Tag:

SB 507

Attorney General’s Opinion on SB 507 Not Favorable to Schools

by Lori Gracey September 15, 2016

written by Lori Gracey

Attorney General Ken Paxton

This blog was updated on October 11, 2016 with additional resources.

Previously the Commissioner of Education, Mike Morath, requested an opinion from the Texas Attorney General regarding the implementation of Senate Bill 507 relating to the use of cameras and video recording equipment in special education classrooms. The opinion was released on September 13, 2016. The AG’s opinion does not bring good news for Texas schools. The summary of this opinion is below.

If a parent, staff member, or board member makes a request for video equipment to be placed in a self-contained classroom or other special education setting in which a majority of students in regular attendance are: (1) provided special education and related services; and (2) assigned to a self-contained classroom or other special education setting for at least 50 percent of the instructional day, then this equipment must be placed in all classrooms in the district that fit this description.
A “staff member” cannot be narrowly defined as only those actually working in special education classrooms as described in (1) above. He uses the definition of staff as given in the New Oxford American Dictionary: “All the people employed by a particular organization.” Thus, any staff member can make the request to install video and audio recording equipment in classrooms as described above.
A school district can discontinue operation and maintenance of a camera if a setting in which the camera has been placed no longer fits the description as defined in (1) above.

The Attorney General recognized that some legislators did not mean SB 507 to be interpreted this way, However, he referenced several Texas Supreme Court rulings that indicated that a legislator’s intent does not override the plain meaning of the words used in the bill. He recognized that this law will have large financial burdens on school districts, but the only remedy would be for the Legislature to amend the statute. TCEA will continue to work with the Legislature to make SB 507 less onerous for school districts.

The current Commissioner’s rules related to SB 507 can be found here.

September 15, 2016 0 comment

Advocacy

TEA Commissioner Requests AG Opinion on SB 507

by Jennifer Bergland March 21, 2016

written by Jennifer Bergland

On March 11, 2016, the Texas Education Agency Commissioner of Education, Mike Morath, requested an opinion from the Texas Attorney General on the implementation of SB 507. This new law requires video surveillance of certain special education settings upon request beginning in the 2016-2017 school year. In an earlier blog post, I outlined the provisions of SB 507.

Commissioner Morath is in the process of writing the rules that will help guide districts in the implementation of the new law. He is seeking a legal opinion on several outstanding questions before he releases a draft of the rules. Most of his questions are due to some of the discrepancies between the original language in the bill and the version that became law and some of the senators’ statements made at a hearing last month regarding their intent.

Below are the four questions that Morath outlined in his letter to the AG:

Can section 29.022(a) reasonably be construed to mean that a request for video surveillance only requires that video surveillance be conducted in one self-contained instructional setting?
If your response to question 1 is “no,” then can the statute reasonably be construed to allow a requestor to limit his or her request for video surveillance to one or more specific instructional settings? For example, if a parent’s request reflects that the parent only wants video surveillance in his or her child’s classroom, would it be permissible for the school district or charter school to only place and operate video cameras in that specific classroom?
Can the term “staff member” in section 29.022 reasonably be construed to mean only a campus employee who is assigned to a self-contained instructional setting described in the statute and certain campus employees with supervisory authority, such as a principal and assistant principal?
Can section 29.022(b) reasonably be construed to allow a school district or charter school to discontinue video surveillance in a self-contained instructional setting if the circumstances surrounding the request have changed substantially (e.g., the student whose parent requested video surveillance is no longer assigned to the classroom or has left the campus or district, the teacher who requested video surveillance is no longer assigned to the classroom, the term of office of the trustee who requested video surveillance has ended, etc.)?

Morath has requested the AG expedite his response to his questions because school districts need the rules in order to comply with the new law before the start of the next school year.
Commissioner Morath’s letter to the Attorney General

March 21, 2016 2 comments

Advocacy Funding Leadership

Senate Education Committee Hearing on SB 507

by Jennifer Bergland February 18, 2016

written by Jennifer Bergland

The Texas Senate Education Committee held a special hearing on February 10, 2016, in McAllen to discuss the placement of video cameras in self-contained special education classrooms as specified by SB 507. This bill was overwhelmingly approved by the Texas House of Representatives and was approved by the Texas Senate by a vote of 21-10.

Provisions of SB 507

Require districts to install video and audio equipment in classrooms in which a majority of the students in attendance are provided special education services, and are assigned to a self-contained classroom or other special education setting for at least 50% of the instructional day.
A request for this type of recording in a classroom is triggered by a parent, trustee, or staff member of a school district or open-enrollment charter school.
Video equipment must be able to record all areas of the classroom or special education setting, except the inside of a bathroom or any area in the classroom in which a student’s clothes are changed. Audio recording is still required in these areas.
Written notice must be given to all school or campus staff and to the parents of the students in the classroom prior to the installation of recording equipment.
Recording is only permissible while the conditions that triggered the request are still present.
The recording may not be used for the purpose of teacher evaluation; however, it may be used against district or school personnel if the recording is believed to document a possible violation of district or school policy.
The recordings must be maintained for at least six months.
The commissioner of education may make rules giving districts guidance in the implementation of this law.

Outstanding Questions:

When someone requests that a camera be placed in a classroom, does that require a district to put cameras in all classrooms covered by the bill?
Does a recording constitute an educational record, thus triggering FERPA requirements which would require the storage of the recording for much longer than six months?
When will the commissioner’s rules be available for public comment?

What Was Learned at the Hearing:

TEA has had one stakeholder meeting to gather input before the commissioner makes his rules. At the stakeholder meeting, TEA indicated that the commissioner’s rules would probably not address whether a request for video recording would trigger one classroom or multiple classrooms. They also indicated that the rules would not address how much time a district has to comply with a request due to infrastructure or budget availability. At the hearing, TEA indicated that the proposed rules will not be available for comment for at least four weeks.

Janna Lilly, Director of Government Relations for TCASE, provided testimony about the challenges and concerns that districts have with the implementation of SB 507. She made it clear that districts are eager to comply with the law, but that districts need clarification regarding implementation of the law. One of the biggest challenges districts are facing is whether one request triggers the installation of video and audio recording equipment in multiple classrooms or just that one. She predicted that the cost projection for the equipment is between $3,000 to $3,500 a classroom. If districts must install this equipment in multiple classrooms, it could be a large financial burden on many districts. She urged the committee to consider appropriating additional funding in the 85th Legislature for districts to implement SB 507.

The senators on the Senate Education committee expressed their frustration that TEA has not released the proposed rules by now. Since student safety prompted this law, the senators want districts to have as much information as they need to implement the bill by the beginning of the 2016-2017 school year, as required. They also were adamant that they never intended one request to trigger multiple rooms across the district, nor did they consider the recordings to be considered an educational record. They also suggested that districts look for grants or gifts to be given for the purpose of camera and audio equipment installation.

District and Stakeholder Input:

I see two avenues to impact the implementation of SB 507. First, when the rules are posted, provide feedback to TEA. The commissioner and TEA staff will use this input to help edit and shape the rules. Second, contact your senator and let them know of your concerns, especially if they are on the Senate Education Committee. Senator Van Taylor stated that this law is at the top of the list of bills with which his superintendents are concerned. He indicated that their concerns involved cost, implementation, and privacy issues related to storing video of students. He was very much interested in getting answers to the questions that were posed by his superintendents from TEA.

The senators see this as a safety issue and thus are eager to get it implemented, but we can continue to engage them in conversations that will help inform the legislators of the questions and struggles districts are having in the implementation.

Senate Education Committee

Larry Taylor, Chairman

Eddie Lucio, Jr., Vice-Chairman