I received a message after last
week’s blog post from a former teacher who expressed that she had no idea Texas
has had a Paperwork Reduction Act on the books since 1997. Funny, I thought; it
seems there are countless administrators in the state who don’t know,
either. (Shout out to those who do and
who follow it!)
In Part I on this topic, I
addressed the 2015 Ysleta ISD. v. Porter, et al. case heard by the Texas Court
of Appeals and the analysis of the case by attorney Martha P. Owen, who also
serves as general counsel for Texas AFT.
The three teachers involved in the
case, Edith Porter, Jennifer Adams, and Rita Vasquez, argued that the list of
components required on their lesson plans—TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and
Skills) objectives, TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, the state’s
standardized test, which has since been replaced by the STAAR) objectives,
lesson objectives, lesson activities and strategies, assessment and cognitive
level, differentiated activities and/or modifications for special populations,
and homework—went well beyond the Paperwork Reduction Act’s requirement that
high school lesson plans consist of a “brief and general outline.” (Originally, the teachers had to write out
every TEKS objective, but later, the district decided they only had to write
the number of the objective, which weakened this argument.) Owen wrote in her analysis about the Court of
Appeals’ decision that “…it determined that a school district may only require
that a teacher write a plan that ‘outlines the information presented, which by
definition includes what is taught and the activities used to teach the
lesson.’” Thus, the teachers based
their second argument in their appeal on the fact that some lesson plan
components administrators required them to include did not meet the standard of
“information presented.”
Owen explained that the teachers
lost their first argument because their lesson plan template was electronic,
allowing them to “cut and paste” some required elements. The court also rejected the teachers’
argument that proper interpretation of the state statute regarding the Paperwork
Reduction Act (TEC Sec. 11.164 ) indicates that teachers should decide what
goes in the lesson plan, not administrators, and that the district could not
require them to use a template.
However, the Court of Appeals sided
with the teachers regarding some of their required lesson plan components. Owen’s analysis explained the court’s ruling
that TEKS and TAKS objectives could be required “because there was evidence
that these objectives were taught to the students.” Resources the teachers needed for the
activities could also be required.
The components the district could
not require, the Court of Appeals ruled, because they do not meet the standard
of “information presented” were assessments, differentiated activities and/or
modifications for special populations, and cognitive level.
Last year, a teacher sent an email
to me asking if her school/district could require her to write the ELPS
(English Language Proficiency Standards for English Language Learners) in her
lesson plans. I contact Texas AFT for an
answer to this, and received a response from Jamie Womack, later confirmed by
Owen. Jamie wrote that because “ELPS are
considered part of the TEKS,” they could be required. Owen agreed, though she
wrote, “…it does seem like a fairly close question, and I can understand the
argument going both ways. However, I go
back to the core holding in the lawsuit, which is that the district may not
require the inclusion of information that is neither taught nor describes the
activities that will be used to teach the subject matter. So, as Jamie said,
since ELPS are part of the required curriculum, it seems like, on balance, a
challenge to the ELPS inclusion requirement would likely not succeed.”
In the final analysis, according to
the court decision, what can and cannot be required in a Texas teacher’s lesson
plan? Remember the standard: Is it presented/taught to the students in
class and/or is it an activity used to teach the students in class?
TEKS
and STAAR (the TAKS replacement) objectives?
Yes
Lesson
activities, strategies, and resources?
Yes
Assessment
and cognitive level? No
Differentiated
activities and/or modifications for special populations? No
Homework? The court did not address this in it’s
decision; however, I would say it does not meet the standard of “information
presented.” Thus, I would say NO!
Chris
Ardis retired in May of 2013 following a 29-year teaching career. She now helps
companies with business communications and social media and works as a sales
coordinator for Tony Roma's and Macaroni Grill. Chris can be reached at
cardis1022@aol.com. (Photo by Sarina Manahan)
No comments:
Post a Comment