Texas Education Agency

Overview

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) provides oversight and administrative functions for all public schools, including state and federal funds distribution, data collection, and federal and state compliance monitoring.1 Separate from TEA, the State Board of Education (SBOE) consists of 15 elected members representing different regions of the state and assists the agency though setting policies and standards, including curriculum and instructional materials.2

The Commissioner of Education leads TEA and is appointed by the governor. The Commissioner is supported by 10 deputy commissioners and numerous associate commissioners, division directors, and agency staff. Deputy commissioners oversee offices at TEA which vary in responsibility and are composed of departments, divisions, and programs. There is not one particular office within TEA solely dedicated to school mental health. Instead, various divisions and programs addressing school mental health exist across multiple offices.

Created in 1967, Education Service Centers (ESCs) provide services, support, and technical assistance to school districts within their region, including special education and behavioral support.3 ESCs are not a regulatory body, do not have tax levying or bonding authority, and district participation is voluntary. The purpose of ESCs is to assist districts improve student performance, operate more efficiently and economically, and implement initiatives assigned by the legislature or the commissioner.4 Public and charter schools and ESCs are collectively known as local education agencies (LEAs).

TEA has incrementally incorporated school mental health at the state level. The agency created a Supportive School division within the Office of School Safety and Security and has launched a Texas School Mental Health website. Supported by a SAMHSA grant and in partnership with the Texas Institute for Excellence in Mental Health (TIEMH) at the Steve Hicks School of Social Work at The University of Texas at Austin, the website can be accessed at https://schoolmentalhealthtx.org/.

While past legislative sessions have resulted in statewide mandates to implement numerous mental health policies, procedures, and initiatives in schools, neither TEA nor LEAs have ever received dedicated funds to implement them. Without consistent, dedicated funding, there is considerable variation of mental health and/or substance use services and programs across schools in Texas. Many across the state have sought out funding independently or use educational dollars to implement policies and procedures, as well as offer direct services to support mental health and well-being within their schools.

Texas Public School Funding

The Texas Constitution mandates “the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.”5 Over the last decade, how to finance the public school system has been a prominent topic in the Texas legislature. Texas public school funding is multifaceted, figured through weights, values, and formulas, and provided through three main sources: local property taxes, state funds, and federal funds. The majority of funding to schools comes from local and state funds and is distributed to school districts through the Foundation School Program (FSP).

The FSP is administered by TEA and determines the amount of state and local funding provided to individual school districts under state school finance law.6,7 The amount distributed through the FSP is determined by a system of complex formulas in order to meet its statutory goals: guarantee each school district in the state has adequate resources to provide a basic instructional program deemed acceptable under the state’s accountability system, provide facilities suitable to student educational needs, and provide access to substantially equalized enrichment.8

One component of the FSP supports the school’s maintenance and operations (M&O) such as salaries and utilities. M&O consists of two tiers of funding: Tier 1 provides a basic educational program for all students based primarily on student count and attributes, and Tier 2 for enrichment programs.9 Tier 1 makes up the majority of M&O funding, and is comprised of a variety of allotments, including the Basic Allotment based on Average Daily Attendance (ADA).10 The basic allotment and attendance-based funding are two statutorily guided issues fervently debated within the school funding conversation.

Significant changes to Texas’s school finance system began during the 86th legislative session through the passage of HB 3 (Huberty/Taylor). HB 3 received diverse responses by advocates, ranging from celebration to concerns.11,12 Among its provisions, the basic allotment was increased to $6,160 per student.13 HB 1525 (Huberty/Taylor) made additional changes to the school finance system the following session.14,15

According to TEA, “the basic allotment is the legislatively mandated apportionment of funds from the general revenue funds that goes to each school district to provide a basic level of education for the district’s residents.”16 However, various funding weights can adjust this amount to account for additional needs to educate certain student populations or a district’s characteristics. These formulas are also known as allotments. Examples include the “small/mid-size district allotment” which adjusts funding based on the district’s size and the “compensatory education allotment” which adjusts funding based on the degree of student’s economic disadvantage.17

Other allotments do not impact the basic allotment amount, but are dedicated funds provided for statutorily allowable uses based on student count. There are over 20 allotments calculated by student count, often measured by ADA or student enrollment. ADA is the funding based on attendance, or the number of students, on average, who attend school each day, whereas student enrollment is the number of students enrolled, regardless of attendance.18 There is disagreement whether school funding should be based on attendance: some arguing it is inequitable and prevents predictable budgeting for districts, while others argue it’s an incentive for schools to ensure kids are present, and are unsure if tax dollars should be allocated to a student not in attendance.19

During the 2020-21 school year, Texas spent approximately $4,000 less per student than the national average.20 While still less than the national average, Texas moved to close the gap during the 2021-22 school year, investing approximately $14,900 per student compared to the national average of $16,300.21,22 During the 88th legislative session, Texas did not increase funds to the basic allotment, but instead made investments to decrease local property taxes and increase appropriations for both the materials and school safety allotments. 23

More information on state funding for schools is provided by TEA’s State Funding Division.

Texas Public Funding Education by Source: FY 2018-2324

Organizational Chart

To see the Texas Education Agency organizational chart, visit this page.

Fast Facts

  • During the 2022-23 school year, there were 9,045 public school campuses within 1,209 school districts and charter schools.25
    In the 2022-23 school year, 5,518,432 students were enrolled in Texas public schools.26
  • During the 2022-23 school year, 703,358 school-aged children were enrolled in special education services.27
  • Roughly 5.7 percent of students receiving special education services in 2022-23 had a primary diagnosis of emotional disturbance.28
    During the 2022-23 school year, almost three million students were considered at-risk and over three million were considered economically disadvantaged.29
  • In 2021, nearly one in two youth (45 percent) in Texas felt sad and hopeless for a prolonged period of time in the previous 12 months – a 16 percent increase from 2019 and a 53 percent increase from 2011.30
    One in eight Texas high school students reported attempting suicide in 2021, almost twice the national average, and more than one in five students reported seriously considering suicide.31
  • Less than half of youth (43 percent) felt like they mattered to people in their communities, an 18 percent decrease from 2019.32
    As of spring 2023, 3rd and 8th grade reading STAAR scores have increased compared to pre-COVID scores, while math STAAR scores has decreased.33
    Stress and trauma are known to impact concentration, memory, motivation, and decision-making – affecting the ability to learn.34
  • The Texas School Safety Center (TxSSC) conducts safety and security audits of independent school districts every three years and compiles the results in a District Audit Report (DAR), inclusive of a survey on the use of their School Safety Allotment (SSA) funds.35
  • From 2020-2023, ISDs report a portion of their SSA funds were used on:
    Behavioral health services by 6.4 percent of districts, a decrease from 8 percent during 2017-2020, and
  • Mental health personnel and support by 8.5 percent of districts, a decrease from 12 percent during 2017-2020.36
  • When needed, students are 21 times more likely to visit a school-based mental health service than a community mental health center.37

  • In FY 2022, 942 school districts were enrolled as Medicaid providers through the School Health and Related Services (SHARS) program.38 Of the 942 school districts:
    • 371 billed Medicaid for counseling services;
      543 billed Medicaid for psychological services; and
    • 249 billed Medicaid for both counseling and psychological services.39
  • Over 600,000 children in Texas were suspended, expelled, or placed in an alternative education program more than 1.6 million times during the 2022-23 school year.40
  • More than one in 10 Texas students were suspended, expelled, or placed in an alternative education program during the 2022-23 school year.41 The leading cause was due to a local code of conduct violation and made up over 69 percent of removals.42
  • During the 2022-23 academic year, 49 percent of districts that participated in the Texas School Health Survey (TSHS) did not require health education as a graduation requirement.43
  • During the 2022-23 school year, over 42 percent of schools that participated in the TSHS Survey answered “no” or “other (please specify)” when asked if a suicide prevention program or curriculum from the Suicide Prevention Resource Center’s best practice registry was used.44
  • TEA publishes data on school staff and salaries.45 During the 2023-24 school year, statewide totals of mental health professionals in Texas schools were:
    • 1,146 social workers (including 21 licensed clinical social workers (LCSW));
    • 14,073 school counselors;
    • 2,158 LSSPs/psychologists;
    • 197 licensed professional counselors (LPC); and
    • 73 psychological associates.
  • National professional associations recommend the following staff to student ratios: 46
    • Social worker – 250:1;
    • Licensed specialist in school psychology (LSSP) – 500:1; and
    • School counselor – 250:1.
  • During the 2020-21 school year, the Texas American Federation of Teachers reported that 70 percent of teachers in Texas were considering leaving the profession.47
  • Over 45,000 Texas teachers left their job during the 2023-24 school year.48
  • Supporting mental health in schools and improving the school’s climate leads to teachers feeling better supported, higher rates of job satisfaction and teaching efficacy, healthier classroom environments and student-teacher relationships, and lower levels of stress.49,50

Policy Concerns

  • Lack of dedicated state funding for school climate and student mental health to TEA and school districts.
  • School’s financial strains to maintain programs as federal COVID-19 relief funding ends.
  • Politicization of student mental health supports in schools and other schoolwide and classroom practices that support safe and supportive learning environments.
  • Conflating school safety and mental health, which can unintentionally increase mental health stigma.
  • School Safety Allotment funding is almost exclusively used for school hardening, despite discretionary uses inclusive of mental health and school climate.
  • Sustainable funding for the Uvalde community for grief, trauma, and other community-based needs.
  • Ensuring timely access to community-based mental health care after a student receives a TCHATT referral.
  • Supporting and increasing partnerships between community-based mental health programs and schools.
  • Sustainability of mental health programs and services provided through federal funding.
  • Ensuring all students feel safe and supported when attending school, regardless of ability, age, gender, religion, sexual identity, race, or ethnicity.
  • Allowing schools to receive reimbursement for providing mental health services to any student who is a Medicaid recipient under the current SHARS program.
  • Reinstating school-based health center funding after funding reductions through DSHS.
  • Implementing Safe and Supportive School Programs (SSSP) and teams.
  • Relaxed requirements for the composition of SSSP teams, allowing schools to operate teams without mental health expertise to participate in the evaluation of students’ reported behaviors.
  • SSSP team outcomes collections remain delayed due to COVID-19.
  • Ensuring the availability of appropriate resources and supports for teachers and staff to promote and support their mental health and well-being.
  • Ensuring sufficient time and resources to provide trauma-informed care training to teachers and other school personnel.
  • Inadequate funding prioritized for mental health professionals in schools, leading to a severe gap in professional-to-student ratios across the state.
  • Ensuring accurate definitions of classroom and school-wide practices that support the mental health and well-being of students and teacher.
  • Lack of transparency in statewide discipline data.
  • Collecting more information on classroom removals due to the disproportionality of classroom removals coded as a violation of local code of conduct.
  • Addressing the current disproportionate number of exclusionary disciplinary measures for students receiving special education services and students of color.
  • Ensuring that the mental health and well-being of all students is protected when attending school, regardless of ability, age, gender, religion, sexual identity, race, or ethnicity.
  • Addressing current punitive policies for students who may have substance use concerns, particularly youth in foster care and youth experiencing homelessness who are often removed from the classroom, given out-of-school suspension, or an expulsion without other interventions or supports.
  • Impacts of punitive mandatory classroom removals for vaping.
  • Increasing state funding for Communities in Schools, which is yet to be implemented across the entire state.
  • Increasing mental health support for teachers and other school staff.

Legislative Overview

Leading into the 88th session, many anticipated concerted legislative and budgetary efforts around school mental health as part of a comprehensive approach to create safe and supportive learning environments within Texas public schools. There were numerous conversations on mental health and school safety, however many who advocated for significant changes following the horrific mass shooting at Robb Elementary in Uvalde on May 24, 2022, were disappointed in legislation and funding almost exclusively focused on hardening. Throughout the regular session and subsequent four special sessions, various legislative endeavors to create school choice or Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), also known as “school vouchers”, were dominant in public education’s budget, policy conversations, and legislative hearings.

One issue garnering bipartisan support and commendable attention was opioid use prevention and education within schools. Increased reports of youth deaths resulting from unknown fentanyl ingestion has been an increasing topic of conversation and heart-breaking news coverage, subsequently leading to legislators’ willingness to work on solutions together. While it’s imperative to address this issue, continued work is needed to ensure drug-related deaths or substance use prevention is broad and encompassing of any and all prevention, education, and support, regardless of substance. Other policy ideas related to mental health, such as allowing schools to receive Medicaid-reimbursement for behavioral health services, excused absences for mental health, and creating a dedicated school mental health allotment were left unfinished.

Passed

HB 3 (BURROWS/NICHOLS) – OMNIBUS SCHOOL SAFETY BILL

Comprehensive school safety bill, among its provisions include updates to facilities standards; mental health trainings of all employees that regularly interact with students; a requirement to have an armed person on each campus; the establishment of the Office of School Safety and Security at TEA; and updates the funding formula for the School Safety Allotment to be $10/student + $15,000/campus annually (~$330M/biennium).

HB 763 (MIDDLETON/HEFNER) – CHAPLAIN SUPPORT IN SCHOOLS

Authorizes employment or volunteering by a chaplain to provide support, services, and programs for students in school districts and charter schools and requires background checks to ensure they are not a registered sex offender. A vote on whether to enact this option is required by each board of trustees within six months of bill passage. Includes chaplain employment as an allowable use of school safety allotment funds.

HB 900 (PATTERSON/PAXTON) – SCHOOL LIBRARY BOOKS RULES

Restricts access to books in school libraries by prohibiting acquisition, limiting access, and defining “obscenity” in a broad manner. Requires publishers to determine what books constitute “sexually explicit” and “sexually relevant.”

HB 3908 (WILSON/CREIGHTON) – FENTANYL PREVENTION AND DRUG POISONING AWARENESS EDUCATION 6TH-12TH

Requires each school district to annually provide research-based instruction related to fentanyl abuse prevention and drug poisoning awareness to students in grades 6 through 12, and requires a week determined by the governor to be designated as Fentanyl Poisoning Awareness Week.

SB 629 (MENÉNDEZ/TALARICO) – OPIOID ANTAGONISTS ON SCHOOL CAMPUSES AND OFF-CAMPUS SCHOOL EVENTS

Requires each public school district to adopt a policy regarding the maintenance, administration, and disposal of opioid antagonists for schools serving students in grades 6 through 12. The bill gives private schools, charter schools, and schools not serving students in grades 6 through 12 the option to adopt such a policy.

SB 798 (MIDDLETON/BUCKLEY) – SCHOOL COUNSELOR CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

Repeals the requirement that a candidate for certification of a school counselor must have prior experience as a classroom teacher.

Did Not Pass

HB 98 (MOODY/MENÉNDEZ)- MEDICAID REIMBURSEMENT THROUGH SHARS

Would have allowed school districts to bill Medicaid for providing behavioral health services to all students enrolled in Medicaid under the SHARS program.

HB 316 (BERNAL) – SOCIAL WORK SERVICES IN SCHOOLS

Would have defined school social work services within the Texas Education Code.

HB 516 (WU) – DATA REPORT ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND DISCPLINE

Would have required school districts to collect and report certain disciplinary or law enforcement actions taken against students, disaggregated by demographic information.

HB 1157/SB 1101 – (LOZANO/PAXTON) – EXCUSED ABSENCES FOR MENTAL HEALTH CARE

Would have clarified that mental health appointments can be excused absences when a student returns to school same day with documentation.

HB 1537 (HOWARD)- STATEWIDE HANDLE WITH CARE AUTHORIZATION

Would have authorized school districts to partner with law enforcement agencies to create “Handle with Care” programs, allowing law enforcement to provide confidential notices to schools if students were involved in a traumatic interaction outside of school hours. Would have required TEA to develop resources and training materials for school districts to create this process.

HB 2451/SB 948 (ALLISON/WEST) – CREATION OF A MENTAL HEALTH ALLOTMENT

Would have created a “school mental health allotment” for schools to receive dedicated funding to implement mental health and other positive school climate policies, programs, and services.

HB 4449/SB 2395 (REYNOLDS/WEST) – ESTABLISHMENT OF A TASK FORCE ON DISCIPLINE

Would have established a task force to study, evaluate, and make recommendations for policies and practices relating to student discipline in public schools.

SB 891 (ZAFFIRINI) – EXCUSED ABSENCES FOR A STUDENT’S MENTAL OR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

Would have required school districts to allow up to five excused absence days for mental or behavioral health treatment with documentation. Would allow districts to adopt a policy for excused mental health days without documentation.

Funding

TEA Funding Trends: All Funds 51,52,53,54

TEA Funding by Method of Finance (FY2024-25) 55

References

  1. Texas Education Agency. (n.d.). Leadership. Retrieved March 4, 2024 from https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/leadership ↩︎
  2. Texas Education Agency. (n.d.). State Board of Education. Retrieved March 4, 2024 from https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/leadership/state-board-of-education ↩︎
  3. Texas Education Agency. (n.d.) Education service centers. Retrieved March 4, 2024 from https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/other-services/education-service-centers ↩︎
  4. Ibid. ↩︎
  5. Tex. Const. art. VII, § 1. ↩︎
  6. Copeland, A., Kingsley, R., Lopez, L., Marx, D., McKenzie, A., Petrusso, A., & Rainey, N. (2020). Texas public school finance review. Texas Education Agency, Office of School Finance. https://tea.texas.gov/finance-and-grants/state-funding/foundation-school-program/fsp-manuals/texas-public-school-finance-overview.pdf ↩︎
  7. Texas Association of School Business Officials. (2024). Texas school finance basics. https://www.tasbo.org/uploads/files/general/Policy-and-Research/TASBO-Texas-School-Finance-Basics-2024.03.13.pdf ↩︎
  8. Pace, S. (2022). An introduction to school finance in Texas, 5th edition. Texas Taxpayers and Research Association. https://www.ttara.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/IntroToSchoolFinance_Fifth_Edition_2022.pdf ↩︎
  9. Texas Association of School Business Officials. (2024). Texas school finance basics. https://www.tasbo.org/uploads/files/general/Policy-and-Research/TASBO-Texas-School-Finance-Basics-2024.03.13.pdf ↩︎
  10. Texas Education Agency. (2024). 2023 annual report. https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/news-and-multimedia/annual-reports/tea-annual-report-2023.pdf ↩︎
  11. Villanueva, C.K. (2021). A new division in school finance: High-taxing vs low-taxing school districts. https://everytexan.org/2021/01/27/a-new-division-in-school-finance/ ↩︎
  12. Pruneda, M.L. (2022). 8 reasons why school finance House Bill 3 is still worth bragging about. Texas 2036. https://texas2036.org/posts/8-reasons-why-school-finance-house-bill-3-is-still-worth-bragging-about/ ↩︎
  13. Texas Education Agency. (2019). House Bill 3. https://tea.texas.gov/hb3billsummary.pdf ↩︎
  14. Texas School Coalition. (2021). House Bill 1525 conference report. https://www.txsc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/HB-1525-CCR-Summary_May30.pdf ↩︎
  15. Texas Classroom Teachers Association. (n.d.) HB 1525 – shool finance (and more). Retrieved May 10, 2024 from https://www.tcta.org/hb-1525-school-finance-and-more ↩︎
  16. Office of School Finance. (2020). Basic allotment. Texas Education Agency. https://tea.texas.gov/finance-and-grants/state-funding/state-funding-manuals/basic-allotment-one-pager.pdf ↩︎
  17. Texas Association of School Business Officials. (2024). Texas school finance basics. https://www.tasbo.org/uploads/files/general/Policy-and-Research/TASBO-Texas-School-Finance-Basics-2024.03.13.pdf ↩︎
  18. Ibid. ↩︎
  19. Smith, C. & Richman, T. (2021, February 5). Why a Texas lawmaker wants to fund schools based on enrollment instead of attendance. The Dallas Morning News. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2021/02/05/why-a-texas-lawmaker-wants-to-fund-schools-based-on-enrollment-instead-of-attendance/ ↩︎
  20. National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Current expenditures per pupil in average daily attendance in public elementary and secondary schools, by state or surisdiction: selected school years, 1969-70 through 2020-21 [data set]. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d23/tables/dt23_236.70.asp ↩︎
  21. United States Census. (2024). How did COVID-19 affect school finances? [data set].  https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/how-did-covid-19-affect-school-finances.html ↩︎
  22. Texas Education Agency. (2023). TEA 2023 annual report. https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/news-and-multimedia/annual-reports/tea-annual-report-2023.pdf ↩︎
  23. Ibid. ↩︎
  24. Ibid. ↩︎
  25. Ibid. ↩︎
  26. Texas Education Agency. (2023). Enrollment in Texas public schools 2022-23. https://tea.texas.gov/reports-and-data/school-performance/accountability-research/enroll-2022-23.pdf ↩︎
  27. Texas Education Agency. (2023). TEA 2023 annual report. https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/news-and-multimedia/annual-reports/tea-annual-report-2023.pdf ↩︎
  28. Texas Education Agency. (2023).  2022-2023 Special Education reports, Students receiving special education by primary disability. https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/cgi/sas/broker?_service=marykay&_program=adhoc.std_driver1.sas&RptClass=SpecEd&_debug=0&SchoolYr=23&report=StateState&format=html ↩︎
  29. Texas Education Agency. (2023). Enrollment in Texas public schools 2022-23. https://tea.texas.gov/reports-and-data/school-performance/accountability-research/enroll-2022-23.pdf ↩︎
  30. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.).  Youth mental health in Texas, 2021 Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Retrieved December 16, 2024 from https://nccd.cdc.gov/youthonline/app/Results.aspx?LID=TX ↩︎
  31. Ibid. ↩︎
  32. Ibid. ↩︎
  33. Texas Education Agency. (2023). TEA 2023 annual report. https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/news-and-multimedia/annual-reports/tea-annual-report-2023.pdf ↩︎
  34. Saxton, J. (January 2021). Addressing learning loss by supporting student mental health in school settings. Texans Care for Children.https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5728d34462cd94b84dc567ed/t/601b0af5bcedb13fba45edab/1612385191323/js-brief-addressing-learning-loss.pdf ↩︎
  35. Martinez-Prather, K., Caldwell, J., White, S.R., & Dede-Bamfo, O. (2023). District audit report 2020-2023: Findings on safety and security in Texas school districts. Texas State Texas School Safety Center. https://locker.txssc.txstate.edu/cfa9cdc12a7a1a2d662f68d1c91b1a21/2020-2023-DAR-Report.pdf ↩︎
  36. Ibid. ↩︎
  37. American Civil Liberties Union. (2019). Cops and no counselors: How the lack of school mental health staff is harming students. https://www.aclu.org/report/cops-and-no-counselors ↩︎
  38. Data request by Collaborative Task Force for Public School Mental Health, 2020 ↩︎
  39. Texas Health and Human Services Commission. (October 2024). Open Records Request.   ↩︎
  40. Ibid. ↩︎
  41. Texas Education Agency. (2023). State level annual discipline summary: PEIMS discipline data for 2022-2023. https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/adhocrpt/Disciplinary_Data_Products/statewidediscipline.html ↩︎
  42. Ibid. ↩︎
  43. Texas Education Agency. (2023). School health survey summary 2022-2023. https://tea.texas.gov/academics/school-health-survey-summary.pdf ↩︎
  44. Ibid. ↩︎
  45. Texas Education Agency. (n.d.). Staff FTE counts and salary reports, 2023-2024 school year [dataset]. https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/adhocrpt/adpeb.html ↩︎
  46. The Collaborative Task Force on Public School Mental Health Services. (2023). Year 3 report. https://schoolmentalhealthtx.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Collaborative-Task-Force-on-Public-School-Mental-Health-Services-Year-3-Report.pdf ↩︎
  47. Texas State Teachers Association. (2022, August 8). TSTA survey indicates a record 70 percent of teachers on the verge of quitting as educator morale sinks; political attacks, pandemic, years of state neglect to blame [Press release]. https://tsta.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/080822-Moonlight-survey-results-PR.pdf ↩︎
  48. Texas Education Agency. (2023). Employed teacher attrition and new hires 2014-15 through 2023-24.  
    https://tea.texas.gov/reports-and-data/educator-data/employed-teacher-attrition-and-new-hires-2023-2024.pdf ↩︎
  49. Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2012). School climate and social–emotional learning: Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1189–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029356
    ↩︎
  50. Bradley, C., Cordaro, D. T., Zhu, F., Vildostegui, M., Han, R. J., Brackett, M., & Jones, J. (2018). Supporting improvements in classroom climate for students and teachers with the four pillars of wellbeing curriculum. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 4(3), 245-264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tps0000162 ↩︎
  51. Texas Legislature Online (2017). S.B. 1, General Appropriations Act, 85th Legislature, FY 2018-19. https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/85R/billtext/pdf/SB00001F.pdf#navpanes=0 ↩︎
  52. Texas Legislature Online (2019). H.B. 1, General Appropriations Act, 86th Legislature, FY 2020-21.  https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/billtext/pdf/HB00001F.pdf#navpanes=0 ↩︎
  53. Texas Legislature Online (2021). S.B. 1, General Appropriations Act, 87th Legislature, FY 2022-23. https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/SB00001F.pdf#navpanes=0 ↩︎
  54. Texas Legislature Online (2023). H.B. 1, General Appropriations Act, 88th Legislature, FY 2024-25. https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB00001F.pdf#navpanes=0 ↩︎
  55. Ibid. ↩︎

Updated on December 16th, 2024



To top