2004).  Playing  to  the  logic  of  the  Texas  accountability  system:  How  focusing  on   “ratings”—not  children—  undermines  quality  and  equity.    In  A.  Valenzuela  (Ed.),   Leaving  children  behind:  How  “Texas-­‐style”  accountability  fails  Latino  youth,  (pp.  153-­‐ 178).    Albany:  State  University  of  New  York  Press.   United  States  of  America  and  LULAC  GI-­‐Forum  v.  State  of  Texas  (USA  and  LULAC  GI-­‐ Forum  v.  Texas),  No.  71-­‐CV-­‐5281-­‐WWJ  (District  Court  for  the  Eastern  District   of  Texas  July  24,  2008),  Retrieved  from   http://www.maldef.org/news/press.cfm?ID=468&FromIndex=yes   Valencia,  R.  &  Villarreal,  B.  (2004).  Texas’  Second  Wave  of  High-­‐Stakes  Testing:  Anti-­‐Social   Promotion  Legislation,  Grade  Retention,  and  Adverse  Impact  on  Minorities.  In  A.   Valenzuela  (Ed.),  Leaving  Children  Behind:  How  ‘Texas-­‐Style’  Accountability  Fails   Latino  Youth,  (pp.  113-­‐152).  New  York:  State  University  of  New  York  Press.   Valenzuela,  A.  (1999).  Subtractive  schooling:  U.S.-­‐Mexican  youth  and  the  politics  of  caring.  
Copyright  ©  2013  by  the  Texas  Center  for  Education  Policy  

12  

Albany:  State  University  of  New  York  Press.   Valenzuela,  A.  (2002).  High-­‐stakes  testing  and  U.S.  American  youth  in  Texas:  The  case  for   multiple  compensatory  criteria  in  assessment.  Harvard  Journal  of  Hispanic  Policy,  14,   97-­‐116.   Valenzuela,  A.  (2000,  November).  The  Significance  of  the  TAAS  Test  for  Mexican  Immigrant   and  Mexican  American  Adolescents:  A  Case  Study.  Hispanic  Journal  of  Behavioral   Sciences,  22(4),  524-­‐539.   Valenzuela,  A.  (2004).  Leaving  children  behind:  How  Texas-­‐style  accountability  fails  Latino   youth.  New  York:  State  University  of  New  York  (SUNY)  Press.                                                    
    Texas  Center  for  Education  Policy  (TCEP)  is  committed  to  research  on  equity  and  excellence  in  PK-­‐16   education.    TCEP  promotes  interdisciplinary  and  collaborative  research,  analysis,  and  dissemination  of   information  to  impact  the  development  of  educational  policy  by  bringing  together  university  entities   in  partnership  with  local,  state,  national,  and  international  education  communities.   http://www.edb.utexas.edu/tcep         For  information  contact  Patricia  D.  López,  at  pdlopez@austin.utexas.edu   Copyright  ©  2013  by  the  Texas  Center  for  Education  Policy  

13  

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.