House Bill 1456 was filed for the 89th Texas Legislature on November 22, 2024 by Representative Jared Patterson. Representative Patterson is a Republican representing House District 106. His district covers parts of Denton county.

Creating the Office

HB 1456 would amend Subtitle E, Title 2 of the Texas Education Code by adding Chapter 26A. The bill create an Office of Inspector General to investigate complaints by parents of children enrolled in public school and direct the Texas Education Agency to provide staff and administrative resources to support investigations.

Section. 26A.002 (c) The agency shall provide staff and administrative resources and support services as necessary to ensure investigations authorized by this chapter are conducted expeditiously.

Currently, the Texas Education Agency is authorized to investigate school districts and charter schools under Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code (TEC 39.003). The Special Investigations Unit investigates complaints referred by the Agency’s Complaints Management Division.

General Responsibilities

House Bill 1456 specifies the general responsibilities of the Office of Inspector General include investigating complaints received by parents of children enrolled in public school regarding issues related to the Texas Education Agency, the State Board of Education, or a school district or open-enrollment charter school.

Sec. 26A.051. GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES. (a) The office is responsible for the investigation of complaints received from parents of children enrolled in public school regarding issues involving the agency, the State Board of Education, or a school district or open-enrollment charter school.

Exclusion of Private Schools and ESAs

One notable aspect of HB 1456 is that it does not extend its jurisdiction to organizations that receive state monies, including private schools funded through Education Savings Accounts (ESAs). This means that complaints related to private schools or ESAs would not fall under the purview of the Office of Inspector General.

This exclusion raises important questions about the oversight and accountability of private schools and ESAs. While public schools and their employees are subject to investigation by the Office of Inspector General, private schools and ESAs remain outside this framework, potentially leading to a lack of uniform accountability across the education sector.

Pro-school choice advocates emphasize the importance of parental rights. They argue that if ESAs give parents choice but with that choice comes the consequences of less protections for their children. HB 1456 leaves parents with less protections for their children than those attending public school students. However, these advocates also resist adding language that requires private schools to be subject to this oversight, fearing that such regulations might deter private schools from accepting public funds. They prefer to allow private schools to operate without the stringent regulations imposed on public schools, which they argue can stifle innovation and flexibility.

Precedents from Other States

In other states, there is precedent for requiring organizations that take public monies to adhere to public school requirements. Several states have implemented measures to ensure that private schools receiving public funds are subject to state regulations. Here are some notable examples:

Several states have implemented measures to ensure that private schools receiving public funds are subject to state regulations. Here are some notable examples:

1. Wisconsin: The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program requires participating private schools to comply with certain state regulations, such as standardized testing and reporting requirements.
2. Arizona: Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESAs) mandate that private schools accepting ESA funds meet specific state requirements, including accreditation and annual testing.
3. Florida: The Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program obligates participating private schools to adhere to state guidelines, such as background checks for staff and financial accountability.
4. Ohio: Ohio’s EdChoice Scholarship Program requires private schools accepting vouchers to comply with state regulations, including academic performance standards and financial audits.

Conclusion

The exclusion of private schools and ESAs from the jurisdiction of the Office of Inspector General under HB 1456 highlights a significant gap in the oversight of educational institutions receiving public funds in Texas. While other states have established frameworks to ensure accountability and compliance for private schools using public money, Texas’s current approach may leave some areas unregulated. This discrepancy calls for a reevaluation of how educational funds are monitored to ensure fairness and quality across all types of schools.

Resources

• HB 1456 (Texas Legislature Online)
• Representative Jared Patterson (Texas House of Representatives)
• Chapter 39 of the Texas Education Code
• Special Investigations Unit (Texas Education Agency)

Stay Connected

• Visit Us on X: x.com/txmessenger
• Visit Us on Facebook: facebook.com/txmessenger
• Join the Roundtable: facebook.com/groups/txmroundtable
• Visit Us on Instagram: instagram.com/txmessenger1