SB2185

Under existing law, a district unable to hire enough appropriately certified bilingual teachers can seek a one-year exception, with documentation of recruitment efforts and a plan to eliminate the need for the exception. It must use Texas Education Agency-approved alternatives during the exception. SB2185 does not erase those conditions: TEA reviews those districts and approves recipients of the new allotment for each biennium, selecting a cross-section of the state to the extent possible and keeping the combined allotment at no more than $10 million for that biennium. Approval is not automatic for every district with an exception. Existing exception requirements; Final law, new 48.105(a-1).

For qualifying students in average daily attendance in an approved alternative one-way or two-way dual-language immersion model at an approved district, the annual allotment is the basic allotment multiplied by 0.15 for an emergent bilingual student and 0.05 for a student outside that category. “Emergent bilingual” refers to a student whose primary language is not English and whose English skills make ordinary classwork in English difficult. These are school-funding weights, not $0.15 or $0.05 payments to families, and not funding for every alternative language method. Final law, new 48.105(a-2); Student definition.

For implementing the allotment, TEA may require districts with exceptions to report additional information about their alternative methods and use TEA-specified classifications in the statewide student-data system, despite the existing classification provision. SB2185 retains the requirement to use at least 55 percent of the section’s funds for bilingual education or special language programs, but broadens the permitted teacher-pay use from salary supplements to teacher salaries. It does not make the allocation unrestricted money. Final law, sections 1–2; Prior reporting classifications; Prior allotment and spending restrictions.

Changes during passage: The five bill versions have the same operative text. Both indexed third-reading amendments failed on May 20 and did not become law. Mary González proposed specified recruitment, stipends, certification assistance, staffing and program measures in exception plans, plus annual updates and progress reports. Guerra proposed administrator training resources and stronger TEA monitoring, assistance and reporting authority. Those failed proposals must not be confused with SB2185’s enacted, narrower data-reporting authority. González amendment; Guerra amendment; Failed dispositions; Introduced; Senate committee; Senate-passed; House committee; Final law; Version index.

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Selected districts can receive support for approved alternatives despite bilingual-teacher shortages and gain flexibility to pay teacher salaries. The statewide cap and TEA approval limit access; districts may have additional reporting work. The act does not guarantee that a particular district receives funding or that teacher shortages or student learning gaps disappear. Final law.

The May 7 fiscal note anticipates no significant state fiscal implication and assumes costs can be absorbed within existing resources; it specifically identifies additional local reporting. The April 7 note agrees. The separate equalized-funding statement anticipates no significant effect on equalized funding requirements or policies. These estimates do not turn the $10 million biennial ceiling into an annual appropriation or a promised award to each district. Later fiscal note; Introduced fiscal note; Equalized-funding statement.