The problem isn't with the law. The problem is that there are no teeth to the law.
If a district is out of compliance with this law, nothing happens to them.
Kids can be pulled left and right from classes, and all it takes is one admin more concerned about test scores than a law with no consequences (read: most of them) and nothing can be done on the part of the electives.
There are in fact zero statutory consequences for breaking this law. TEA may choose to investigate - that's it. There's nothing about withholding an administrative certificate, or decertifying a district, or funding changes - nothing. There are zero consequences to being out of compliance at the middle school level. At the high school level, when credits and graduation are impacted, there are some political concerns, but still - without self-reporting, no one's checking!
Add to that the fact that an admin can change the name of a band course to "elective" and the kid can be put anywhere, at any time, and still be in their correct "course" - even if it means they're missing their normal band class.
Furthermore, consider this. Many districts now include a line/page in their enrollment paperwork authorizing these pullouts. Are parents adequately informed of everything they're signing when they have a packet of thirty forms to sign at the start of the year?
The problem hasn't gone away, Mr. Coachman. It's in fact gotten worse in most districts.
This legislative solution is window dressing. Without oversight, which TEA lacks the ability (and mandate) to perform, this will never improve.
TMEA did in 2013! The law is not only tied to credit but also final grade. https://www.tmea.org/resources/music-education-in-the-law/legislation/student-pull-out
What the Law Says
In the section of the education code relevant to school day interruptions (Section 25.083), it specifically states the following. This section is effective starting with the 2013–2014 school year:
The board of trustees of each school district shall adopt and strictly enforce a policy limiting the removal of students from class for remedial tutoring or test preparation.
A district may not remove a student from a regularly scheduled class for remedial tutoring or test preparation if, as a result of the removal, the student would miss more than 10 percent of the school days on which the class is offered, unless the student’s parent or another person standing in parental relation to the student provides to the district written consent for removal from class for such purpose.
What It Means
This language requires local boards of education to both recognize and address the issue. Further, it states that parents must be involved in the decision-making process of extending the days a student is removed for the express purpose of remediation and test preparation. No longer can the principal or counselor make that decision on his or her own.
In the section of the code that speaks to minimum attendance for class credit [25.092 (a)-(d)], the language has been amended to clearly state that this ten percent limitation without parent permission applies to grades K–12, and it addresses not just credit but credit or final grade. Since only high schools deal with credits, middle and elementary school principals quite often have interpreted the law to mean that it did not apply to them or their students, despite the fact that TEA legal counsel had ruled that credit and grade were synonymous in law. Again, the law now clearly states that a student may not receive credit or final grade if they exceed the absence limits without parental consent.