Relating to required reporting regarding a school district's school counseling program.
Summary
HB 3024 requires school districts to include additional information in the annual report on their school counseling programs. The bill expands the report to cover how many school counselors are assigned to each campus, how counselors spend their time between counseling duties and non-counseling duties, and information about district compliance with policies governing counselor duties and assessment-related tasks. It also requires the report to include the findings and conclusions from the district’s assessment of compliance with the relevant policy.
The bill is aimed at giving state and local education officials a clearer picture of whether school counselors are being used primarily for counseling services or for other administrative and testing-related work. The new reporting requirements would begin with the 2025-2026 school year, and the act would take effect either immediately upon a two-thirds vote or on September 1, 2025.
Impact
HB 3024 would amend Section 39.306 of the Texas Education Code to add detailed school counseling program reporting requirements for school districts. It would not directly change counselor staffing mandates, but it would require districts to collect and report more granular data on counselor assignments, time allocation, and compliance with counseling-program policies under Sections 33.005 and 33.006. The practical effect would be increased transparency and oversight for school counseling services, with potential implications for district staffing practices, counselor workload, and accountability reporting.
Sentiment
Based on the bill’s caption and lack of recorded opposition or committee testimony in the available materials, the bill appears to have a neutral-to-supportive policy posture focused on accountability and information gathering rather than controversy. The measure was referred to the House Public Education Committee, and no votes or transcript evidence indicate organized opposition or strong debate in the provided record.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the added administrative burden on school districts, which would need to track counselor time and compile more detailed compliance information for reporting. Another possible issue is how districts distinguish between counseling duties and non-counseling duties, especially where counselors assist with assessment instruments or other school operations. Supporters would likely view the bill as a transparency and workload-accountability measure, while any critics would likely focus on reporting costs, implementation complexity, and the possibility that the new requirements could be seen as duplicative of existing district oversight.