Board Governance Archives - Education Lawyers

September 14, 2022 By LeasorCrass

“In God We Trust” Sign Donations: How Should Districts Respond?

Senate Bill 797, enacted in August of 2022, requires public elementary and secondary schools to display in a conspicuous place in each building of the school or institution a durable poster or framed copy of the United States national motto, “In God We Trust.” The signs must be donated or purchased with private funds and “must contain a representation of the United States flag centered under the national motto and a representation of the state flag, and may not depict any words, images, or other information.”

Once S.B. 797 became law, Patriot Mobile donated signs to districts across the metroplex. In quick succession, other groups created displays of the motto both in Arabic and rainbow lettering signifying support of the LGBTQ community and demanded that those signs be displayed as well.

In response to the controversy, Senator Bryan Hughes, co-author of the law, sent an August 26th letter to the Texas Education Agency, clarifying that S.B. 797 was not intended to force school districts to display more than one poster per building or in languages other than English. Hughes explained the “statutory prescription that the motto be displayed as it appears in [S.B. 797], and with no ‘other words, images, or other information,’ limits the legally mandated display of the motto to only posters or framed copies presented in English.”

Senator Hughes also explained that “nothing in state law prohibits the display of the national motto in any other language… [h]owever, the law requires only the display of a poster or framed copy, as expressly stated in the statute.” Id.

What this means for districts is that a public elementary or secondary school must comply with the statute’s requirements and post one “In God We Trust” poster or framed copy if it is donated and meets requirements under the law. The statute requires that the sign must: (1) contain a representation of the United States flag centered under the national motto and a representation of the state flag; and (2) not depict any words, images, or other information other than the representations listed in Section 1.004 of the Texas Education Code.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding S.B. 797, the attorneys at Leasor Crass, P.C. are available to assist.

January 12, 2021 By LeasorCrass

Student Trustees Would Be Mandatory Under Senate Bill 272

Here at Leasor Crass, we are keeping a close eye on the bills being filed for the upcoming Texas legislative session which will either directly affect or have some impact on our clients.

Filed on December 30, 2020, Senate Bill 272 really caught our attention. It requires a school district board of trustees to create a nonvoting student trustee position on the board. The text of SB 272 can be found here.

SB 272 seeks to repeal Texas Education Code section 11.0511 which gives the board of trustees of a district with a school operating under a campus turnaround plan the option to create a nonvoting student trustee position. TEC 11.0511 states that such a student trustee may not participate in board meeting closed sessions when issues related to personnel matters are considered. Further, if a board chooses to create this student trustee position, the board must adopt a policy regarding how the student trustee will participate in board deliberations and ensuring that the student trustee’s access to information, documents and records is consistent with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”).

Unlike TEC 11.0511, SB 272 requires all school districts to have a nonvoting student trustee. Further, SB 272 does not provide any mechanism for addressing how the student trustee will participate in deliberations, what kind of access the student trustee will have to confidential student or personnel information, or contain a prohibition for participating in closed session when personnel matters are involved.

Under SB 272, the Commissioner must develop an application for the position of student trustee. Each year, starting with the 2021-2022 school year, high school principals must solicit applicants for the position using the Commissioner’s form application and then select three applicants to recommend to the board of trustees. The board president will then select two or more applicants from those recommended by the high school principal(s). The board, by majority vote, appoints one of the finalists chosen by the board president to serve a one-year term. During the term, the student trustee must remain enrolled in school and maintain at least a 2.5 GPA. SB 272 states that the student trustee is not a member of the board, but “has the same powers and duties as a member of the board, including the right to attend and participate in meetings” with the exception of having the right to vote and to be counted when determining whether a quorum exists for a board meeting. The student trustee is also “entitled to reimbursement for actual expenses incurred by the student in attending meetings of the board,” subject to the board president’s approval.

Students serving in an advisory capacity to school boards is relatively common now and being part of the governance process can provide invaluable civics lessons to students. In a few rare cases, students have even served as fully participating school board members who vote on nearly all board matters. The two links below share additional information on this topic.

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/students-on-school-boards-balancing-representation-and-fairness/2019/06

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/few-student-board-members-can-vote-should-that-change/2019/06

However, in the rare cases found in the links, there was no legislative mandate to create these student trustee positions.

We will be watching SB 272 to see whether it makes progress during the upcoming legislative session. If you have questions about SB 272 or any other proposed legislation and how it might affect your school district, please do not hesitate to contact any of the Leasor Crass attorneys.

May 11, 2020 By LeasorCrass

COVID-19 UPDATE

Below are today’s updates regarding COVID-19 and its impact on Texas public schools. For additional resources, please visit our COVID-19 page.

Title IX: Questions and Answers Regarding the Final Rule
Dean Micknal, Partner and Victoria Elliott, Associate

On May 6, 2020, the US Department of Education issued an extensive update to the Title IX regulations (the “Final Rule”). As the new regulations take effect on August 14, 2020, districts do not have much time to digest the information and prepare for implementation. In an effort to assist our districts in learning the new material, Leasor Crass will be providing guidance and training over the next few months, beginning with the answers to what we expect to be some common questions listed below.

Please click here to continue reading.

TEA’s Updated Guidance on Graduation Ceremonies (*Updated 5.27.2020*)
Holly James, Senior Associate

On May 18th, TEA updated its guidance pertaining to graduation ceremonies. Districts now have four options for ceremonies:

Completely virtual ceremonies are approved and may proceed without the need for any further action on the part of the district.
“Hybrid ceremonies” (those involving a compilation of pre-recorded videos of students filmed individually or in small groups) are now permitted to take place effective May 5th (moved up from May 15th).
Vehicle ceremonies may proceed effective May 15th.
Outdoor in-person ceremonies may take place in any county on or after May 29th.

a. Between May 15 and May 28, outdoor ceremonies are permitted in rural counties that have filed the required attestation form regarding five or fewer COVID-19 cases.

Indoor ceremonies are not permitted yet.

TEA’s guidance contains detailed conditions and restrictions for each of the different types of ceremonies currently allowed. Note that the permissions and guidelines are subject to change at any time depending on changes to the public-health situation.

Note: Recommendations specific to Dallas County are available here.

TEA Special Education Updates for the Week of May 4, 2020
Dean Micknal, Partner

The Texas Education Agency updated the COVID-19 Special Education Q&A last week to address a number of issues relating to evaluations and graduating students.

First, TEA clarified that the expiration of Governor Abbott’s Stay at Home Order does not give LEAs the green light to start performing face to face evaluations. Rather, districts will need to continue adhering to the statewide school closure requirements.

TEA also addressed several important issues that implicate ARD committee authority and duties:

Question 12 reiterates that ARD committees will need to make individualized determinations with respect to what additional or alternative services might be needed to meet transition goals when IEP prescribed transition services are not able to be provided due to the COVID-19 pandemic response.
Question 13 addresses how ARD committees should proceed in making determinations about graduation for a student with modified curriculum when the student was unable to complete all activities required by the IEP.
Question 14 discusses how ARD committees should approach the provision of compensatory services to students who are graduating in the Spring of 2020.
Finally, Question 15 explains that federal regulations still require any decision to exit a student from special education services to be “informed by a complete evaluation of all relevant areas of student performance”, meaning that ARD committees are not allowed to move forward with exiting a student if they have not been able to complete an evaluation.

Please contact one of the attorneys at Leasor Crass in the event you need additional guidance on any of these issues pertaining to special education.

April 27, 2020 By LeasorCrass

Now They Tell Us: Authority to Regulate Public Comments

by Mike Leasor

On April 22, 2020, the Attorney General provided additional guidance on the implementation of Texas Government Code §551.007. This section went into effect on September 1, 2019 and the sections addressed in the Opinion state:

A governmental body shall allow each member of the public who desires to address the body regarding an item on an agenda for an open meeting of the body to address the body regarding the item at the meeting before or during the body’s consideration of the item.
A governmental body may adopt reasonable rules regarding the public’s right to address the body under this section, including rules that limit the total amount of time that a member of the public may address the body on a given item.

The first question presented was whether §551.007(b) permits a district to hold one public comment period at the beginning of an open meeting to address all agenda items, or instead, whether §551.007(b) requires a district to hold separate public comment periods immediately before each agenda item. The Attorney General opined that the plain language of section (b) allows the district to choose when the public forum to discuss agenda items may take place. It states further that the public forum is not required to be adjacent to the agenda item. Thus, a single public comment period at the beginning of an open meeting to address all items on the agenda is acceptable under this section of the statute.

As most districts have already interpreted subsection (b) to mean the above, it is the second question presented that provides the new insight. In the second question addressed in the Opinion, it is asked whether §551.007 permits a district to limit the total amount of time it gives a speaker to address all desired agenda items. What subsection (b) giveth, subsection (c) taketh away. This subsection allows a district to provide reasonable rules for the public forum.

In the Opinion, the Attorney General states that a district may not only cap the amount of time an individual has to speak, but may put a reasonable cap on the speaker if he/she chooses to address all agenda items. In effect, if there is a five minute cap on a speaker to speak about one agenda item, and there are eight agenda items to speak on, the district may limit the total time a speaker speaks instead of having to provide a full 40 minutes, but only to a reasonable period of time based on “the number of agenda items and their complexity.” Thus, this additional limitation on a speaker’s ability to dominate an evening has been somewhat clipped by the Attorney General.

If you should have additional questions regarding this specific provision or any other Open Meetings Act provision, please do not hesitate to contact any of the attorneys at Leasor Crass, P.C.

April 27, 2020 By LeasorCrass

COVID-19 UPDATE

Below are today’s updates regarding COVID-19 and its impact on Texas public schools. For additional resources, please visit our COVID-19 page.

TEA Special Education and Special Populations Updates for the Week of April 20, 2020
Dean Micknal, Partner

The Texas Education Agency reorganized its COVID-19 Support: Special Education webpage last week. The revised site, which can be accessed here, now includes a direct link to the COVID19 Special Education Q&A, as well as links to four areas dedicated to:

Please click here to continue reading.

Now They Tell Us: Authority to Regulate Public Comments
Mike Leasor, Shareholder

A governmental body shall allow each member of the public who desires to address the body regarding an item on an agenda for an open meeting of the body to address the body regarding the item at the meeting before or during the body’s consideration of the item.
A governmental body may adopt reasonable rules regarding the public’s right to address the body under this section, including rules that limit the total amount of time that a member of the public may address the body on a given item.

Please click here to continue reading.

Class of 2020: Waiving Graduation Requirements
Victoria Elliott, Associate

In the wake of COVID-19, many questions have arisen regarding graduation for the 2020 senior class. During these times, it is important to remember that certain specific assessment graduation requirements may be satisfied via an individual graduation committee (“IGC”) review, including:

Seniors who were enrolled in the district or charter school during the 2019–2020 school year may graduate via an IGC determination, regardless of the number of EOC exams they still need to pass.
In accordance with Texas Education Code (TEC) §28.0258, students must successfully complete the curriculum requirements for high school graduation as identified in Title 19 Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Chapter 74, Subchapter B. Districts and charter schools must determine if a student has met all other graduation requirements under TEC, §28.025(c), including successful completion of all curriculum requirements or an individualized education program.

Please click here to continue reading.

Planning for the Future
Rhonda Crass, Shareholder

As we look at virtual learning for the remainder of the 2019-2020 school year, it brings many new issues to the forefront regarding what it will take to open for the 2020-2021 school year. In our practice each day, issues being discussed include the need for guidelines aimed at summer trips for staff and students; guidelines and legal parameters for social distancing when school resumes; employment issues under the new leave statutes; and, what to do with those students or teachers who are placed in quarantine for exposure to COVID-19 and can no longer attend school.

As other topics arise, we are here to assist you in preparing for the 2020-2021 school year with answers, training for staff, and guidance for specific programs.

LEASOR CRASS, P.C.

OFFICE LOCATION