Van de Putte Asks Community Leaders/Parents to Testify Monday. The meeting will be at 10 AM Monday in Room E 1.036.

Excerpt:

Public hearings will start Monday morning on Shapiro's new school bill.

Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, said San Antonio community leaders and parents — not only school administrators — should show up.

"What I need is for people from the business community and parents to come and say, 'Do what's right. This is not enough money.' We have not been hearing that from the public," she said.
----------------------------------
Senate seeking public support with new bill

Web Posted: 07/29/2005 12:00 AM CDT

Gary Scharrer
Express-News Austin Bureau

AUSTIN — Unwilling to surrender on school finance, Senate leaders will roll out a new version of an education reform bill today in hopes of catching public support before the issue dies.

(Tom Reel/Express-News) Rep. Wayne Smith, R-Baytown, relaxes as business on the House floor in Austin slows down before a lunch break Thursday.
"We'll be going back to basics," Senate Education Chairwoman Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, said Thursday night after nearly five hours of closed door meetings as the Senate struggled to keep school reform alive.

Efforts to reform public education and taxes largely deflated earlier this week when the Texas House shot down both bills in spectacular fashion that defied the will of state leaders.

Senate leaders will try to craft a bill that increases public education spending by $1.4 billion a year and that gives local school districts more discretion. School superintendents have complained of unfunded mandates in proposed reform bills.

Public hearings will start Monday morning on Shapiro's new school bill.

Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, said San Antonio community leaders and parents — not only school administrators — should show up.

"What I need is for people from the business community and parents to come and say, 'Do what's right. This is not enough money.' We have not been hearing that from the public," she said.

Parents and others are only advocating for textbook funding and teacher pay raises, she said.

The Senate effort to write a new school bill faces long odds. The House would have to agree to concepts in the Senate approach already rejected. More importantly, the Senate plan hinges on a tax bill for which the House has shown little appetite.

Asked whether he'd seen anything to make him believe the House would pass a tax measure, House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, said, "Not at this point ... We'll keep trying, but that's where we are."

Even some senators are skeptical.

"We know how to fix the problem," said Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, D-McAllen. "The problem is we need more money for public education, and the (leaders) said, 'No,' so we're stuck."

Gov. Rick Perry wanted lawmakers to cut school property taxes, but the House voted 124-8 on Tuesday for a tax bill needed to finance property tax relief.

The school reform portion of the package did not include enough money to improve public education, according to many lawmakers and school groups.

The inability of lawmakers to fix the state's public school system is beginning to frustrate Texas parents and taxpayers, according to some grass-roots groups. Lawmakers have struggled unsuccessfully on school funding in four sessions.

"Parents are showing their frustration, teachers are showing their frustration and it's not about maintaining the status quo," said Anna Alicia Romero, spokeswoman for the Texas Latino Education Coalition.

The organization wants state lawmakers to make funding more equitable between property rich and poor school districts and also to increase the state's investment in public education.

"If our policy makers insist on skirting the issues of equity, not providing a classroom environment that's conducive to learning and that values all kids and if they are going to continue to punish teachers, we don't have a formula for success," Romero said. "We would rather have no bill passed than a bad bill."

The Texas House largely took that approach by throwing the summer's second special session into disarray with the resounding vote against a tax bill that Perry favored, designed primarily to increase sales and consumption taxes.

That came after House GOP leaders worked to kill a school reform bill when Democrats persuaded enough Republicans to amend it by steering more money to teacher pay and making its tax provisions friendlier to lower-and middle-income homeowners.

Although public opinion polls consistently show public support for higher teacher pay and more money for public education, state and legislative leaders have focused more on property tax cuts. Critics complain that many of the proposed reforms in the school bill would only saddle local school districts without giving them the money to pay for them.

In a guest column in the Express-News on Thursday, Devine school Superintendent Rickey Williams, a self-described Republican, said his "party has become the enemy of public education in Texas."

gscharrer@express-news.net

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA072905.1B.school_finance.1cede2b2.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:28 PM 5 comments Links to this post

I just saw this snippet by the Word Health Organization. This report on children is quite sobering. -Angela Pravda.RU:Society:More in detail
15:45 2003-04-07

Over five million children die annually across the world for reasons of unhealthy environment. These figures were cited at a news conference in RIA Novosti by Mikko Vienonen, a special envoy of the WHO director-general to Russia.

According to him, this is why a healthy living environment for children has been chosen as the watchword for the World Health Day on April 7.

Vienonen emphasised that adverse environmental factors are responsible for up to one-third of the entire global disease burden. What is more, it is estimated that children aged up to 5 suffer from this in 40 per cent of cases.

According to WHO, in the European region, the children risk exposure to over 15,000 harmful environmental factors. Among these are water pollution, road accidents, global climatic change, contaminated food and water, and radiation. These risks, acting together, cause such negative effects as asthma, nervous disturbances, and malignant growths. Particularly dangerous for the child population are allergy and asthma, said the WHO envoy. According to him, over the past decade the occurrence of asthma symptoms among children in the majority of European countries has more than doubled.

In Russia, between 1997-2001, the number of asthma cases likewise increased by 30 per cent, noted Vienonen. He also expressed concern over the quality of drinking water in the country.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 7:55 PM 1 comments Links to this post

Texas Latino Education Coalition to which LULAC belongs will be holding a news conference in Austin tomorrow, Thursday at 10:00 a.m. on the South steps of the Capitol (facing Congress Avenue). For those who are able to stay longer, teams will visit key legislators’ offices.

The visitor paid parking garage is located on San Jacinto and 12 streets. We need as many coalition members and other advocates to be there as possible!

Media Advisory – News Conference

Texas Latino Education Coalition to
Unveil Six Steps to Education Excellence


When: Thursday, July 28 • 10:00 a.m.

Where: South Capitol Steps, Austin
(parking at 12th Street and San Jacinto)

Why: Texas must stand by excellence, fairness and equity for all students. On Thursday, the Texas Latino Education Coalition will present six steps to education excellence.

Who: The Texas Latino Education Coalition is a collaborative of organizations and individuals who advocate the rights of Latinos at the local, state and national levels. Its mission is to improve public education for Latino children, which will impact the quality of education for all children.

Representing thousands of Texans, member organizations include: the Intercultural Development Research Association, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Mexican American School Board Members Association, the League of United Latin American Citizens, among many others.


Media contact: Christie L. Goodman, APR, at IDRA (210-444-1710)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
79th LEGISLATURE: SPECIAL SESSION II
Education community looks to the courts as lawmakers wonder what's next.
By Mark Lisheron, Ben Wear
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, July 28, 2005

Just maybe, local lawmakers said as they tried not to burn themselves on the wreckage of Tuesday's House session, the Legislature wasn't as close to the goal line with school finance and property tax relief as everyone thought.

As Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick met in private Wednesday at the Capitol to salvage something of the second special session, pessimism deepened among House members from both parties. The most hopeful lawmakers questioned the motives of their colleagues after House leaders rushed school funding and tax-swap legislation to their doom Tuesday.

The education community, having witnessed Tuesday's carnage on the House floor, sees little chance that Humpty Dumpty can be put back together again, either in this special session or any new session Perry might call.

They'd just as soon see the Legislature quit trying and wait for the Texas Supreme Court to provide direction. The court is expected to rule this fall whether the state's school finance system is constitutional.

"I would love to have something we could support and stand for, but I haven't seen it," said Clayton Downing, executive director of the Texas School Coalition, which represents the 140 or so districts that must share their property taxes with other districts. "And I don't have any hopes to see it."

Most everyone produced a villain. Lack of real leadership, the intransigence of Democrats, pressure from school superintendents, the intransigence of Republicans. The lack of consensus on what went wrong was symptomatic of the uncertainty about how to proceed expressed by House members Wednesday.

"For the first time, colleagues of mine were saying it's time to pack it up, go home and let the courts decide," Rep. Eddie Rodriguez, D-Austin, said, still not quite believing what he had seen the day before. "At some point, you have to ask if the governor calling us back is a political advantage. At some point, someone is going to blink. After yesterday, I stopped thinking about whether it's going to be the governor or the Legislature."

State Rep. Kent Grusendorf, R-Arlington, the author of the doomed House Bill 2, mused about the hopes of the education community Tuesday shortly before his bill came up for debate. HB 2 would have increased education spending and reduced redistribution of property taxes, though educators said that it fell short of what's needed and that the new money would have been eaten up by new mandates.

"They're betting on the courts," Grusendorf said. "That's been the dynamic all year long. They really believe the courts are going to give them a pot of gold."

The sequence of events Tuesday also presents questions about Craddick's commitment to school finance, former Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff said. It was Craddick who cast the tiebreaking vote to pass the bill in the first special session.

After Tuesday's vote, Craddick lamented that without three or four Republicans in attendance the measure couldn't be protected. A spokeswoman said Wednesday that support for the legislation vanished after it was changed on the House floor.

"In the past, whenever he has really needed them, he's been able to turn the screw and come up with 78 or 80 votes," Ratliff, a longtime Republican senator, said. "The question is, was this a failure of leadership, or maybe he didn't care whether he had the votes or not."


So close and yet so far


With these dissonant political messages being sent to the Republican majority in the House, the big surprise Wednesday was not in how negotiations collapsed, but how the House got as far and as close to working agreements as it did.

When the first special session on school finance ended last week, House and Senate negotiators had reached a deal on school spending and insisted they were close to agreement on raising sales taxes and expanding business taxes to pay for property tax cuts.

An amendment to the school spending proposal presented Tuesday by Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, though, demonstrated how far apart factions in the House truly were, Ratliff said.

Hochberg called for an additional $3.8 billion in school spending, to be funded by a reduction in the property tax relief the House had been working toward. It also called for raising residential homestead exemptions.

To the surprise of many in the House, not the least of whom was Hochberg, the amendment passed with bipartisan support. In short order, other amendments were added to the school finance bill, a vote was called for, and a majority in the House killed the bill. With school spending dead, the House overwhelmingly shot down its tax plan, too.

"It's a great study in how all politics is local," Ratliff said. "You had at least a sizable number of Republicans who wanted to go home and tell their people they voted for money for schools, teacher pay and an increase in the homestead exemption. Then when it came time to pay for it, you saw what happened."

In the space of an hour, Rep. Mark Strama, D-Austin, said he went from hopeful to hopeless. On Wednesday, he still could not be sure what the motives were for the votes taken in quick succession the day before. Strama was also not sure if there was any point in pressing on.

"Should we continue to try, the charge will be for the leadership to see if they can govern in a bipartisan fashion over the next couple of weeks," he said.


Better to wait?


Politicians on Wednesday could not even say for sure what effect pressure from the various factions of the education lobby had on the House collapse.

The Texas Association of School Administrators, which represents school superintendents, posted online notices Monday and Tuesday laying out what it saw as the flaws of the spending proposals and calling on members to contact legislators and express opposition to it.

"There ought to be a rule that you never have a special session on school finance in the summer," joked Brad Shields, an education lobbyist for school districts that depend on industrial property taxes. "Because all the teachers and superintendents are off, and they have lot of time to get involved."

Shields said that some legislators in recent days had been concerned about passing politically dangerous school finance and tax-swap legislation and spending most of the available new money on teacher raises. Then, they worried, the Texas Supreme Court might later force them to spend still more money on education, which could require a tax increase.

Better to wait for the court to rule first, the emerging consensus went, Shields said. Scott McCown, executive director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities and author of a key school finance decision in his earlier days as a district judge, said that opposition among educators was grounded in the bill's flaws, not a roll of the dice on the Supreme Court.

"There's a saying among trial lawyers that 'pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered,' " said McCown, whose group advocates for low- and middle-income families. In negotiating a final bill in the first special session and bringing parts of it back in this session, McCown said, the Legislature's Republican leaders overreached and stacked the deck too heavily for wealthy districts. And got slaughtered.

Superintendents across Central Texas voiced frustration Wednesday over legislators' inability to pass a school spending plan.

"It was a bad bill," said Kirk London, superintendent of the 10,000-student Hays Consolidated school district. "There was no credit given for us being a fast-growth district."

School officials said they fear legislators will make a hasty decision without thinking through all the consequences for districts. School officials also said legislators need to leave decisions, including school start dates, curriculum and incentive pay, up to local boards. Mandates in those areas were included in the failed legislation.

"I don't think our Legislature is necessarily all that concerned with education," said Tom Glenn, superintendent of the 20,000-student Leander school district. "I think they're concerned with taxation, and I'm sick of it."

Rep. Dan Gattis, R-Georgetown, is prepared to prove Glenn wrong. Gattis remains convinced that the nearness to a workable school finance bill was not an illusion. But Gattis is not naive.

"It took us three special sessions to get redistricting done, and that was purely political on both sides," Gattis said. "The schoolchildren of Texas and the taxpayers of Texas are more important than some political process. We had a temper tantrum yesterday. Now it's time to get back to work."


Additional material from staff writer Melissa Taboada

 
Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/shared/tx/legislature/stories/07/28LEGE.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 9:39 AM 0 comments Links to this post

School finance in this third legislative session is yet again on a very rocky road. At least the Hochberg amendment, despite Grusendorf's (the Committee Chair on Public Education in the House) objections shows promise. Check out this good quick read from the Burnt Orange Report . Also see yesterday's BO Report for more discussion on the Hochberg Amendment. -Angela

Measures backed by Republican leaders dealt bipartisan blow

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

By TERRENCE STUTZ and CHRISTY HOPPE / The Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN – House members slapped down Gov. Rick Perry and Republican leaders Tuesday, rejecting twin school finance bills and pushing the current special session to the brink of collapse.

In a chaotic day of debate and political maneuvering in the chamber, House members slammed the door on their leader's plans to solve the state's education funding crisis and provide property tax relief to millions of businesses and homeowners.

After the tax bill – which traded billions of dollars in school property tax cuts for higher state taxes on consumers, smokers and some businesses – was turned down by a lopsided vote of 124 to 8, GOP House leaders were left wondering what else could be done to salvage the special session, which began less than a week ago.

"We just didn't have the votes. We couldn't get 'em," said a disappointed House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland. "The members are worn out, and they've taken this vote multiple times. They're kind of fatigued voting on the same issues."

The current special session is the second in a row for lawmakers who failed to agree on school finance legislation in their regular session this year and in a subsequent special session that ended last week.

Asked whether lawmakers should just adjourn and go home, Mr. Craddick said, "That's not my decision." For now, he said, House members will continue to work on school finance and will consider other legislation on Thursday.

Mr. Perry said he was disappointed by the vote but noted that the special session lasts another 24 days. "I still believe where there is a will, there's a way. ... The Legislature cannot pass this great challenge to another day."

GOP leaders had hoped to lead the way Tuesday by passing the school finance bill and then following up with a tax swap measure.

But Mr. Craddick and his lieutenants suffered a rare defeat on the House floor when the chamber's 62 Democrats were joined by 14 Republicans in amending the Republican plan by providing more tax relief for homeowners, bigger pay raises for teachers and nearly twice as much new money for school districts.

Faced with legislation that suddenly included a tax shift to businesses and far more additional funding for schools than they felt was prudent, sponsors of the bill pulled the plug, first by accepting dozens of amendments that were never explained and then calling for a quick vote on the measure, which was rejected on a 79-62 vote. Most Republicans voted no.

Ironically, most Democrats – who were initially opposed to the legislation – supported the bill in the final vote.

"One more round in a never-ending saga," said a disappointed Rep. Kent Grusendorf, R-Arlington, after his bill went down to defeat. In the end, even he voted against it because of the changes made on the House floor.

'I don't think it's over'

Afterward, Mr. Grusendorf refused to sound the death knell for school finance. "You can only push it up that hill so many times, but I don't think it's over," he said.

The Senate is still working on its own version of the legislation, but the proposal has run into some opposition in the upper chamber. If the Senate passes a bill, it would then go to the House for consideration.

Mr. Grusendorf laid partial blame for defeat of the bill on school districts and education groups, who were almost universally opposed to the original measure because of what they complained was inadequate funding.

"I wish they had been for something instead of against everything," Mr. Grusendorf said.

After dumping the school finance bill – which also included several proposed reforms such as merit pay for teachers and a new mandatory starting date for the school year – House members took up the tax swap measure.

But after defeat of the school finance proposal, most members were predicting a similar demise for the tax bill, with its combination of higher sales and cigarette taxes, and closing of loopholes in the state's business franchise tax.

After considering a handful of amendments, sponsors called for a vote without the usual pleas for support to pass the legislation. The electronic voting board in the House immediately flashed a sea of red lights, signifying no votes from most members.

"We have to start over," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, after the vote.

Democratic leaders, who have vigorously opposed most of the Republican proposals for school finance and taxes, saw signs that the session was on its last legs.

"They appear to be wanting to throw in the towel," said Rep. Jim Dunnam of Waco, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

Clock is ticking

The state is under a court order to revamp the $33 billion-a-year funding system by Oct. 1 or see funding for all schools cut off until the job is done. That order by state District Judge John Dietz has been appealed by state officials to the Texas Supreme Court. The high court has held a hearing in the case, but is not expected to rule until late August or September.

Republican leaders initially tried to clear the way for quick approval of the school finance bill Tuesday by offering a motion – which failed – to cut off debate and all amendments shortly after sponsors laid out the legislation.

Opponents – mostly Democrats – vigorously objected to pushing such major legislation through the chamber without more careful examination.

'This is a mockery'

"This is a mockery," said Rep. Paul Moreno, D-El Paso. "What is being done by the speaker is totally a sham, a disgrace to the House."

Rep. Craig Eiland, D-Galveston, said, "If we don't have time to debate this school bill, we should not be here."

The Democratic minority and a group of Republicans offered changes opposed by Mr. Grusendorf and other bill supporters.

The amendment by Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, called for nearly doubling the amount of new money for schools – $3.8 billion over the next two years – and increasing raises for teachers by nearly $1,000 over the next two years to $2,500.

And it boosted the homestead exemption for school property taxes from the current $15,000 to $32,500, guaranteeing a significant savings for homeowners. Mr. Grusendorf argued against it, but the House approved the proposal on a 76 to 67 vote. Fourteen Republicans joined the Democrats to adopt the amendment.

E-mail tstutz@dallasnews.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/
072705dntexschoolfinance.11745fa3.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 1:36 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Booming Population of Latinos in Southeast Heralds a Demographic Wave for the Region's Colleges

By DEVIN VARSALONA

The Hispanic population is growing faster in the Southeast than in any other region of the country, and the impact on some aspects of public policy, including higher education, has yet to be felt, according to a report released on Tuesday by the Pew Hispanic Center.

The report, "The New Latino South," focuses on six Southern states -- Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee -- that experienced tremendous Hispanic population growth from 1990 to 2000, exceeding 1,000 percent in some counties. Following an economic boom in the region, the report says, young, foreign-born Hispanic men immigrated largely to those six states. During the 1990s, the region's population of Hispanic children of school age -- many of whom did not speak English -- grew by more than 320 percent.

By 2007, the report says, those children are likely to make up 10 percent of students in the Southeast's public schools.

That demographic wave will hit colleges and universities in the region soon thereafter.

A representative of the Pew Hispanic Center said the group was unable to comment on the potential impact on higher education of the trends described in its report. But in a special report in 2003, The Chronicle noted that Latinos "remain severely underrepresented and underserved in higher education" -- a pattern that the demographic changes seem likely to exacerbate.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 1:26 PM 0 comments Links to this post

I like Gene Carter's reference to Professor Sonia Nieto's assertion in ED LEADERSHIP, "As Sonia Nieto wrote in Educational Leadership, the question of which children are taught by high-quality teachers is a profoundly multicultural one that reveals deeply ingrained inequalities in our schools. In the struggle to raise student academic achievement and close achievement gaps between poor and affluent children, we must not fail to do what we know makes an enormous difference: guarantee all students access to experienced and capable educators." -Angela

July 2005

Closing the Educator Gap
By Gene R. Carter, Executive Director, ASCD
 
Our most vulnerable students—those in high-poverty, low-performing schools—are far less likely than their wealthier peers to attend schools with the most qualified staff, according to a new report from the Learning First Alliance (LFA), a partnership of ASCD and 11 other leading education associations.

The report, A Shared Responsibility: Staffing All High-Poverty, Low-Performing Schools with Effective Teachers and Administrators, finds that efforts to close gaps in student academic achievement are thwarted by deep-rooted staffing inequities. The students who most need highly effective teachers are the least likely to be taught by them, and the instructors they do get are often not the best equipped in nearly every area of teacher quality that research has shown to matter most for student learning.

As Sonia Nieto wrote in Educational Leadership, the question of which children are taught by high-quality teachers is a profoundly multicultural one that reveals deeply ingrained inequalities in our schools. In the struggle to raise student academic achievement and close achievement gaps between poor and affluent children, we must not fail to do what we know makes an enormous difference: guarantee all students access to experienced and capable educators.

Research cited in the LFA report indicates that California teachers in high-minority schools are five times as likely to lack full certification as their peers in low-minority schools. Another study concluded that 70 percent of math classes in high-poverty middle schools are taught by teachers who have not completed a college major or minor in mathematics or a related field, such as math education or statistics.

Complex conditions perpetuate these staffing inequities and prevent high-poverty schools from attracting and retaining qualified staff. A recent study found that high-poverty urban schools lose 22 percent of their teachers annually, compared with only 12.8 percent in low-poverty schools—a problem compounded by lower numbers of candidates applying for open positions.

This troubling chain of events leaves our neediest schools with constant vacancies, fewer applicants to fill them, and a greater likelihood of hiring less-experienced teachers. We cannot counteract these conditions simply by producing more teachers or shuffling existing educators among schools. Rather, we need to turn our high-poverty, low-performing schools into places where educators want to work.

The LFA report recognizes that we must address all of the factors that contribute to gaps in educator quality. It identifies the following eight priority areas that need improvement if we are to bolster the ability of our disadvantaged schools to attract and retain effective staff:

*
School Leadership—Ensure that high-poverty, low-performing schools have effective leaders. 

*
Working Conditions—Make the job "doable" by ensuring adequate resource staff; manageable class sizes; and a safe, supportive environment. 

*
Professional Support—Provide intense teacher support so that teachers succeed in challenging classrooms. 

*
Incentives—Compensate staff for taking on tougher assignments in high-poverty, low-performing schools. Recognize and reward improvements they make.

*
Preparation—Ensure that teachers and leaders are prepared to be effective in high-poverty, low-performing schools. 

*
Hiring and Placement—Create processes and practices that facilitate the timely hiring and placement of effective teachers in high-need schools. 

*
Policy Coherence—Establish a coherent set of federal, state, and local policies that promote recruitment and retention of effective teachers for challenged schools.

*
Funding—Ensure adequate and equitable funding based on student needs.


Children come to school with diverse learning needs and advantages, but the need for quality teachers in all schools is constant and unchanging. A study highlighted in the May 27, 2003, issue of ASCD ResearchBrief found that teacher effectiveness is "the single biggest factor influencing gains in achievement—an influence many times greater than poverty or per-pupil expenditures." 
Our efforts to close the achievement gap must focus not only on identifying schools where student performance is in need of improvement, but also on overcoming gaps in crucial resources such as teacher effectiveness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report is available at The Learning First Alliance.

Sonia Nieto's article, "Profoundly Multicultural Questions," is available in the December 2002/January 2003 issue of Educational Leadership.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 1:00 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Bill also raises pay for judges as some lawmakers argue that school finance is priority
By POLLY ROSS HUGHES

Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau

AUSTIN - With a swift vote and no debate, state representatives approved a boost in their own retirement benefits Monday as they gave judges a pay raise.

House Bill 11 by Rep. Will Hartnett, R-Dallas, won final passage, 105-26, amid criticism that House lawmakers have watched out for their own financial interests before those of schools and teachers.

The bill now goes to the Senate State Affairs Committee, where it is likely to win committee approval. Even so, it could face trouble getting to a floor debate. The House, after rancorous debate and major changes, voted down a multibillion-dollar school funding bill today.

Texas is under court pressure to change its $33 billion school funding system, known to some as Robin Hood because it takes money from wealthy districts and shares it with poorer ones.

A state district judge last year declared the Texas system inadequate and unconstitutional. The state appealed that decision to the Texas Supreme Court, which is expected to rule in the coming weeks and months.

This is the fifth session, counting regular and special sessions, in which the Legislature as tried to tackle school finance.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst vowed to block all other legislation until there is a final agreement on school finance reforms and a tax bill to fund it.

"I want to take up telecom and judicial pay, but not right now," Dewhurst said. "We want to go ahead and get Senate Bill 2, which is education reform, passed out of the Senate. We want to see the tax bill come over from the House and vote on that, and then I'll consider taking up those bills."

Judicial pay under the House bill would increase from:

•$101,000 to $125,000 for state district judges.
•$107,000 to $137,500 for Court of Appeals judges.
•$113,000 to $150,000 for Texas Supreme Court justices.
The pay increases are funded by a $4 fee increase for each criminal case and a $37 increase for each civil lawsuit.

A judge representing both district and appellate judges said they have received no pay increases in the past seven years.

"We're getting to the point where we are losing so many judges because salaries were not even keeping up with inflation," said Chief Justice Linda Thomas of the 5th District Court of Appeals in Dallas.

Lawmakers' pensions have been tied to judicial salaries since 1975 and legislators prefer that linkage, said Hartnett.

"It's been hard enough getting the bill passed with the link (between judges' pay and lawmakers' pensions) in place. Trying to de-link it would have made this harder to pass," he said.

The bill would raise lawmakers' pensions by 22 percent, Hartnett said, the first increase in seven years.

Currently, Texas' part-time lawmakers are paid $7,200 a year, although retired lawmakers can begin collecting pensions at age 50 if they have served at least 12 years. Benefits increase with each year of service. Under the bill, a retired official with a dozen years' experience would get a pension hike of $6,431 annually, bringing the total pension to $34,500.

A few senior lawmakers, including Speaker Tom Craddick, eventually would collect annual pensions of $100,000 or more if the bill passes.

Four Houston representatives voted against the bill: Republicans Gary Elkins and Debbie Riddle and Democrats Scott Hochberg and Senfronia Thompson.

While Thompson thinks judges need a raise, "she thinks teachers deserve a pay raise before judges get one," said Patrick Johnson, her legislative counsel. "It's sending the wrong message."

Hartnett said others also voting against the bill agreed teachers need a raise before judges.

"Then there are some who feel it was politically wise to vote against the bill who are privately delighted that it passed," he said.

polly.hughes@chron.com
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3281829

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:13 PM 1 comments Links to this post

79th LEGISLATURE: SPECIAL SESSION II--This second special session is already not promising. There's a basic tension between business interests and those wanting increased and equitable support for public schools. We'll see what the next few days hold. -Angela

Members say school finance could be doomed.
By Mark Lisheron
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, July 26, 2005

No sooner had the House surprised its membership by adding a passel of amendments members hadn't even seen to House Bill 2, the state's school finance legislation, than the House sent the entire measure down to defeat 79-62 this afternoon.

And no matter how insistent House Ways and Means Chairman Jim Keffer, R-Eastland, was about immediately plunging ahead with House Bill 3, the companion tax measure, fellow representatives believed that Keffer was at the helm of the Titanic and that school finance reform might soon die again.

Rep. René Oliveira, D-Brownsville, asked Keffer repeatedly whether the vote that blew up House Bill 2 was a tool to end the session. Repeatedly, Keffer insisted that he was there to lay out, discuss and pass the measure.

House Bill 2 proposed spending more money on schools, granting teacher pay raises and reducing the amount of money distributed from property-wealthy districts to property-poor districts. But school officials and teachers said it didn't do enough for education, and many lawmakers said it didn't do enough for their districts.

After the vote, representatives huddled in small clusters, buzzing so loudly about what had happened so quickly, they were several times admonished to quiet themselves so Keffer could be heard.

Several members asked Speaker Tom Craddick whether they could propose an amendment that would postpone any further discussion of school finance and tax reform for up to a week to allow the Senate to bring forward versions of the education spending legislation the House could consider. The proposals were not allowed.

Before the House vote, the Senate recessed until noon Thursday to allow the House to bring its school and tax measures forward. At the time, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said he was confident the House would provide the Senate with the framework for legislation the Senate had enough votes to pass.

Dewhurst was not troubled by an omen of things to come: Just before the Senate convened, Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, was able to push through an amendment to the House school finance plan that, in short, reduced tax relief to put more money into state schools.

The vote, 76-67, featured some of the usual party alignment, but Rep. Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, the powerful chairman of the Appropriations Committee, bucked Republican leadership and voted for the Democratic-sponsored changes.

Pitts said that Hochberg's amendment had problems but that at least it allowed for debate on a school finance measure that his constituents despised.

"I have had over 1,000 e-mails and calls telling me not to vote for this bill," Pitts said during a recess after the vote. "They didn't like what I call the Highland Park provisions (that could allow property-wealthy districts to keep more money), the school starting date and the elections in November. People in my district wanted me to vote for their children."

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 4:26 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Editorial / San Antonio Express-News
Posted: 07/26/2005 12:00 AM CDT

If the last special session is any guide, Texas lawmakers are likely to come up with a half-baked, unfair and inadequate school finance plan in the current session — if they come up with one at all.

If the Legislature wants to reduce property taxes, it should make the cuts big enough to be worth the effort, not just enough to campaign on next year.

And while they are changing the tax system, lawmakers must increase the amount of revenue spent on public schools if they want to prepare Texas children for the economy of the future.

The state has been shirking its fair share of the cost of education for too long and dumping the burden on local property owners.

The state's long-term economic health is at stake. Improving public schools must be the top priority in this debate if Texas is to prosper in the long run.

A broad-based business tax that imposes the burden on all companies and partnerships equitably would be preferable to the hodgepodge that was debated in a conference committee during the last special session.

Stretching the sales tax to new heights hurts poor Texans.

The solutions that came close to approval in the last session didn't match the state's needs and failed the fairness test.

Shifting the tax burden won't solve the problem.

If Texans want to influence the direction of the state's school finance and taxing structure, now is the time to let lawmakers know that voters want real action and real reform.

We urge readers to contact lawmakers and tell them to fix the school finance system, add revenue for education and pay for it fairly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/editorials/stories/
MYSA072605.1O.sesssion1ed.c5c3457.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 2:49 PM 0 comments Links to this post

GOP leaders trying to satisfy holdouts; any shifting riles Democrat

09:28 PM CDT on Monday, July 25, 2005

By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News


AUSTIN – Senate leaders abruptly pulled back a school finance and education reform bill Monday after a large bloc of senators indicated that it was opposed to bringing the measure up for debate in the chamber.

The legislation was expected to be passed and sent to the House on Monday before several senators said they wanted the bill rewritten before they would support it. Under Senate rules, a measure must secure a two-thirds vote of the chamber to be brought up for consideration.

Trying to shore up support for the bill, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Senate Education Committee Chairwoman Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, met with senators in a closed-door caucus Monday afternoon to solicit opinions on potential changes.

"There's a lot of misinformation about the school finance bill," Mr. Dewhurst said, referring to strong opposition to the proposal from most school districts and education groups in the state. "We'll work on the bill to see how close we can get."

Ms. Shapiro said the bill will be altered to reflect the wishes of a majority of senators and to include as much language as possible from the compromise proposal that was hammered out by House and Senate negotiators in the closing days of the last special session.

"We will talk about differences, and I will make changes," Ms. Shapiro told senators on Monday. "We'll work on a proposal that the Senate is comfortable sending out of here."

But Sen. Eddie Lucio, D-Brownsville, said any movement toward the House-Senate agreement – which included several concessions by the Senate – would be "compromising down."

"That is not going to help my districts," he said, citing universal opposition from school superintendents in his Senate district. "Anything less than what we need for facilities, equity and teacher pay raises, I will have to be a no vote."

Senate leaders said they hope to bring the revised measure to the full chamber on Wednesday or Thursday.

House members are scheduled to take up their school finance bill and a companion tax swap measure – trading billions of dollars in school property tax cuts for higher state taxes on consumers, smokers and some businesses – on Tuesday.

"We've just started re-polling. I think we'll have 77-78, if they're all here," House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, said Monday when asked about support for the school finance bill in his chamber.

On the tax bill, he said, "We're pretty close on it. This is kind of where we were when we left off" in the last special session.

The bill includes a three-quarter-cent increase in the state sales tax – to 7 percent – and expansion of the tax to auto repairs, Internet access and computer repairs. The measure also would boost the state cigarette tax $1 a pack and close loopholes in the business franchise tax.

Among the areas of concern to senators in the school finance bill, Ms. Shapiro said, are teacher pay raises, a later starting date for the school year, a change in local school board elections, new state mandates for school districts and limits on "Robin Hood" property tax revenue sharing by wealthy school districts.

Staff writer Christy Hoppe contributed to this report.

E-mail tstutz@dallasnews.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/072605dntexsenate.d082c99.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 2:46 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Tue, Jul. 26, 2005

by John Moritz and R.A. Dyer
Star-Telegram Austin Bureau

AUSTIN - The theme song for lawmakers' latest attempt to overhaul the state's school finance system might be "One Step Up/Two Steps Back."

Texas Senate leaders on Monday postponed a debate on one major component of the school finance revamping, saying they were not sure they had the votes to pass it. Late last week, they said they were poised to pass it.

And in the Texas House, a floor debate is scheduled for today on the other major component, a rewrite of how the state raises money for schools. But the leader of the lower chamber said it remained unclear whether the votes were in hand to pass it.

"We started re-polling there -- we're redoing all that," said House Speaker Tom Craddick.

Soon after the previous special legislative session, which Gov. Rick Perry called a month ago, finished last week without an agreement, Craddick and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said they were "real close" to completing their work on the complex legislation.

But they had said the same thing time and time again during the special session, and during the regular session that ended May 30.

One component of the overhaul would revamp the state's tax system; the other dictates how schools spend that money. The House is expected to take up both bills today; the Senate is expected to consider legislation related to education spending.

Dewhurst and the Senate sponsor of the legislation, Plano Republican Florence Shapiro, offered an optimistic assessment of the bill's progress. But a number of senators expressed concern that the folks back home had little or no enthusiasm for the work being done in Austin.

State Sen. Eddie Lucio, D-Brownsville, said local school officials in his South Texas district told him over the weekend to vote no on the most recent House-Senate compromise.

"Anything less than what we need for facilities, for equity for teachers' pay raises, I will have to be a no vote on," Lucio said.

But even as progress on school finance seemed to sputter, lawmakers were able to turn their attention to other unrelated business on Monday.

For the first time since the legislation came to the floor in the spring, the House took a recorded vote on a bill that raises lawmakers' own retirement benefits while increasing salaries for state judges. The House has voted on the legislation several times but always on a nonrecorded voice vote.

The bill passed 105-26 on Monday. Eighteen members either declined to vote -- including Rep. Anna Mowery, R-Fort Worth -- or were absent.

Craddick, R-Midland, said that several members requested the recorded vote. The fact that it also boosts lawmakers' own pensions -- just as it increases pay for state district judges, appellate judges and those on the Supreme Court -- was "not a big factor," he said.

"I never heard members talking about it," said Craddick.

Area lawmakers voting for the legislation, House Bill 11, included Reps. Ray Allen, R-Grand Prairie; Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth; Toby Goodman, R-Arlington; Bob Griggs, R-North Richland Hills; Kent Gru-sendorf, R-Arlington; Phil King, R-Weatherford; Rob Orr, R-Burleson; Todd Smith, R-Euless, and Bill Zedler, R-Arlington.

Those opposed included two Fort Worth Democrats, Lon Burnam and Marc Veasey, as well as Vicki Truitt, R-Keller.

The House also adopted House Bill 6, which makes available $2.75 billion in bonds for university construction projects. It will also provide project funding for shortages in critical fields such as nursing, teacher education, engineering and computer science, according to information from the speaker's office.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Moritz, (512) 476-4294 jmoritz@star-telegram.com R.A. Dyer, (512) 476-4294 rdyer@star-telegram.com
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/legislature/12224683.htm

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 2:38 PM 0 comments Links to this post

House Rejects School Finance, Tax Bills
Associated Press

AUSTIN - You might call it chaos. Confusion. Fatigue.

Certainly you can call it a stalled special legislative session after the Texas House voted down its own multibillion-dollar school funding bill and property tax relief measure today.

The moves appeared to spell trouble for the latest 30-day special legislative session called by Republican Gov. Rick Perry to change the Texas school funding system and reduce property taxes. But other bills on those subjects still could be considered.

GOP House Speaker Tom Craddick said the session isn't necessarily doomed, but he did say legislators — who have spent two regular sessions and three special sessions tackling school finance — are tired.

"The members are just basically worn out voting on these different proposals. I don't know where we go from here," Craddick said. "We're open to ideas."

The tax bill was intended to cut school property taxes and replace them with an array of consumer and business taxes. It in large part reflected a proposal Perry made earlier this summer when he initially called legislators back to Austin.

"This was the governor's plan. We worked on it, massaged it as much as we could. To be quite frank, we didn't get there," said Rep. Jim Keffer, a Republican from Eastland who sponsored the tax bill but urged fellow House members to vote against it.

They followed his lead with a bipartisan 124-8 vote.

Perry said he wouldn't give up and would keep pushing lawmakers to find a solution in the remaining 24 days of the special session.

"I know they're frustrated. I know they're tired. So are taxpayers," Perry said. "Although today the House failed, they will live to ride again."

The 79-62 vote against the Republican-backed education spending bill came after the House approved a Democrat's plan to provide an additional $3.8 billion over two years to schools, including money for a teacher pay raise and more bilingual education funding.

That was substantially more money than the Republican measure included. Democrats and some Republicans joined to approve the amendment by Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston.

His plan also would have given an extra school property tax break to homeowners through a larger homestead exemption.

The bill's sponsor, Republican Rep. Kent Grusendorf of Arlington, later led the charge to quickly vote against the bill because it was so dramatically changed from its original form. Grusendorf said the more costly changes would have hurt Texas businesses and that the bill was doomed for failure.

Craddick agreed. Once Hochberg's amendment was added to the bill, it didn't balance financially, he said. But Hochberg disputed that and said his proposal was designed to fit with the amount of money available in Grusendorf's bill.

Craddick described the fast-moving series of events Tuesday as being "kind of like a mushroom-type effect" as both bills were defeated.

Democratic Rep. Rene Oliveira of Brownsville had urged against a swift vote on the tax bill, saying it could potentially wreck the special session if it were voted down.

"I think you're commanding the Titanic right now with that approach," Oliveira told Keffer.

Afterward, passage of a school finance bill in this session began looking less likely.

"The stars are going to have to be aligned for that and right now, they're not aligned," Grusendorf said.

Texas is under court pressure to change its $33 billion school funding system, known to some as Robin Hood because it takes money from wealthy districts and shares it with poorer ones.

A state district judge last year declared the system inadequate and unconstitutional. The state appealed that decision to the Texas Supreme Court, which is expected to rule in the coming weeks and months.

Grusendorf said some lawmakers don't want to pass a school funding bill until the court rules.

He said his education spending plan would have pumped $2.4 billion more into schools. That proposal reflected a House-Senate compromise hammered out in the last special session, which ended last week in failure.

Democrats criticized that proposal as doing too little for schools and teachers. They said the proposed new funding mechanism would widen the gap between the extremely wealthy school districts and the rest of the districts in Texas.

Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, president of the Senate, cautioned today against overreacting to the House actions. He said senators were continuing to negotiate on their own education spending bill.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3281873

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:08 AM 0 comments Links to this post

July 25, 2005, 12:52AM

WINNER TAKES ALL

Good teachers flock to good schools, avoiding schools where their talents are most needed.
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle


FANCY new schools with state-of-the-art science labs and sparkling natatoriums enhance the educational experience, but they don't amount to much if classrooms are staffed by inexperienced, unqualified or burned-out instructors. With the right teacher, students can achieve lofty academic heights in the most Spartan classroom.

The sad irony, according to a study by University of Texas researcher Edward Fuller, is that when it comes to having abundant school resources or good teachers, the choice seldom is an either/or situation. It's an all-or-nothing proposition.

Fuller's research, using data from the 2003-04 school year, the latest available, examined seven school districts in the Houston region. He found that the teachers with the best credentials work in the schools with the most affluent students, and the less-qualified instructors teach in schools populated by low-income students. This matters because of another correlation — students who attend schools where the worst teachers predominate tend to perform poorly on standardized tests.

Fuller, who specializes in teacher recruitment and retention issues, used three criteria to judge teacher quality: classroom experience, certification to teach a given subject and teacher turnover (high teacher turnover is an indication of a poor work environment).

Obviously, some inspired and skillful teachers teach in poor-performing schools. They tackle the most challenging assignments and endure the worst working conditions. Their students tend to have poorly educated parents less able to help them with homework.

Many poor children lack school supplies and suffer from poor nutrition. When discipline at school becomes an issue, it can be difficult to get parents working multiple jobs to focus on finding a solution.

The problem is how to attract and retain good teachers at the schools that desperately need them. There are only so many excellent teachers who will remain in under-resourced schools. They deserve merit bonuses and a medal.

Education experts say that incentive pay for teaching in less-desirable schools can be part of the solution. Those schools also need to provide adequate training and teaching supplies, enforce student discipline and cultivate a supportive workplace. Schools that provide these things will find that the best teachers will flock to them and stay put once on board.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/3280006

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 9:17 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Debate starts this week on sticking points

11:15 PM CDT on Sunday, July 24, 2005

Associated Press

AUSTIN – With a new special session under way, Texas lawmakers plan to plunge into the school funding debate this week to move legislation along and perhaps get out of town soon.

That's their intent, anyway.

As past sessions have proved, reaching an agreement in the Legislature on the complex and sweeping question of how to pay for Texas' public schools isn't easy. The $33 billion system educates 4.3 million children.

Both the House and Senate are meeting today, when the Senate may take up the education spending portion of a school finance package. The two chambers in large part are working from the education and tax proposals they crafted in the previous 30-day special session, which ended in failure Wednesday night.

Republican Gov. Rick Perry ordered the next session to begin Thursday.

School finance is one of the most important items the Legislature tackles, said Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, a Republican who presides over the Senate. He said "whether it takes four weeks or six weeks, the objective is to get it right, and that's what we're dedicated to doing."

Lawmakers came close to approving a $2.4 billion education spending plan last week. But because they waited until the final hours of the special session to wrap up the matter, a Senate Democrat had time to kill the measure with a filibuster.

The measure would have provided more money for bilingual education and transportation and given districts enough money to pay teachers about $2,000 more in 2006 and an additional $500 in 2007. The pay raise calculation included the full restoration of a $1,000 health-care stipend that was cut in half two years ago.

Some of the raise included incentive pay, which teachers' groups criticized because they say it's not clear how many teachers would even be eligible.

"As we begin another special session on public education, we hope state leaders take the time to listen to educators," said Melodye Pinson, president of the Association of Texas Professional Educators.

Texas is under court pressure to change its funding system, which relies heavily on local property taxes. State District Judge John Dietz ruled the system inadequate and unconstitutional last year and ordered the state to change it.

Republican House Speaker Tom Craddick said a House-Senate panel that was trying to reach a tax bill compromise had whittled the massive plan down to just a few disagreements.

Disputes remained over how much to raise the state sales tax from the current 6.25 percent and how much to cut property taxes.

Both the House and Senate wanted to raise the cigarette tax by $1 per pack from 41 cents.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 9:19 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Parents aim to teach legislators a lesson on schools

Web Posted: 07/23/2005 12:00 AM CDT

Jenny LaCoste-Caputo and Brian Chasnoff
Express-News Staff Writers

Parents of Texas schoolchildren have reached their boiling point.

Time and again, they've watched the Legislature attempt to overhaul the state's public school funding system. Time and again, the legislators have come up short.

Fed up, the parents are taking a page out of the politicians' playbook and forming a political action committee of their own. The goal: to oust old guard lawmakers they say don't support public education.

Dinah Miller, a Dallas parent who's serving as secretary of the Texas Parent PAC, calls the move a "parent revolt."

"The state Legislature must invest in high-quality public education. They have repeatedly let us down," she said. "Our legislators completely ignored the PTA, school board members, superintendents, and all other education groups."

The House and Senate were unable to agree on a school funding plan in the 140-day regular session, which ended May 31. Gov. Rick Perry called lawmakers back for a 30-day special session to finish the job, but that deadline came and went this week with no solution.

Perry has called another 30-day session, so lawmakers are at it again.

Carolyn Boyle, an Austin parent, resigned from her paid post as coordinator of the Coalition for Public Schools to head the Texas Parent PAC as a volunteer.

"I quit my job because I was so fed up with the Texas Legislature," Boyle said. "I realized we need new people at the Texas Legislature."

Boyle said she was disillusioned by a Legislature that didn't listen to advocacy groups or constituents. The Legislature she saw in action made decisions based on the promise of committee chairmanships, the threat of axing local projects and old-fashioned bullying, Boyle said.

"Who are they listening to? Not parents," Boyle said. "This is not how the democratic process is supposed to work."

The group plans to raise $250,000 by next year to help fund elections of new House and Senate candidates. The nonpartisan organization will support 10 Republican candidates and 10 Democratic candidates.

Asked if that goal is ambitious, Boyle said: "We think it's conservative. Do you know how many parents there are in Texas? How many teachers, superintendents and school board members?"

Cathy White, parent of two children at Thousand Oaks Elementary in San Antonio's North East School District, says she loves the idea of a parent-driven political action committee.

"The lawmakers aren't taking into consideration what teachers and parents have to say," she said. "It makes you wonder do they know anything about being in a classroom."

Carolyn Baker, a grandmother and school volunteer from Round Rock, agrees that it's time for some new blood in the Capitol.

"I've been extremely let down, very disappointed with their inability to get anything done, and I'm a Republican," said Baker, who was in Austin attending a Texas PTA Leadership Seminar. "Something has to happen."

Legislators are working under pressure from a judge's ruling that the current school funding system, which relies heavily on local property taxes, is unconstitutional. The Texas Supreme Court is considering the case.

Texans may disagree on where the money to fund schools should come from and how much schools need, but there is a general disdain among many for the politicians' inability to reach a compromise. Critics say the only proposals that do get serious consideration at the Capitol do little to boost school funding, impose unfunded mandates and widen the spending gap between rich and poor school districts.

"I think it's typical of the politicians we have in office today. We don't have any leaders," said Tom Presley, 55, a real estate agent from Wilson County.

Diane Meizer, 34, a homemaker from Floresville, calls the failed efforts to craft a school funding plan "pathetic." Donna Hosea, 54, from Grapevine, calls them "ridiculous."

Tommy Faifer, 51, also of Grapevine, said: "It's typical politics."

As superintendent of the Center Point School District, Lee Ann Ray is increasingly anxious as the school finance debate drags on week after week.

"It's very frustrating when it comes to planning for the new school year. The law says we have to adopt a budget by Aug. 31," said Ray, whose district of 550 kids in eastern Kerr County usually gets about 40 percent of its $4 million budget from the state.

"Our expenditure side is ready to go," said Ray. "We're waiting for the Legislature to tell us how much revenue we'll get from the state."

Boyle said she hopes more parents start to pay attention to what's going on in Austin and how it will affect Texas schoolchildren. One of the main goals of the Texas Parent PAC is to educate parents about the political process and make sure they're aware of how their legislators vote.

She is confident that parents will be a powerful force for change — and she hopes the politicians in Austin are listening. She puts it this way:

"We think parents are a sleeping giant."

------------------------------------------------------------------------
jcaputo@express-news.net
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/stategov/stories/MYSA072305.1A.lege_parents.1701610.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:15 AM 0 comments Links to this post

This has been an evolving story in Texas politics that has incredible implications for school, or other social welfare funding, etc. It reveals the inner-workings of a corporate state. -Angela

EDITORIAL BOARD
Sunday, July 24, 2005

The Texas Association of Business might have given Texans an unintended look at just why there is a law against corporations contributing to political campaigns. And if it beats back all the civil lawsuits and criminal investigations, consumers will discover what living under a corporately controlled state government is really like.

As reported by this newspaper's Laylan Copelin in Friday's editions, insurers contributed at least $580,000, and possibly much more, of the $1.7 million raised by the business association's political campaign in the 2002 legislative races. The association has tried to keep the names of contributors, and how much each contributed, secret. But Copelin pieced together a large part of the picture from court documents.

If you think this has nothing to do with you, congratulations: You must be one of the few Texans satisfied that your homeowners' insurance premium is reasonably priced, even if it provides far less coverage than it did before 2003.

The business association's 2002 campaign was, under any plain reading of the law, illegal because it accepted secret donations from corporations that were then spent on behalf of Republican legislative candidates. State law bars corporations from contributing to election campaigns, and it requires that all campaign contributions be public.

But the business association argues that its ads never used certain "magic words" such as "elect," so that — technically — they weren't election ads. And because the ads were not campaign ads, the association argues, it is not required to reveal its donors.

None of this stopped the association from bragging, after its 2002 campaign, that it "blew the doors off the November 5 general election using an unprecedented show of muscle that featured political contributions and a massive voter education drive" to elect a slate of highly pro-business candidates.

As Copelin showed in his story Friday, one of the biggest secret contributors to the association's campaign was the insurance industry, which was facing a firestorm of public anger over huge increases in homeowners' premiums. The industry was also under assault because of rising medical malpractice premiums. And, with the rest of the business community, it wanted to make it more difficult for injured plaintiffs to sue and win judgments against them.

The Legislature that convened in January 2003 faced that homeowners' anger and ultimately adopted some reforms. Most companies cut their premiums somewhat, though only under pressure from the insurance commissioner. What we'll never know is whether the Legislature would have been more responsive to consumer interests had fewer of its members depended, indirectly, on insurance industry campaign contributions. The 2003 Legislature also enacted landmark tort reform legislation that also helped insurers.

This year there was an effort in the Legislature to remove any supposed loopholes from state election law regarding the ban on corporate contributions. But the legislation died in a House committee: Why bite the business hand that feeds you?

If the business association wins its lawsuits and thwarts any criminal charges, a whole new era of corporate campaign contributions will begin, and none of it will be given with the average Texan in mind. If you don't think so, take another look at your homeowners' insurance premium.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:05 AM 0 comments Links to this post

This is one of the better political analyses of the politics on school funding than I have read in awhile. -Angela

7/24/2005 12:00 AM CDT

Peggy Fikac and Gary Scharrer
Express-News Austin Bureau

AUSTIN — It was a classic back-hall moment that underscored the bruising battle to change the state's education and tax policy.

A top aide to Gov. Rick Perry buttonholed Sen. John Whitmire as the Houston Democrat prepared to kill a school funding bill championed by the governor in the closing hours of this summer's first special session.

Dan Shelley, a former senator well liked by the lawmakers he seeks to influence, was uncharacteristically stern-faced as he spoke in low tones, but with little apparent impact. Whitmire's answer to the GOP governor's emissary was unyielding: "I'm representing my district."

And that's why state leaders are having a tough time arm-twisting lawmakers to vote for school and tax reform bills that don't enjoy overwhelming support back home.

The Legislature's fourth failure in two years to restructure school funding and taxes shouldn't surprise anyone, said Sen. Ken Armbrister, D-Victoria, a 22-year veteran of the Legislature.

"There are two things generally that no speaker, no lieutenant governor, can get between his members (and their constituents) on, and that's schools and taxes. This has both," Armbrister said of the twin struggles over House Bills 2 and 3.

Changing the way Texans pay taxes while also reforming public schools invites a tricky balancing act in which lawmakers weigh the benefit or loss to the people and schools in their districts against state policy and political considerations that also affect their constituents.

"I don't know that you can even separate the two. Obviously, the district is where I live. I sure want to make sure that we do no harm there. And if that's good there, you would hope that in the bigger picture of the state, it's the same way," said Rep. Jim Keffer, R-Eastland. "It's so complex because Texas is so diverse."

Keffer carries the tax measure in the House as Ways and Means Committee chairman. But he is disappointed that the bill takes only an "incremental step" in reforming the business tax.

"It's a tough vote," he said, "because I don't have everything in it that I think ought to be in it."

The difficulty of this balancing act never has been more evident than this year.

State leaders have found it hard to completely agree among themselves about bills even some supporters say are, at best, a first step. And the critics — including educator groups, consumer advocates and some businesses — complain bitterly that the school and tax bills will hurt more Texans than they help.

Supporters of the tax measure, HB 3, emphasize it will save billions of dollars in school property taxes. But opponents hammer at the inequity in a plan that would only benefit households making more than $100,000 a year, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Budget Board.

That's because higher sales and other consumption taxes would pay for school property tax cuts. Households earning less than $100,000 will end up paying more after the tax swap, according to the analysis.

The debate is driven by a judge's ruling that the school funding system is unconstitutional, in part because of its reliance on local school property taxes and because the judge found the state's education funding inadequate. The tax measure is meant to address the first part of the judge's ruling.

"This is not really a tax-cut bill. It's a tax-shift bill," said Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, who, as Senate Finance Committee chairman, is carrying the measure in his chamber and who, like Keffer, has expressed disappointment that it doesn't include broader reform of the business tax.

"It's hard to build a solid constituency ... because for every person that gets a break, another one has to pay a higher tax," Ogden said.

"Every time you make somebody happy, you make somebody else mad."

Lawmakers started out with broader tax reform ideas that would have involved more businesses, but the House and Senate couldn't agree. Perry suggested simply plugging loopholes in the franchise tax on corporations as an achievable goal.

But doing so has provoked opposition from affected businesses that don't want to be singled out.

An estimated 10,000 Texas companies use those legal loopholes to escape business taxes, including the San Antonio Express-News.

Express-News Publisher Lawrence Walker Jr. said executives of Texas daily newspapers agreed last year not to oppose efforts to close the corporate franchise loophole under one condition: "Everybody gets taxed."

"To put a bill in, which still exempts the law firms and the real estate firms and the oil and gas partnerships and the medical doctors, is just egregious," Walker said.

Closing the franchise tax loopholes would cost the Express-News "several million" dollars a year, he said.

Portions of the business lobby would retreat from its opposition to the proposed tax bill after all businesses are treated the same, Walker said.

"It's just about fairness and equity," he said.

Walker recently expressed his opposition to Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, who voted for the bill to close the franchise tax loopholes without expanding the tax to business partnerships.

Wentworth said he agrees with Walker and favors a low-rate business tax applied to all but sole proprietor, or "mom and pop"-type businesses.

But Wentworth said the "speculation around here is that there's a lot of limited liability partnerships — oil and gas partnerships in Midland, Texas — and the speaker is not going to allow them to be taxed."

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst also favored bigger reform of the business tax system, although he recently broke a rare tie vote in the Senate against doing just that. Dewhurst blamed the House and Perry for the scaled-back effort.

However, House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, does favor "a more reformed business franchise tax that would bring everyone under the umbrella," Craddick spokeswoman Alexis DeLee said.

She noted the House passed a bill this spring that would have taxed partnerships.

"Now the House and the Senate have agreed upon the governor's plan, and that is what we are moving forward with," she said.

Lawmakers have targeted a new school property tax rate of about $1.20 per $100 valuation to operate public schools — down from the current $1.50. Such a rate would deliver only modest tax savings for most homeowners. Half of all Bexar County homeowners, for example, would save less than $17.75 a month at a $1.20 rate. Most school districts now levy a rate of $1.50 per $100 property valuation.

The median home value of $86,000 in Bexar County translates into a $213-a-year tax savings at the $1.20 rate. A $500,000 home would get a $1,455 tax savings.

State and legislative leaders wanted to deliver a bigger property tax break than what lawmakers settled for, Craddick said.

"Whatever we do is a start. Everybody wants (larger cuts), but they don't want to look at the hard facts of what it takes to get there," Craddick said.

Democrats criticize not only any tax shift from the wealthy to middle- and lower-income Texans but slam the approach of GOP House leaders in crafting a new tax bill.

The public won't get an opportunity to participate, and five Anglo House members will write the bill. All are male.

"Every woman in Texas should be offended," said Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine. "The average every-day person isn't represented — no Latinos, no people of color."

Craddick's spokeswoman defended the tax bill writers as experienced lawmakers with an extensive background on tax policy.

"The speaker wanted people who were most familiar with the issue," DeLee said.

Some GOP lawmakers, meanwhile, are skittish about voting for any tax increase.

"If you have a Republican who has a record of voting for a new tax or an increased tax — even though it may have been to offset a reduction in property taxes — the opponent (in a GOP primary) won't ever talk about that," Wentworth said. "They just talk about you raising taxes, so that makes everybody a little gun-shy."

Approving a new school reform plan also has proven difficult. The bill that died last week attracted plenty of critics for multiple reasons.

Teacher groups attacked it because the touted $1,500 pay raise shrunk to $500 by their measurement of new money. School officials criticized it for leaving schools short of money needed to pay for mandates in the bill. And others said the bill would widen the equity gap between poor and rich school districts instead of closing the existing disparity.

The proposed plan helped property-wealthy districts more than it did poor schools, according to an analysis by the Legislative Budget Board.

Bexar County's Alamo Heights School District, for example, would get $315 more per student, according to the analysis, which made adjustments for special student populations. The Eanes district west of Austin stood to get $441 more per student, while Highland Park, a wealthy enclave of Dallas, would have received $447 more per student, according to the analysis.

But the Edgewood School District, lead plaintiff in a landmark 1994 lawsuit against Texas that improved equity between rich and poor schools, only would get $170 more per student.

The same analysis showed the San Antonio School District getting $183 more per student; the South San Antonio district would get $189 more.

Rep. Fred Hill, R-Richardson, said of HB 2, "You could probably make a case to vote against it. But it's better than what we've got now. It's a step in the right direction."

He said setting policy to benefit all Texans, including disadvantaged students, is good for his district and the whole state.

"I'm talking about the next generation, basically. If we do not do something to educate the people in this state right now who are amongst those that you would call disadvantaged and poor, we're going to pay for it in the long run. It's going to affect Texas," he said.

Education groups' opposition to the proposed school reform bill doesn't appear to bother Dewhurst, Craddick or Perry

"I don't know any school finance bill in the past that the superintendents have gotten behind," Dewhurst said. "This (HB 2) is a significant improvement on what we were working on (at the end of the regular session in late May). We have made a lot of progress since May 28th. This is a better bill for schoolchildren, for superintendents, for our teachers."

Perry said, "For the life of me, I can't understand why someone would walk away from the opportunity to put additional dollars into these schools, to put that money into our teachers' pockets that they need and that they deserve, to get those schoolbooks into the classrooms and to get property tax relief."

The Legislature's inability to agree on school and tax bills during two regular and two special sessions is not testing Texans' patience, Dewhurst said.

"Voters want improvement in our school finance system. They don't care whether it takes four weeks, six weeks or seven weeks," he said. "This is too important not to get it right."

Changing the tax structure always means raising taxes for some or imposing new taxes on those who aren't paying. Doing so is politically risky with the next election lurking less than a year away, said Armbrister, the veteran senator from Victoria.

And changing the education code is inherently difficult because all 181 members of the Legislature are familiar with schools.

"Everybody's an expert," Armbrister said, "because everybody went to school."

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA072405.1A.lege_school_taxes.3430c73.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:02 AM 0 comments Links to this post

July 2005 | Volume 4, Number 6
ASCD REPORT
Focus On …
NCLB Update: Measuring Student Learning

Measuring student learning is a central focus of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). In fact, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has referred to testing as "the linchpin of the whole doggone thing." Spellings has insisted states strictly follow the law's requirement of testing students each year in grades 3–8, but new opportunities may open up for states that want to change the way they assess student learning.
The U.S. Department of Education has convened a series of meetings to review whether states should have a new option to meet NCLB's assessment provisions. This option would allow states to measure individual students' growth from year to year. The current practice compares the performance of students in a particular grade with the performance of students in that same grade the previous year.

The Department held the first of these meetings on June 22 with an invited group of researchers, state and local officials, and representatives from nonprofit organizations and interest groups. It is not yet clear which growth models are under consideration, though one meeting attendee told Education Week that the Department appeared interested in a range of options. Several different growth models have been proposed already by states eager to find more accurate methods of measuring improvements in student achievement.
 
Pioneering States
The federal government previously approved one accountability model that includes measures of student growth. In Massachusetts, schools are awarded 100 points for each student who scores at the proficient level or higher, but they also gain reduced credit for students who improve at lower levels. For example, schools receive points for moving students from "failing" to "needs improvement," even though those students did not score at the proficient level.

Minnesota and Oklahoma use a similar method under NCLB's "safe harbor" provision. Schools that initially do not meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in those states may still pass if they reduce the percent of non-proficient students in a subgroup by 10 percent from the previous year. Bills have also been approved in the Minnesota House and Senate to provide for developing value-added assessments.

Still other states, including Florida and Tennessee, have submitted proposals that would allow schools that failed to make AYP use growth measures as a second chance measure. Tennessee, for example, has proposed tracking the performance of individual students over time and evaluating schools based on how much academic growth each student makes from year to year.

In June, New York City Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein announced similar plans to measure each student's growth. The proposed plan will compare a school's results, grade by grade, against student improvement in similar schools. It will also include a comprehensive assessment of each school's learning environment, including parental involvement and the quality of work students must complete.

Klein said this growth model would present a wealth of information about teaching and learning, as well as provide "a powerful tool for working with educators to improve where necessary and to share best practices where appropriate." He said the new system would be a supplement to, not a replacement for, a focus on absolute achievement.
 
Concerns from Policymakers and Researchers
Some policymakers and federal officials have been wary of value-added and growth models. Unlike current AYP calculations, not all growth models are designed to measure a school's progress toward achieving NCLB's goal of 100% proficiency by 2014. Sandy Kress, a former education advisor to President George Bush, said he does not believe growth models will be approved under NCLB unless they are based on students' reaching proficiency.

Researchers also have raised questions about technical issues surrounding growth models—such as the quality of the test, whether to adjust for student and school characteristics, and what to do when some data on individual students are missing.
 
Looking Ahead
Holly Kuzmich, a senior policy adviser in the U.S. Department of Education, told Education Week that the Department does not have a timeline for when it will complete its work. "Obviously, we want to work on this as quickly as possible and get an answer to the secretary as quickly as possible," she said, "but we need to gather all the right information."

The Department of Education plans to include other interested groups in future meetings. The individuals invited to the June meeting were:
*
Patricia Brenneman, the superintendent of the Oak Hills, Ohio, school district;

*
Michael D. Casserly, the executive director of the Washington-based Council of Great City Schools;

*
Mitchell Chester, an assistant superintendent in the Ohio education department;

*
Chrys Dougherty, the director of research for the National Center for Educational Accountability in Austin, Texas;

*
Lou Fabrizio, the director of accountability for the North Carolina education department;

*
Brian Gong, the executive director of the National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment in Dover, N.H.;

*
Eric Hanushek, a professor of education at Stanford University;

*
Kati Haycock, the director of the Washington-based Education Trust;

*
Ted Hershberg, a professor of public policy and history at the University of Pennsylvania;

*
Tom Houlihan, the executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers;

*
Jim Mahoney, the executive director of Battelle for Kids;

*
Lana Seivers, the commissioner of education in Tennessee;

*
Richard Wenning, the accountability program director for the Denver-based Colorado League of Charter Schools; and

*
John L. Winn, the commissioner of education in Florida.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resources
Federal Government Exploring Individual Student Growth Under NCLB
Education Week (registration required)
White Paper. The implementation of the accountability provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act: A state perspective
California Department of Education
ED Panel To Explore Growth Models For AYP
Title I Online
States Hoping to "Grow" Into AYP Success
Education Week (registration required)
State Lawmakers Want a New Approach to Student Testing
Minnesota Public Radio
N.Y.C. Schools to Measure Gains, Not Just Raw Test Scores
Education Week (registration required)

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 7:03 PM 4 comments Links to this post

by David J. Hoff / Education Week
Denver

The U.S. Department of Education will publish a common graduation rate for every state in an attempt to provide a clearer picture of how successful the states are in assuring students complete high school, the department’s second-ranking official told state policymakers here July 13.

The department will calculate each state’s graduation rate based on the number of high school graduates in a given year divided by the average of the number of students who entered the 8th grade five years earlier, the 9th grade four years earlier, and the 10th grade three years earlier. The so-called “averaged freshman graduation rate” will be published alongside the graduation rates that states report under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, the department official said in a speech to state policymakers gathered here July 12-15 for the national conference of the Denver-based Education Commission of the States.

“[The new calculation] has been shown to track very closely with true on-time graduation rates,” Deputy Secretary of Education Raymond J. Simon told members of the ECS. “It makes it easier to understand, more accurate, and makes the system more transparent.”

Mr. Simon said the new state calculations will be reported on an interim basis and will provide a common measure of how well states are ensuring students are completing high school.

States have come under increasing criticism in recent years for publishing graduation rates that are misleading and not comparable across states. Some states, for example, calculate their graduation figures based on the percentage of seniors who earn their diplomas by the end of the school year—a measure that ignores students who drop out before reaching the 12th grade.

Mr. Simon said many states lack the data systems to provide more precise measures of their high school graduation rates. But the federal government will be able to calculate the “averaged freshman graduation rate” by using enrollment and other data already collected by the National Center for Education Statistics, a branch of the federal agency.

Meanwhile, the National Governors Association on July 14 announced the first 10 states to receive grants of up to $2 million under a program aimed at improving graduation and college-readiness rates that was unveiled at the National Education Summit on High Schools in February. Financed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and several other philanthropies, the grants will be used for purposes that include improving state academic standards; aligning curricula and assessments to meet college-entrance requirements; promoting the need for high school reform to the public; expanding science, math, and technology education; and implementing systems for collecting and analyzing data, according to the NGA and the Seattle-based Gates Foundation.

The 10 states awarded grants are Arkansas, Delaware, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Virginia.
Washington State Granted Flexibility

In a separate section of his speech, Mr. Simon said the Education Department has granted Washington state permission to take into account students who take more than four years to graduate for determining adequate yearly progress under the No Child Left Behind law. The state also will continue to publish a graduation rate measuring what percentage of students earn their diploma in four years, but can use the extended time period for accountability purposes.

“We want to see incentives created to encourage dropouts to return to school,” Mr. Simon said. “This change is a positive step forward.”

While other states have received permission to take into account in their graduation rates students with limited English or those with disabilities who take more than four years to graduate, Washington state’s provision could apply beyond those special populations.


© 2005 Editorial Projects in Education
About Us Policies Contacts Advertising Help Letter to the Editor

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 6:35 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Posted on Fri, Jul. 22, 2005
By R.A. Dyer / Fort Worth Star-Telegram Austin Bureau

AUSTIN - As a result of the Texas Legislature's repeated failures to agree on school finance, millions of textbooks probably won't make it to schoolchildren in time for the first day of classes.

That's the word from Texas textbook coordinators, who say students taking fine arts, foreign language and health classes should expect to get second-hand books -- or no books at all -- when they show up next month.

"I don't have enough books -- and that's what districts from across the state are facing right now," said Brian Squyres, textbook manager for the Northside school district near San Antonio. "We're praying for the old ones to hold together."

With the end of the special legislative session this week, Gov. Rick Perry and Texas lawmakers have now struck out three times in their attempts to overhaul school finance. On Wednesday, Perry ordered lawmakers back yet again -- saying the Legislature will continue to meet until it gets the job done.

The logjam in Austin is already causing headaches for school district administrators statewide. Besides complicating the writing of budgets and the setting of taxes, it has also held up $295 million for health, foreign language and fine arts books -- about 6 million in all -- that were scheduled to go into classrooms in a few weeks.

Lawmakers have agreed to fund the books but need authorization to pay for them through separate legislation that remains tied up.

Already approved by the State Board of Education and printed by publishers, the books now languish in warehouses and await delivery.

Although they operate without contracts from the state, publishers print the books with the expectation that the state will purchase them.

Another $150 million in textbooks for career technology, English as a second language and other subjects have been funded and will be in schools this fall.

The problem with not getting the go-ahead for fine arts, health and foreign language books is that in many cases they replace books already older than the children who use them, officials said. Districts have lost many of the books to normal wear and tear, but also need more of them because of growth, officials say.

"We're going to move forward with whatever textbooks we have," said Mark Thomas, spokesman for the 22,000-student Birdville district. "There's really not a whole lot else we can do unless they decide the funding issue. We just hope it's sooner rather than later."

Pat Linares, a deputy superintendent for the Fort Worth district, said if textbook funding doesn't come through from the state, teachers and administrators will "get creative" with educational projects, using supplemental materials or reusing old textbooks.

"It's always a difficult situation when decisions have not been made totally about anything related to the funding of public education," Linares said. "We have to think of creative ways to make sure our children get the education that is necessary."

Cliff Avery, director of the Textbook Coordinators Association of Texas, said that districts typically order books in April for delivery in June or July. It then takes several weeks for publishers and districts to process the books.

In the unlikely scenario that lawmakers immediately agree on a new school finance system, that still doesn't leave enough time for districts to get the books ordered, delivered, inventoried and distributed, Avery said.

As a result, districts now find themselves confronting several undesirable options:

• They can wait for the Legislature to agree on school finance and order books then. But who knows when that will be, said Squyres, who also acts as president of the Textbook Coordinators group. "That's when we start deciding to use classroom sets. It really puts us in a bind."

• Districts can attempt to purchase books on the used market. The problem with that option is the state doesn't reimburse districts for second-hand books, Avery said.

• Or they can just do what the Mansfield and Arlington districts have done: Try to make do with whatever is available.

Steve Brown, the Arlington district's associate superintendent of finance, said it's too early to tell whether the district will need to purchase new books out of pocket.

"We're not going to jump out there yet and buy any because the Legislature is still looking at it, and it's still a possibility," Brown said. "And we're going to have to look at how much it would cost to see if we could afford to purchase the new books the state is supposed to be furnishing."

Joe Glover, the Mansfield district's director of school services, said health, fine arts and foreign language classes must start out with old versions of materials. One of the fastest-growing districts in the state, Mansfield also must provide textbooks for the hundreds of new students expected to enroll, he said.

"It's not like it's going to make the curriculum fall apart," he said. "We will still be doing what we've been doing for years, we will continue teaching."

Staff Writers Eva-Marie Ayala, Aimee Streater, Terry Webster and L. Lamor Williams Contributed to This Report.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ONLINE: www.capitol.state.tx.us
R.A. Dyer, (512) 476-4294 rdyer@star-telegram.com

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 6:17 PM 1 comments Links to this post

AP State News
July 20, 2005


Here's a look at major dates in Texas' school finance battle:

_ 1989: The Texas Supreme Court throws out the state's school funding law after finding "glaring disparities" between rich and poor school districts. The high court later rules two other Texas school funding plans unconstitutional in the early 1990s.

_ 1993: Days before a court-imposed deadline threatened to close Texas schools, the Legislature forces property-rich school districts to share some wealth with poorer ones.

_ 1995: The Texas Supreme Court upholds the share-the-wealth system, sometimes called "Robin Hood."

_ 2001: Then-acting Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff, who as a state senator authored the "Robin Hood" funding plan, says it needs review and possible change.

_ 2003: Attorneys for property-wealthy school districts argue before the Texas Supreme Court that Robin Hood has created an illegal statewide property tax after many districts have pushed collections to the legal limit.

_ April 20, 2004: The Legislature meets in a special session called by Republican Gov. Rick Perry to address school finance. The session ends two days early when lawmakers fail to pass a new plan.

_ Sept. 15, 2004: After a trial brought by 300 districts, both rich and poor, a judge rules the education funding system unconstitutional and threatens to order the state to halt school spending in October 2005. Following the judge's written ruling in late November, the state appeals to the Texas Supreme Court.

_ Jan. 11, 2005: Legislature convenes in regular session and Perry declares education funding an "emergency." Lawmakers fail to pass a new system before session expires May 30.

_ June 18: Perry vetoes $35 billion in education spending, forcing lawmakers into 30-day special session.

_ June 21: Special session begins.

_ July 6: Attorneys for hundreds of school districts tell Texas Supreme Court justices in oral arguments the state has abdicated its obligation to educate its children. State lawyers argue the Legislature _ not the courts _ should repair Texas' education finance system. The court does not immediately rule.

_ July 19: Lawmakers tout their progress on an education spending plan but acknowledge defeat in this special session of an accompanying bill to reduce property taxes. Gov. Rick Perry says he'll call legislators back for another session as soon as Thursday if they don't pass a school finance plan.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 6:14 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Upset by finance plan, parents, advocates say they'll influence races

08:31 PM CDT on Friday, July 22, 2005

By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN – A group of former PTA leaders and public school advocates, upset over the Legislature's handling of school finance, has launched a political action committee that plans to get involved in as many as 20 key legislative races next year, organizers of the PAC said Friday.

Carolyn Boyle and other board members said they hope to raise at least $250,000 from parents and other supporters of public schools who are concerned about lawmakers' support for public education. The political donations will be contributed to Democratic and Republican candidates, they said.

"There are no good excuses for the failure by the Legislature to meet the needs of 4.4 million students enrolled in Texas public schools," Ms. Boyle said at a news conference near the Capitol.

Representatives of the PAC said they are opposed to the school finance and education reform bill that the Legislature was poised to approve on Wednesday before it was killed by a Senate filibuster that ended the last special session. Lawmakers began a new special session on Thursday, and the same school finance bill is expected to go before the House and Senate within the next two weeks.

Virtually every school district and education group in Texas is opposed to the legislation, primarily because it provides only a small increase in funding for schools. That new money – $2.4 billion over two years – represents an annual increase of about 1.8 percent.

School districts have complained the new money won't even cover inflation and is a fraction of what a state judge cited in his ruling last year that called the current school finance system unconstitutional. That decision was appealed by the state to the Texas Supreme Court, which has not yet ruled.

Lawmakers are scheduled to continue work on the school finance bill on Monday.

The Web site for Texas Parent PAC is www.txparentpac.com.

E-mail tstutz@dallasnews.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/
072305dntexptapac.a037ff.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 9:21 PM 1 comments Links to this post

Hope that all of my faithful readers are well. I've been very busy with my mother's poor health situation. She has help (including my Dad) but is in need of 24-hour care.

So the second special session has begun. In articles that I've been reading about the new special session, there is a lot of pessimism is in the air with concerns that either an inequitable bill favoring the super-rich districts like Highland Park in Texas will pass, or that the pursuit of unanimity in both chambers is equally difficult just as it was in both the regular and first special legislative sessions. As you can see from the report below, compliments of the Texas LULAC listserv, (unrepresentative) conference committees will begin negotiations of the education and tax bills shortly

The governor appears to be responding, in part, to Comptroller Carole Strayhorn's implicit challenge when she refers to him as "Do-Nothing Perry."

Still, columnists throughout the state are saying that a bad school funding or tax bill is not better than no legislation getting passed at all. I agree. So there is where we are in Texas school funding politics. -Angela

Friday, July 22, 2005
Second Special Session begins

The Second Called Special Session started on Thursday at 10 a.m. under the call of passing legislation on school finance and reform, tax reform, telecommunications, judicial pay raises, and tuition revenue bonds. The Governor has vowed to keep legislators in Austin until school finance reform and property tax relief are addressed.

The House named select committees for both the education bill, HB 2, and the tax bill, HB 3. The following are members of the Select Committee on Public Education Reform:

*
Rep. Kent Grusendorf, R-Arlington
*
Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas
*
Rep. Dianne Delisi, R-Temple
*
Rep. Bill Keffer, R-Dallas
*
Rep. Rob Eissler, R-The Woodlands

Members of the members of the Select Committee on Property Tax Relief are:

*
Rep. Jim Keffer, R-Eastland
*
Rep. John Otto, R-Dayton
*
Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa
*
Rep. David Swinford, R-Amarillo
*
Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth

These were the conferees named to the bill during the Regular and First Called Special Sessions, and will be the only members voting on the bill in committee this Special Session.

The Senate Committee on Education passed out its education bill, SB 2. The bill is the same bill that was passed by the Senate at the end of the Regular Session. The House Select Committee on Education Reform also passed out HB 2. However, its version of the education bill is the conference committee report from the First Called Special Session. Therefore, the Senate and House will be considering different versions
of the education bill on their respective floors next week.

The House Select Committee on Property Tax Relief also passed out HB 3.
The current proposal would raise the 6.25 percent state sales tax by
three-quarters of a cent per dollar, increase the cigarette tax by $1
per pack, and close loopholes in the corporate franchise tax. Certain
services, including auto repair services, would be subject to sales tax.
The proposal also lowers the cap on school operating taxes by 25 cents
per $100 valuation next year and more in subsequent years.

The Senate plans to convene on Monday at 1:30 pm to hear SB 2. Sen.
Shapiro has stated that she is willing to consider amendments at that
time. The House will convene at 10 a.m. on Monday, and plans to take up
the tax bill on Tuesday and the education bill on Wednesday. The
conference committees will likely begin negotiations of the education
and tax bills shortly thereafter.

The fate of HB 1, the appropriations bill from the First Called Special
Session, is still uncertain. The Governor has yet to sign or veto the
legislation, and there has been no comparable legislation filed for the
Second Called Special Session at this time. It is uncertain whether the
Legislative Budget Board can implement Budget Execution Authority while
the Legislature is in session. A veto of HB 1 could greatly affect the
opening of the 2005-06 school year.

Second Special Session Proclamation

Governor Perry's proclamation (pdf) This link opens in a new window. calling the Texas Legislature back for the 79th Legislature, Second Called Session.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 3:16 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Thursday, July 21, 2005

By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News


AUSTIN – Time ran out for school finance legislation Wednesday, so Gov. Rick Perry ordered lawmakers to try yet again to pass education and tax bills that face staunch opposition from teachers, businesses and school districts.

Senate Democrats killed the measure favored by GOP leaders with parliamentary tactics, including a two-hour filibuster. To pass, it had to be approved by the House and Senate before midnight, the official end of the special session that began 30 days ago.
DallasNews.com/extra

Chat transcript: Schools and taxes

More School Finance


A companion tax-swap bill suffered a similar fate, abandoned in the final days of the session because of an impasse between House and Senate leaders over how to tax consumers, smokers and businesses.

Mr. Perry said that tired, frustrated lawmakers would be called into another special session – their second of the year and sixth since 2003 – starting this morning. And, he warned, they would stay in session until the bills are sent to his desk.

"Education reform and property tax relief are the two most significant issues the Legislature faces," he said."Lawmakers won't leave Austin until both priorities are addressed."

In the Senate, parliamentary objections from Democrats – a tactic known as "chubbing" – helped stall debate long enough that the Senate's longest-serving member, Democrat John Whitmire of Houston, could hold the floor until midnight and talk the bill to death.

"This bill has united people like no other school finance bill before. It has united Democrats and Republicans in opposition to this bill," said Mr. Whitmire, whose filibuster was his first in 22 years. "It has united teachers, school superintendents, PTA leaders, school janitors and bus drivers in opposition."

Mr. Whitmire objected to the bill because of its provisions and because it was being rushed through while lawmakers knew they would be starting another session today, he said.

Several House members wandered into the Senate chamber, wondering whether the maneuvering there would make it a waste of their time to work on the measure.

"A filibuster may be the most merciful way to end this," said one House Republican.

Mr. Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick were already looking to strategy for the next session.

"We will start a lot further along than we were 30 days ago," Mr. Dewhurst said after a private meeting with the other top leaders. "When you look back at the history of the Legislature over the last decade, it has been very tough to pass school finance bills.

"But we have made really big progress, so we will be able to conclude both of these matters during the next special session."

After House and Senate negotiators finally released their compromise Tuesday, school districts and education groups began bombarding lawmakers with e-mails and phone calls, urging rejection of the proposal.

Teacher groups were upset about the pay raise and a proposal for bonuses based on student test scores. School districts complained bitterly that the $2.4 billion in new money over two years hardly covers inflation and would mostly be consumed by new mandates from the state.

The companion tax bill would trade billions of dollars in school property tax reductions for higher state taxes on consumers, smokers and some businesses.


'Slow things down'



Dallas Democratic Sen. Royce West, another critic of the school finance proposal, said it didn't make sense to force it through the Legislature when those who will live under its requirements are almost universally opposed.

"It won't hurt to slow things down a little bit," said Mr. West, one of two Senate negotiators on the school finance bill who refused to support the compromise. The only other Democrat among the 10 lawmakers who brokered the deal, Sen. Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio, also declined to sign on.

While some have suggested waiting until the Texas Supreme Court rules on a school finance lawsuit filed by hundreds of districts, including Dallas, Mr. Perry scoffed at that idea.

"It is important for us to get this work done. This isn't something for the courts to do, it is something for the Legislature to do," he said.

Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, who is running against Mr. Perry in next year's GOP gubernatorial primary, said the Legislature's failure to overhaul school finance in the last several years proves Mr. Perry "is no leader."

Mr. Perry retorted: "To take a broadside like that at every member of this Legislature is irresponsible."


Pay raises blasted



While sponsors touted the school finance bill for providing new money for schools and enacting a battery of needed education changes, opponents said it would do little to improve public schools.

"One bad bill down, one to go," said an e-mail sent by the Texas Federation of Teachers that urged its members to voice their opposition to the school finance measure.

The group called the proposed pay raise "measly" and an "insult to Texas teachers."

Teachers would be guaranteed $1,000 apiece under the proposal – an average 2.5 percent raise – this fall. An additional $500 per teacher would be allocated to school districts, but districts would decide whether to give that money to each teacher or use it for merit pay to reward certain educators.

Leaders of the state's major teacher organizations noted that the $1,000 raise includes $500 that was taken away in 2003 because of a massive revenue shortfall that forced budget cuts across state government.

Next year, the bill would provide no money for another across-the-board raise, but districts would get an extra $500 per teacher for incentive pay programs.

Documents showing how much school districts would receive under the legislation – which often are the key deciding factor for lawmakers' votes – only fueled opposition.

Many poor districts would receive close to a 3 percent boost, the minimum increase that lawmakers promised. The Dallas school district would see its funding increase 4 percent by the 2006-07 school year, while the Highland Park would receive a 9 percent increase.

The additional money projected for Highland Park schools and other property-rich districts is the result of new limits that the bill proposes in Robin Hood revenue sharing by those districts.

"I cannot vote for something that is going to increase the gap between the very wealthiest districts and all the other districts," said Ms. Van de Putte, whose Senate district includes several poorer school districts.

Florence Shapiro, lead Senate negotiator on the proposal, has insisted that it does far more than courts have ordered to equalize funding between rich and poor districts.

"This bill provides more equity in school funding than this state has ever seen," the Plano Republican said.



Staff writers Robert T. Garrett and Christy Hoppe contributed to this report.

E-mail tstutz@dallasnews.com
SPENDING REAUTHORIZED

The House voted Wednesday to send Gov. Rick Perry a bill restoring the $33.6 billion education budget he vetoed when he called lawmakers into special session last month. The move had been intended to help force the House and Senate to reach a deal on school finance and property tax overhaul, but one of the few bills both chambers passed was to reauthorize the spending Mr. Perry cut. It's unclear whether Mr. Perry will sign the measure, but it passed both chambers with enough votes to override another veto. Also, provisions in state law allow for the money to be spent regardless, so schools are certain to open on time.

SCHOOL FUNDING CHANGES
House Bill 2, a form of which is likely to arise in subsequent special sessions, would guarantee a funding increase of about 4 percent over two years. A look at how area districts would fare in 2007 under current law and under House Bill 2:
District Fiscal 2007 revenue per student under current law* Fiscal 2007 revenue per student under HB2* Percentage change
Highland Park $5,768 $ 6,285 8.96%
Cedar Hill $5,477 $ 5,933 8.33%
Celina $5,962 $ 6,438 7.98%
Grand Prairie $5,914 $ 6,350 7.37%
Red Oak $5,712 $ 6,111 6.99%
Arlington $5,552 $ 5,928 6.77%
Wylie $5,313 $ 5,670 6.72%
Birdville $5,801 $ 6,189 6.71%
Lancaster $5,849 $ 6,240 6.68%
Mansfield $5,521 $ 5,877 6.45%
Garland $5,684 $ 6,047 6.39%
Duncanville $5,942 $ 6,318 6.33%
Mesquite $5,777 $ 6,131 6.13%
Lake Dallas $5,584 $ 5,920 6.02%
Irving $5,919 $ 6,275 6.01%
Azle $5,728 $ 6,071 5.99%
DeSoto $5,745 $ 6,087 5.95%
Keller $5,248 $ 5,558 5.91%
McKinney $5,509 $ 5,820 5.66%
Royse City $5,910 $ 6,240 5.58%
Fort Worth $6,236 $ 6,555 5.12%
White Settlement $4,972 $ 5,220 4.99%
Midlothian $5,755 $ 6,037 4.88%
Richardson $6,119 $ 6,392 4.46%
Ennis $6,304 $ 6,583 4.41%
Everman $6,317 $ 6,591 4.34%
Frisco $5,745 $ 5,992 4.32%
Allen $5,455 $ 5,689 4.27%
Denton $6,359 $ 6,628 4.23%
Lewisville $6,224 $ 6,487 4.23%
Plano $6,179 $ 6,440 4.22%
Carrollton-FB $6,529 $ 6,804 4.21%
Northwest $7,327 $ 7,635 4.20%
Coppell $5,838 $ 6,079 4.13%
Carroll $5,951 $ 6,194 4.08%
Hurst-Euless-Bedford $5,987 $ 6,231 4.06%
Wilmer-Hutchins $6,540 $ 6,804 4.04%
Dallas $6,766 $ 7,039 4.03%
Grapevine-Colleyville $5,993 $ 6,232 3.99%
Rockwall $6,447 $ 6,704 3.99%
*Includes only state and local revenue sources.
SOURCE: Texas Legislature
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/072105dntexschoolfinance.281c5f1.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 6:59 PM 0 comments Links to this post

by W. GARDNER SELBY
Thursday, July 21, 2005 / AUSTIN AM-STATESMAN

In this episode of "Behind Closed Doors," we remind you that state legislators closed out a 30-day special session on Wednesday with late tussling mostly taking place out of public view.

A tourist like Jim Huang of Ottawa, Ontario, might expect all the action to happen in the House or Senate chambers, where Huang snapped photos of shiny vacant desks the other day.

Why take a picture of an empty room?

"Good question," Huang told an inquisitor. "Who are you?"

Why, we're the folks with notepads, tape recorders and TV cameras. We try to divine whassup — which is not always easy, pretty or dramatic.

Flash back to Sunday outside the second-floor Governor's Press Conference Room, which has frosted glass-and-wood doors etched with the state seal. The room this day is expected to host House-Senate negotiations on changes in education and school finance law. So reporters loiter outside.

1 p.m.: A door opens, revealing an aide to House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, seated solo at a large rectangular table. He looks a little like he's watching for a helicopter with a rope ladder.

1:15 p.m.: Rep. Kent Grusendorf, R-Arlington, shows up without a school deal in hand. Grusendorf, referring to Craddick, Gov. Rick Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, gibes: "I'm about to go whip all three of the big three."

Out of "stupid" tradition, Grusendorf says, only two of five House negotiators can join such compromise talks at a time, evidently in the spirit of the state's open-meetings law, which bars a quorum of a governing body from acting privately on public business.

But the Senate (which claims it is bound by legislative rules and not state open meetings laws) lets its negotiators pile in. "Puts us at a competitive disadvantage," Grusendorf says. (Denise Davis, House parliamentarian, said later that the House tradition might be revisited between legislative sessions.)

2:25 p.m.: The governor's chief of staff walks past the press pack and enters the room with a one-page document. Unfortunately, your correspondent can't read upside down that fast.

2:50 p.m.: Craddick and an aide stride toward Perry's nearby office; the pack converges.

Reporter: "What's it look like?"

Craddick: "Looks like it may rain."

3:45 p.m.: An aide says Craddick has departed, though Dewhurst and Senate negotiators are now chatting with Perry. No word (ever) on what anyone is saying.

4:15 p.m.: Lobbyists outside the nearby House chamber lack school news but jaw vigorously over who first recorded the 1970 hit "He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother." Bill Withers? No. The Hollies? Yes, as confirmed by a reporter checking by phone with her pa.

Over the rest of the inconclusive day, negotiators scarcely return to the room, though reporters keep their watch. Members drift instead to other Capitol haunts with frosted-glass doors. A few continue huddling as reporters leave the building toward 11 p.m., trusting there is more to come.

wgselby@statesman.com; 445-3644

Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/metro/stories/07/21selby.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 6:50 PM 0 comments Links to this post

July 20, 2005 08:21 AM US Eastern Timezone
Spanish Language Here to Stay; Study Shows Spanish Speakers to Increase 45% in Coming Years

MIAMI--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 20, 2005--A Landmark Study titled: "The Future Use Of The Spanish Language In The USA -- Projected to 2015 & 2025" just released by Hispanic U.S.A. Inc. reveals startling results about the dramatic continued growth of Spanish-Speakers in America.

The study challenges the assumption that the use of Spanish will decrease in coming years as succeeding generations of Hispanics are born and grow up in this country. In fact, the study shows that the number of Spanish-dominant and bilingual Latinos will increase by 45 percent over the next two decades - adding 12.4 million Spanish-speakers to today's population.

And it's not just because of continuing immigration. Unlike other immigrant groups, even third-generation Hispanics - those born of Latino parents who themselves were born in the United States - will continue to speak Spanish in extraordinarily large numbers.
"We know that the number of Acculturated Hispanics will continue to grow, but what this study clearly shows, is that Spanish is here to stay, and in a big way. Our study has far-reaching implications from a marketing and media perspective. The fact is that Spanish connects on an emotional and visceral level with Hispanics in a way that English does not. We want to be courted in the language we make love in, for most of us, that would be in Espanol," stated Jose Cancela, Principal of Hispanic USA Inc.
The study, conducted by Roslow Research Group on behalf of Hispanic U.S.A., is based on a comprehensive analysis of census data and national research by multiple internationally recognized institutions, which projects the use of the Spanish Language through the year 2025. "We believe this study sets the record straight as it relates to the future use of the Spanish Language among Hispanics here in the States," stated Peter Roslow, Founder of the Roslow Research Group.

Among its findings:
-- By 2025, the number of Spanish-speaking Latinos in the United States will reach 40.2 million, up from 27.8 million today.

-- Fully two-thirds of Hispanics 5 and older will speak Spanish 20 years from now.

-- On average, 35 percent of third-generation Latinos in the United States speak Spanish.

-- The 18-and-older Spanish-speaking population will increase by 53 percent, to 15.2 million by 2025.

-- The key 18-to-49 year old demographic will grow by 7.5 million, and will include 59 percent of all the Spanish speakers.

In addition, the study gives a detailed breakdown of the expected growth of Spanish-speakers in the top 25 Hispanic markets in the country. The projections show striking across-the-board increases of 40 to 55 percent in every one. Los Angeles, the biggest, leads the way in terms of sheer numbers. But such major cities as Boston, Las Vegas and Austin top the charts with an expected 55 percent growth in each. San Diego, Phoenix, Washington, D.C., and Atlanta are close behind.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 6:43 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Tax negotiations going slowly, although aide hints of deal on schools

10:25 AM CDT on Tuesday, July 19, 2005

By TERRENCE STUTZ and ROBERT T. GARRETT / The Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry issued a blunt warning to lawmakers Monday – cut a deal on school finance and property taxes or spend August in Austin.

"He is telling them ... that he will call them back if they don't get the job done by Wednesday," said Perry press secretary Kathy Walt, as negotiations were slow-going for yet another day.

Wednesday is the final day of the 30-day session called by Mr. Perry last month. Ms. Walt said that although the governor would decide the precise day to start another session once the current one ends, she added: "Thursday looks like a good day."
DallasNews.com/extra

DiscussLive: Austin bureau chief Christy Hoppe chats about the school finance plan Tuesday at 11:30 a.m.
• Submit advance questions

Perry threatens to call another session

Steps to make school finance negotiations private are criticized

More School Finance


Still, there were signs of a possible breakthrough late Monday as aides to the governor said he and legislative leaders had agreed on a plan to boost education funding, increase teacher salaries and enact several education initiatives.

Ms. Walt said Mr. Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick "agreed in principle" during a three-hour meeting in the governor's office Monday.

There was no accord, however, on the other major legislation, a tax-swap plan that would lower school property taxes in exchange for higher state taxes on consumers, smokers and some large businesses. And lawmakers reiterated that the bills are too closely linked for one to pass and not the other.

All teachers would receive a $1,500 raise this fall and be eligible for an additional $500 that school districts would decide how to distribute. Next fall, districts would have an additional $1,000 per teacher to distribute, but there would be no across-the-board raise.

Lawmakers would give districts about $2.4 billion in new money over the next two years. That represents an overall increase of about 3.5 percent, with all districts expected to be guaranteed at least 3 percent more funding.



Share-the-wealth cap



House negotiators appeared to have won major concessions from the Senate on "Robin Hood" sharing by property-rich districts, including a 38 percent limit on how much they would have to surrender to poorer districts. The cap would be phased in, limiting the initial windfall for wealthy districts.

The measure also would create a new merit pay program for teachers and establish a mandatory starting date for the school year, the Tuesday after Labor Day. That would not take effect until the fall of 2006.

Most of the changes have virtually no support from educator groups.

"I've got 98 school districts. I haven't had one call me and say, 'Man, we've got to have this,' " said Sen. Ken Armbrister, D-Victoria.

Legislative aides said that Mr. Dewhurst and Senate leaders were mulling a proposal by the governor and Mr. Craddick, R-Midland, to raise the state sales tax to 7 percent and for the first time apply the sales tax to auto repairs, bottled water and computer repairs. In addition, the plan would slap the sales tax on all Internet access charges.

The top school property tax rate would fall by about 30 cents over two years.

The initial Senate reaction to the tax offer was less than enthusiastic, some senators said. Democrats have opposed going higher than 6.75 percent – a half-cent increase – and Republicans want to avoid going to 7 percent because that would give Texas the highest state sales tax in the country, along with three other states.

The plan also does not include sales tax credits for the poorest Texans proposed by the Senate.


Filibuster possible



Looming over the last-minute talks were threats by Democrats in the Senate to filibuster both bills.

Senate Democrats quizzed Mr. Dewhurst about procedural rules and voting requirements in the last two days of the special session.

Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso, said he had soft-sole shoes ready to wear if he launches a filibuster to try to kill the tax bill. Under the long-standing Senate tradition, a senator can talk legislation to death as long as he can remain standing at his desk on the Senate floor.

.Citing nonpartisan studies indicating that the tax-swap bill would benefit only Texas families earning more than $140,000 a year, the Democrat said: "This legislation is a tax increase on nine of 10 Texans, just so one in 10 Texans – the wealthiest in the state – can have a tax cut."

He also complained about the Legislature's decision to abandon an overhaul of the state's main business tax, the franchise tax. "The business lobbyists have come in here day in and day out, and stripped business taxes from every bill," Mr. Shapleigh said.

House members appeared buffeted by opposition from oil and gas interests and heavy industry, which would see their business tax loopholes closed and not as much property tax relief as they had hoped.

"I just heard there's 89 votes against it," Rep. Tony Goolsby, R-Dallas, said of the tax bill. The House has 150 members.

Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, the Senate's lead negotiator on the tax-swap bill, said: "The business lobby is actively trying to kill this bill over in the House."

Mr. Ogden said the only way to dissuade the governor from calling another session immediately would be for the tax bill to be "voted down decisively" in the House.

He said enough senators support his chamber's version of tax legislation for it to pass, and he scoffed at widespread reports that any version would be soundly defeated in the House.

"I've never seen a case where the speaker couldn't round up the votes – ever," said Mr. Ogden, who spent eight years in the lower chamber.

Meanwhile, the Senate approved a constitutional amendment that would increase the minimum homestead exemption for school property taxes by 50 percent – from $15,000 to $22,500 of the appraised value of each home. The vote was 29-0 on the proposal, which already has been approved by the House.

Democrats sought to increase the exemption to $30,000 but were outvoted by the Republican majority.

E-mail tstutz@dallasnews.com and rtgarrett@dallasnews.com
SCHOOL FINANCE DEVELOPMENTS

WHAT HAPPENED

Lawmakers struggled to reach agreement on several provisions, including limits on "Robin Hood" wealth-sharing and what to include in an expanded sales tax.

WHAT'S NEXT

Gov. Rick Perry is threatening to order another 30-day special session. The state Supreme Court is considering an appeal of a court's ruling that would shut schools down Oct. 1 if funding isn't increased.

FOR THE SCHOOLS

Mr. Perry vetoed the entire state education budget, but lawmakers are close to passing those bills again. Plus, provisions in state law allow for the money to be spent anyway, so schools will almost certainly start on time and see no immediate effect, lawmakers say.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:02 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Tue, Jul. 19, 2005


By Nathaniel Jones
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

DALLAS - Officials with Liberty Legal Institute said Monday they will ask Gov. Rick Perry for state money to fund vouchers for the 2,900 students in the Wilmer-Hutchins school district.

Wilmer-Hutchins' state-appointed board has voted to close the district for at least a year while it tries to sort out financial and educational problems. The district has been accused of cheating on standardized tests and of financial mismanagement.

The Dallas school district likely will be home for the Wilmer-Hutchins students next year after the Lancaster district rejected a proposal to accept them.

The Dallas district is adjacent to the Wilmer-Hutchins district in southern Dallas County.

Vouchers would give parents in Wilmer-Hutchins the choice of where they want their children to be educated, said Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for the Plano-based Liberty Legal Institute.

"This is better than auctioning them off to the highest bidder," he said.

Because the state does not currently fund vouchers, Sasser said the group will seek an executive order from Perry.

Liberty Legal officials met with Wilmer-Hutchins parents Monday night to discuss the proposal. Liberty Legal is best known for taking on religious freedom cases, but Sasser said the organization was asked by a group of Wilmer-Hutchins parents to get involved.

At issue is the $6,500 per student Dallas school officials said it needed to merge Wilmer-Hutchins students with the Dallas school district.

The Dallas school officials and the Texas Education Agency are currently working on a plan to fund that merger.

Sasser said the state needs to take that money and use it on vouchers so that students can attend any school they choose.

Former Wilmer-Hutchins Superintendent Charles Mathews, who led the school district into turmoil, stood behind members of the Liberty Legal Institute to announce their request to Perry.

"This cuts down on the focus on the administration and allows teachers to teach our children," Mathews said. "I live in this district, I pay taxes here, and I want to do what's best for the students."

Matthews was indicted in March on charges of tampering with evidence and could face additional criminal charges related to the downfall of Wilmer-Hutchins district. He predicted Monday that he would be cleared of all charges.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathaniel Jones, (972) 263-4448 njones@star-telegram.com

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:59 PM 1 comments Links to this post

Editorial?

Web Posted: 07/19/2005 12:00 AM CDT

San Antonio Express-News

Which is better, a bad school finance bill or no bill at all?

For our money, the answer is no bill at all.

Should the Texas Legislature, in the waning days of this special session, rush through compromise legislation similar to the bills passed by the House and Senate, it will damage the average Texan and public education while legislative leaders will declare victory and go home. That's the worst outcome.

If no bill passes, lawmakers' failure will be apparent to all Texans, and any equitable solution to the school funding problem will be left to the courts or another special session.

While some people thought that bringing this Legislature back to try to solve a problem they could not solve this spring was a waste of time, we disagreed.

But the legislative solution the lawmakers are now considering doesn't reform the tax system or make school financing equitable.

Instead, it exempts a broad group of businesses — partnerships — from taxation and raises the sales tax, which already is one of the highest in the nation. The Senate and House produced bills that are unfair and inadequate.

The analyses of groups who have studied the proposals suggest that the wealthy benefit and the middle class and less affluent pay.

After watching this governor and this Legislature over the past few years, we sadly have reached the conclusion that they are unable to govern effectively.

They may enjoy small successes, but on the big issues — which they face now — they are unable to solve the state's problems.

If, at the last minute, they pull a bill out, that doesn't mean they have succeeded. That only means they will try to convince citizens that a sow's ear is a silk purse.

Don't let them fool you.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:49 PM 0 comments Links to this post

July 19, 2005, 12:43PM

But Perry may still have to call a second special session on the bill
By CLAY ROBISON and JANET ELLIOTT

Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau

AUSTIN - Gov. Rick Perry and the top House and Senate leaders met for three hours late Monday to try to salvage agreements on school property tax relief and education funding during the closing hours of the special session.

The governor's office announced that an "agreement in principle" had been reached between Speaker Tom Craddick and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst on an education bill.

But with lawmakers facing an adjournment deadline on Wednesday, expectations nevertheless increased that Perry may call a second special session, beginning as early as Thursday, to achieve his goal of school property tax relief.

Sources close to the private negotiations said the education compromise included teacher pay raises of $1,500 this year and another $2,000 in 2006-07 and a phased-in limit on the amount of local tax money the wealthiest school districts have to share with poor schools.

The latter provision had been a major sticking point in House-Senate negotiations.

The same sources also reported that Perry and Craddick had agreed to a tax package that would include an increase of three-quarters of a cent per dollar in the sales tax and cuts in local school taxes totaling 35 cents per $100 valuation, phased in over the next two years, with an increase in the homestead exemption.

Dewhurst was reportedly taking the package back to Senate conferees for consideration.

But the tax trade-off bill was threatened by the likelihood of a Senate filibuster and heavy lobbying efforts against it by some businesses.

Spokeswoman Kathy Walt said Perry would call another special session, beginning on Thursday, if the tax trade-off is killed by a filibuster.

She said he may also call another session if his goal of property tax cuts fails for any other reason.

"If we don't have an agreement, the governor has told us to expect to be here (for another session)," said Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, a negotiator on the education bill.

The only way Perry might not call a special session is if the entire House votes down a tax trade-off bill, two Senate tax negotiators — Sens. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, and Ken Armbrister, D-Victoria — agreed.

Craddick issued a written statement, saying he was "hopeful" that the House could pass both the education and tax compromises, if Senate negotiators agreed.

But there was widespread speculation that there weren't enough votes in the Republican-dominated House to pass a tax agreement that would give Texas one of the highest sales tax rates in the country — 9 cents per dollar, including local sales taxes in cities such as Houston.


Higher sales tax?
The tax compromise endorsed by Perry and Craddick also would close loopholes in the corporate franchise tax, raise the cigarette tax by $1 per pack and add bottled water, auto repair services, computer repairs and Internet access to the sales tax, according to the informed sources.



Some lobbyists and legislators said they had unconfirmed reports that a strong majority — more than 80 members of the 149 — would vote against the tax bill.

Rep. Jim Keffer, R-Eastland, the chief House tax conferee, said he had "no earthly idea" how many House members would vote for the bill, if given the opportunity.

The House passed a similar bill by only one vote last month, and many Republicans may be reluctant to vote for it again, for fear of drawing opponents in next year's GOP primary if it becomes law.

"They (Republicans) built their party into the dominant party in Texas based on campaigns against taxes," Armbrister noted.

Additionally, lobbying pressure from parts of the business community has stepped up in recent days.


Opposition to bill
Tobacco giant Philip Morris has been running a radio ad campaign against the tax package, which includes a $1 per pack increase in the cigarette tax.



And a number of refineries and oil and gas companies were lobbying against the tax package because — by merely closing loopholes in the franchise tax — it continued to single out corporations rather than broadening the business tax base to most partnerships as well.

One business lobbyist, who didn't want to be identified, even speculated that Craddick could instruct the House conferees to strike a deal on the tax bill and then allow the full House to kill it.

The tax trade-off is similar to a plan initially proposed by Perry. During a special session last year, the House, angry at Perry's threatened veto of a business payroll tax, similarly killed an earlier proposal of the governor.

Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso, said he will filibuster against any tax agreement that includes more than a half-cent per dollar increase in the sales tax, which would have a heavier impact on the poor than on wealthier Texans.


Filibuster possible
"I think people need to stand up now, now's the time to do it and say, 'Just say no to this proposal,' " Shapleigh said.



"House Bill 3 is a tax increase on nine in 10 Texans, just so one in 10 Texans can have a tax cut," he added.

A proposed constitutional amendment increasing the homestead exemption from $15,000 to $22,500 was passed by the Senate Monday. If the measure is passed by the House, it would go to voters in November.

The homestead exemption increase would be in addition to a cut in the maximum school property tax rate. The amount of that reduction is a key issue.

Armbrister said any bill that isn't ready for floor debate by noon today could be killed by a filibuster, which allows a senator to hold the floor against a bill for as long as he or she can stand and talk. The longest filibuster on record in the Texas Senate is 43 hours on a workers compensation bill in 1977.

clay.robison@chron.com janet.elliott@chron.com
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3271589

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:45 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Federal Workers, Students Affected

By Valerie Strauss and Lori Aratani
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 19, 2005; A01


It's not often that first-graders, CIA agents, agriculture inspectors and airport security workers from coast to coast all receive a lesson on the same topic -- and on the same day -- but that is what's in store this September.

The subject is the U.S. Constitution, thanks to a new law fathered by Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), who is worried that so many people don't know the first thing about the country's governing document that he decided to try to make sure they do.

Tucked into a massive appropriations bill approved without fanfare late last year by Congress is the requirement that every one of the estimated 1.8 million federal employees in the executive branch receive "educational and training" materials about the charter on Constitution Day, a holiday celebrating the Sept. 17, 1787, signing that is so obscure that it, unlike Arbor Day, is left off many calendars.

That's not all: The law requires every school that receives federal funds -- including universities -- to show students a program on the Constitution, though it does not specify a particular one. The demand has proved unpopular with educators, who say that they don't like the federal government telling them what to teach and that it doesn't make the best educational sense to teach something as important as the Constitution out of context.

"We already cover the Constitution up, down and around," said August Frattali, principal of Rachel Carson Middle School in Fairfax County. But, he chuckled, "I'm going to follow the mandates. I don't want to get fired."

Mark Stout, social studies coordinator for Howard County public schools, had a similar reaction when asked whether he would create a new program for the holiday: "We already have one of those. It's called our curriculum." Still, he too will advise schools how to comply.

Byrd was not available for comment, but his spokesman, Tom Gavin, said many teachers had called the senator to thank him for creating this opportunity to teach the Constitution. The law offers some leeway if the holiday falls on a weekend, as it does this September. Some agencies and schools will be carrying it out during the week before, others the week after.

Byrd, who prides himself on being the Senate's unofficial constitutional scholar, is expected to appear today at the National Archives when representatives from various federal departments and agencies meet to celebrate the launch of the "Constitution Initiative," according to Mike Beckman, acting deputy associate director for the Center for Leadership Capacity Services in the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Gavin said Byrd was motivated to pursue the law by long-standing concerns about the state of civic education in the country, fueled by surveys showing that many Americans have a better understanding of the intricacies of "American Idol" than they do about the foundations of their government.

According to Al Frascella, director of communications and government relations for the nonprofit National Council on the Social Studies, all but a few states require civic education as a high school graduation requirement, although the quality of the programs is uneven. He said schools across the country are approaching the new law in different ways.

"Some are taking it seriously and some aren't," he said. "The key, of course, is enforcement, and there isn't any. There is no provision to enforce it."

Spokesmen for various federal agencies said yesterday that they were not sure how the law would be implemented.

Educators have received guidance from the Department of Education about how to implement the law and have been directed to various Web sites with lessons and information about the Constitution from which they can craft programs. The law offers no money to help with the lessons.

There seems, however, to be some confusion about exactly what the law requires.

Frascella said he reads it as meaning every student in every school must participate. At American University, a private school that nevertheless receives federal funds (and where Byrd graduated from law school), Haig Mardirosian, associate dean of academic affairs, said AU will offer students the opportunity to attend a symposium at which First Amendment scholars and educators will speak, and it will be telecast to different locations on campus. In Fairfax, Alice Reilly, K-12 social studies coordinator for the county school system, said it will be up to individual educators to decide how to craft their lessons.

Charles C. Haynes, senior scholar at the Arlington-based First Amendment Center, said the exercise in education seemed an "artificial way" to teach the essential subject.

"My concern is that this will be seen as a quick fix to a deeper problem," he said. "The problem isn't that we don't celebrate the Constitution. The problem is that we don't live it enough in our schools. . . . so the message to kids is that preparing for life in a democracy is not a high priority."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/18/AR2005071801585.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 5:22 PM 0 comments Links to this post

It's amazing how the dropout rate is systematically ignored in reports on the gap. Simultaneously, discussions on dropouts and dropout rates—such as the recent one by the National Governors Association—fail to address either the gap or the relation of dropout rates to it. Not that all of the variation in scores can be accounted for by dropout rates, but rather that they are a contributing factor, especially when pernicious incentives exist in our state accountability systems to marginalize those children who become "liabilities" to school ratings. I often wonder why these combined factors fail to either be addressed or make news. Another observation is the way in which race/ethnicity are rendered invisible by this discourse on both the gap and dropout rates.

Check out this Dallas Morning News article involving an interview with Spellings Our nation's schoolwork. Consistent with her stated position on this in an apparent debate over the effects of NCLB w/Hillary Clinton at the NCLR conference (see previous post), Spellings maintains that NCLB is paying off.

-Angela

USA Today

by Joseph Kaczmarek, AP

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings said Monday the "achievement gap is beginning to close" between Hispanic and white students, while Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton countered that she's not convinced the federal government is doing enough to help Hispanic youth get through school.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., spoke at the annual meeting of the National Council of La Raza.

Spellings and Clinton each spoke at the convention of the National Council of La Raza, a four-day event that ends Tuesday.

The two did not dispute statistics that show Latino students have the nation's highest high school dropout rate and the lowest college enrollment rate, but diverged on whether the government is fixing the problem.

Praising No Child Left Behind, the education law President Bush signed in January 2002, Spellings pointed to National Assessment of Educational Progress scores released Thursday that show 9-year-olds, including Hispanics, have improved their reading and math scores.

"These results did not come out of thin air," Spellings said. "They came from a commitment to doing something that's never been done before, a commitment to giving every child a quality education."

"The achievement gap is beginning to close," she said.

But minutes later, the Democratic senator told the same group: "You are doing your part, but I don't know that your government is doing its part right now."

Clinton stressed that, though younger students' scores have improved, 17-year-olds have made virtually no gains since the tests first started being given 30 years ago.

"I'm not sure that we are doing everything we should to make your job easier, to make sure that the opportunity society is alive and well for everyone," she said.

Linda L. Silva, a Democratic organizer and advocate for Latinos in Concord County, Pa., stood with hundreds of others to applaud Clinton, particularly when the senator called for policy changes that would allow undocumented immigrant students to receive college aid. Silva said she hopes to see Clinton enter the race for president in 2008. "There's no one else in America who has more integrity today," she said.

The welcome for Spellings was more muted.

Washington-based La Raza was founded in Phoenix in 1968 as a Mexican-American civil rights group and now is the nation's largest advocacy group for Hispanics. It represents 4 million members in 300 affiliates across the country.

Minutes after the speeches ended, eight people who said they want tighter controls on immigration walked into the Pennsylvania Convention Center where the meeting is being held wearing T-shirts and caps saying "U.S. Border Patrol," said Cecilia Munoz, vice president of La Raza. They were escorted from the building without incident, Munoz said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.

Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-18-spellings-clinton-hispanics_x.htm

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 5:06 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Upper chamber won't budge on sales tax; it doesn't appear a deal can be made by session's end.

by Mike Ward, Jason Embry / AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF


Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and state senators abruptly left the Capitol on Monday night without a deal on overhauling the state's school finance system, fueling speculation that Gov. Rick Perry will call another special session if a deal is not reached before midnight Wednesday.

The senators' decision came about an hour after Perry and House Speaker Tom Craddick had reportedly signed off on a plan that would raise the state sales tax to 7 percent, up from 6.25 percent. Senators have repeatedly rejected such a steep increase, saying it would hurt low-income Texans.

Dewhurst was asked Monday night if the Senate would approve such a plan.

"No," he said as he was leaving the Capitol.

"We're leaving tonight. We're going to send them a good bill in the morning, a bill that doesn't raise the sales tax higher than it should be and does not unfairly shift taxes from businesses to consumers."

The special session ends Wednesday night, but internal legislative rules — and a threatened filibuster in the Senate over the sales tax increase — make it difficult for lawmakers to agree to and approve any final plan today or Wednesday.

The 10 p.m. blowup overshadowed a deal that Dewhurst, Perry and Craddick had reached earlier in the night on the other half of school finance reform: education spending.

That plan called for boosting spending on public schools by more than $2 billion over two years, granting across-the-board teacher pay raises and capping the amount of money that property-wealthy districts send to poorer districts.

"The governor is very hopeful that we are in the final stretch of getting passage of a historic piece of legislation," Perry spokeswoman Kathy Walt said.

Perry, Dewhurst and Craddick reached the education spending deal after meeting for three hours Monday to hash out differences over school finance reform.

Sources close to the negotiations said Perry and Craddick had also agreed on the tax swap plan in the meeting and that Dewhurst agreed to review it with senators.

"The ball is in the Senate's court," said a source, who did not want to be identified for fear of disrupting the negotiations.

But senators' responses were swift and severe.

"They've got people trying to box the Senate in, and the Senate is not going to be boxed," said Sen. Ken Armbrister, D-Victoria and a key negotiator. "No one ever got hurt in an election year by killing a tax bill."

Perry has said he will call another 30-day session if this one ends without agreement on school finance.

The state's current system, which sends money from property-wealthy districts to poorer districts, has been ruled unconstitutional by a state judge and is being reviewed by the Texas Supreme Court.

Lawmakers were unsuccessful during the regular legislative session in crafting a new plan, prompting Perry to call them back to Austin for another try last month.

"The governor has said if they don't finish their work, we're coming back," Perry spokesman Robert Black said earlier Monday. "This is the number one issue the Legislature faces, and they must deal with it."

Asked when Perry would call them back, Black said, "One step at a time, but Thursday looks like a good day."

Sources said the compromise version of House Bill 2, the education spending plan, would:

•Push back the first day of school until after Labor Day, beginning with the 2006-07 school year.

•Include money for across-the-board pay raises of $1,500 per teacher this year. It would also give districts enough money to grant teachers additional raises averaging $500 this year and again next year, though the districts would decide for themselves exactly how to distribute that money.

•Cap the amount of money that property-wealthy districts, such as Eanes in Central Texas, sends to the state to be used by other districts as part of the share-the-wealth school finance system. No details were immediately available on what the cap would be or how much extra money Eanes could keep.

A few districts send as much as 70 percent of their local money through "recapture," and a cap would allow those districts to hold onto significantly more money than the rest of the state.

One of the districts that would benefit from the cap is Eanes. Rep. Todd Baxter, an Austin Republican whose district includes Eanes, has pushed for a recapture cap in negotiations with the Senate and said he would not vote for a proposal that does not include one.

"What we need to focus on is creating a system that ties reducing recapture to increasing equity," he said.

The tentative deal on taxes that the Senate plans to reject calls for raising the statewide property tax to 7 percent, and expanding it to car repairs, bottled water, computer repairs and Internet access. It would also raise cigarette taxes by $1 a pack but would not raise alcohol taxes as the Senate had wanted.

The state cap on property tax rates for school maintenance an operations would fall from $1.50 to $1.24 this year and $1.20 next year. In addition, the amount of a residential home's value exempt from property taxes would jump from $15,000 to $22,500. Senators had pushed for the increased exemptions to make sure the owners of less expensive homes would benefit from property tax cuts.

Senate Democrats have repeatedly threatened to filibuster a final tax bill, citing studies by the nonpartisan Legislative Budget Board that say similar proposals cut taxes for households that earn more than $100,000 a year but raise taxes overall for the rest of the state. But the filibuster could be rendered ineffective if negotiators reach a tax deal and if Perry calls a fresh 30-day session.

When Perry called the current session in June, he also vetoed the state's education budget for the next two years in a challenge to lawmakers to come up with a new funding system.

But it is widely expected that if lawmakers do not enact a new system, the budget board will vote to restore the funding that Perry axed, ensuring that school starts on time.

Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/shared/tx/legislature/stories/07/19finance.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 2:09 PM 0 comments Links to this post

July 18, 2005
Governors Endorse a Standard Formula for Graduation Rates
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY

DES MOINES, July 17 - Governors from 45 states agreed Sunday to adopt a common formula to calculate high school graduation rates, an initiative intended to help policy makers more accurately measure student success and identify academic programs that need improving.

The agreement is nonbinding, but as a series of recommendations, it would lead to a uniform accounting system to replace the patchwork of approaches currently used that the governors say often produces inaccurate or misleading information. It would also help states comply with the federal education law known as No Child Left Behind, which uses graduation rates as a measure of whether schools are meeting annual progress requirements.

The governors said the agreement would also lead to a common formula for dropout rates and eventually to a reassessment of high school courses to make them more rigorous. Results of a federal study released last week showed that average reading and math scores for 17-year-olds were unchanged from the 1970's.

"This is just the first step," said Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia, a Democrat and chairman of the National Governors Association, which announced the agreement at its annual summer meeting here. "Right now, different states have different definitions. So how can we make valid comparisons? And if you can't compare, how do we validate who has the best practices?"

Education reform, specifically "redesigning high school," has been a major policy focus of the meetings here this weekend, as well as Mr. Warner's chief priority during his one-year term as chairman. The push for harmonizing how graduation rates are determined was a central component of his efforts, viewed as a critical need to help states track student progress and divert resources to those falling behind.

Raymond Simon, deputy secretary of education, said the federal study released last week "reaffirmed the urgency of redesigning the American high school."

For now, the nation's most populous states, California, Texas and Florida, as well as Maryland and Wyoming, have not agreed to adopt the new formula. Mr. Warner said "a couple more states" were likely to join the agreement, but he stopped short of predicting that all 50 would.

Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, a Republican who will succeed Mr. Warner on Monday as chairman of the association, said current state-by-state comparisons of graduation rates were largely meaningless, adding that it would be like ranking one basketball team shooting at an 8-foot-high basket against another shooting at a 10-foot-high basket.

"We should all be shooting at a 10-foot basket," Mr. Huckabee said. "This will give us the ability to honestly know how well we are doing compared to other states."

Alluding to what many governors said needs to come next, a universal definition for dropout rates, Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, said state calculations were so incomplete that they often led to "vast disparities," even within a state.

The governors said it was particularly difficult to track the progress - or even the whereabouts - of students who are counted among incoming ninth graders but have disappeared by graduation. The simple math of comparing aggregate numbers, they said, does not account for students who may have transferred to another school or taken time off before deciding to return later.

Further, they said, schools often produce dropout rates using outdated information or false assumptions, not really knowing whether a missing student has graduated, transferred or become missing for other reasons.

It is unclear, however, when the governors would be ready to sign an agreement on a dropout rate. Officials with the association said the task force that developed the formula for graduation rates would meet again within a few months to set a timetable for moving forward.

The formula for graduation rates divides the number of a state's graduates in a particular year by the number of students entering the ninth grade for the first time four years before, plus the difference between the number of students who transfer in and out over the same four years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/education/18govs.html?

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:43 PM 0 comments Links to this post

"Although some immigrants are a burden on the welfare system, as a group they pay far more in taxes than they receive in government benefits, such as public education and social services." -Angela

Scientific American
August, 2005

Coming to America
IMMIGRATION TODAY RIVALS THE INFLUX OF A CENTURY AGO BY RODGER DOYLE

The current wave of immigration, which rivals the massive influx of 1880-1914, started with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Since then, about 27 million legal immigrants have crossed the border. In addition, an estimated 10.3 million illegal ones live in the U.S. The net result is that, as of 2004, there were 34.2 million foreign-born residents in the country. More than half are from Latin America and about a quarter from Asia, which contrasts with the pre-World War I period, when the foreign-born were overwhelmingly European.

Today's surge, like its predecessor, is profoundly affecting the culture and economics of the U.S., particularly in southern Florida, southern California and the New York metropolitan area. In 2004 the foreign-born accounted for 11.3 percent of the population, and at their present rate of increase, this figure could exceed the record of 14.6 percent in 1890. The foreign-born now account for half the growth of the U.S. population.

One reason that the U.S. draws immigrants is the long-standing shortage of native-born workers. Too few Americans are acquiring scientific and engineering skills: of the foreign-born, 3.3 percent of those 18 years of age and older hold higher degrees, such as Ph.D.s and J.D.s, compared with 2.2 percent of the native-born population. At the same time, the native-born shun many manual jobs. Farm labor, for instance, is largely foreign-born. Several California industries, such as apparel and construction, depend
almost exclusively on immigrant workers.

Another stimulus to immigration is U.S. involvement abroad, which has led to waves of migrants from South Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and other countries. Other triggers include civil conflict, as in Colombia, and hard times, as in the former Soviet countries.

Although some immigrants are a burden on the welfare system, as a group they pay far more in taxes than they receive in government benefits, such as public education and social services. A National Academy of Sciences study in 1997 found that immigrants had little impact on the earnings of U.S.–born Americans, except for unskilled jobs, where native-born high school dropouts found their wages going down because of competition from unskilled immigrants. According to the National Foreign Intelligence Board, an advisory body to the Central Intelligence Agency, the more liberal immigration policies of the U.S. have given it a competitive edge over Europe and Japan in industries such as information technology.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:33 PM 0 comments Links to this post

by PAUL KRUGMAN / NYTIMES
Published: July 18, 2005

Many seemingly authoritative figures, not all of them partisan shills, say
that the American economy has fully recovered from the recession that began
in 2001. They point to the unemployment rate, which has fallen from a peak
of 6.3 percent in 2003 to 5 percent last month. That's not quite as low as
the 4.2 percent unemployment rate in February 2001, when the recession
began, but it's fairly low by historical standards.

For some reason, however, the public isn't feeling prosperous. Gallup tells
us that only 3 percent of Americans describe the economy as "excellent," and
only 33 percent describe it as "good."

Maybe people are just ungrateful. Maybe they've been misled by negative
media reports. Maybe they're grumpy about their paychecks: adjusted for
inflation, average weekly earnings have been flat for the past five years.

Or maybe the figures on unemployment are giving a false signal.

Economists who argue that there's something wrong with the unemployment
numbers are buzzing about a new study by Katharine Bradbury, an economist at
the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, which suggests that millions of
Americans who should be in the labor force aren't. "The addition of these
hypothetical participants," she writes, "would raise the unemployment rate
by one to three-plus percentage points."

Some background: the unemployment rate is only one of several numbers
economists use to assess the jobs picture. When the economy is generating an
abundance of jobs, economists expect to see strong growth in the payrolls
reported by employers and in the number of people who say they have jobs,
together with a rise in the length of the average workweek. They also expect
to see wage gains well in excess of inflation, as employers compete to
attract workers.

In fact, we see none of these things. As Berkeley's J. Bradford DeLong
writes on his influential economics blog, "We have four of five indicators
telling us that the state of the job market is not that good and only one -
the unemployment rate - reading green."

In particular, even the most favorable measures show that employment growth
has lagged well behind population growth over the past four years. Yet the
measured unemployment rate isn't much higher than it was in early 2001. How
is that possible?

The answer, according to the survey used to estimate the unemployment rate,
is a decline in labor force participation. Nonworking Americans aren't
considered unemployed unless they are actively looking for work, and hence
counted as part of the labor force. And a large number of people have, for
some reason, dropped out of the official labor force.

Those with a downbeat view of the jobs picture argue that the low reported
unemployment rate is a statistical illusion, that there are millions of
Americans who would be looking for jobs if more jobs were available. Those
with an upbeat view argue that labor force participation has fallen for
reasons that have nothing to do with job availability - for example, young
adults, recognizing the importance of education, may have chosen to stay in
school longer.

That's where Dr. Bradbury's study comes in. She shows that the upbeat view
doesn't hold up in the face of a careful examination of the numbers. In
fact, because older Americans, especially older women, are more likely to
work than in the past, labor force participation should have risen, not
fallen, over the past four years. As a result, she suggests that there may
be "considerable slack in the U.S. labor market": there are at least 1.6
million and possibly as many as 5.1 million people who aren't counted as
unemployed but would take jobs if they were available.

There's both good news and bad news in that assessment. The good news is
that the economy probably has plenty of room to expand before inflation
becomes a problem (which implies that the Fed's decision to start raising
interest rates was premature).

The bad news is that it's hard to see where further expansion will come
from. We've already had four years of extremely loose fiscal and monetary
policy. Tax cuts have pushed the federal budget deep into the red. Low
interest rates have helped generate a housing bubble that has lifted real
estate prices to ludicrous heights in major parts of the country.

If all that wasn't enough to give us a full economic recovery, what will?

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 12:03 AM 0 comments Links to this post

BY JOHN REYNOLDS / LUBBOCK AVALANCHE JOURNAL

Some educators are growing more and more worried that a new sign might soon hang from low-performing Texas schools in the next few years - "Under New Management."

Both the House and Senate versions of House Bill 2, a 400-plus-page doorstop of a bill dealing with everything from teacher pay to lower school property taxes to computerizing accountability exams, have provisions to overhaul campuses that don't perform well on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills.

The education commissioner would have the authority to turn over the operation of a low-performing campus to an outside management team after two years.

James Harris, a special education teacher with Lubbock Independent School District and regional vice president of the Texas State Teachers Association, said the bill's language opens the door to for-profit companies like Edison Schools managing Lubbock schools.

"History has proven they cannot do the job as well," he said. "In a number of places, they have been terminated for not doing the job well. They're interested more in a profit than the success of the children."

The public should be concerned, he said, because reconstituting schools under private management could lead the community to lose control of their schools.

As House and Senate negotiators worked through the weekend to hammer out an agreement to reform Texas' public schools, the privatization issue was flying under the radar although educators view it as a greater threat than other, better-publicized issues, Harris said.

The education commissioner already has the ability to dissolve low-performing school districts, but HB 2 would expand that to individual campuses.

Schools that are rated academically unacceptable or would have been rated unacceptable had the next year's accountability standards been in place this year would be assigned a team to improve the campus's performance.

The teams could be in low-performing schools as early as the coming school year. According to an analysis done by the Texas Freedom Network, intervention teams could be assigned to nine LISD campuses.

They are: Estacado High, O.L. Slaton Junior High, Arnett Elementary, Bayless Elementary, Bean Elementary, Dupre Elementary, Wright Elementary, Alderson Middle and Matthews Learning Center.

An intervention team would work with the school to create an improvement plan.

The team would have wide latitude to distribute additional funds, waive state rules and intervene with administrators and teachers to improve test scores.

If the campus remains academically unacceptable for a second year, the education commissioner would then have the option to reconstitute the campus, close the campus or turn it over to alternative management.

As part of the reconstitution process, the intervention team has the power to fire the principal or teachers.

A school that performs poorly for a third year would automatically come under alternative management.

State Rep. Carl Isett, R-Lubbock, downplayed the reconstitution provision, saying the goal is to speed up improvements at low-performing schools.

Current procedures allow too many years to pass before schools implement improvement plans, he said. Meanwhile, children entering the school system quickly fall behind their peers at other campuses.

"We're trying to get control a little more quickly," he said.

Rep. Delwin Jones, R-Lubbock, said he was concerned about anything that would move Texas' public schools toward privatization.

In the past, school districts have farmed out cafeteria and bus services in the name of economic efficiency, he said.

"It's my view that privatization might produce theoretical savings," he said. "But I don't see how you can do that without reducing service for the students."

"There are some good things in the bill," Dan Quinn of the Texas Freedom Network said. He pointed specifically to intervention teams as a positive option for low-performing campuses.

"Our problem is if an option is to turn it over to a private company," he said. "That's a terrible option. It's not a last resort; it's a disaster."


To comment on this story:

john.reynolds@lubbockonline.com 766-8725

brian.williams@lubbockonline.com 766-8717

http://lubbockonline.com/stories/071705/edu_071705031.shtml

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:55 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Compliments of the Texas Freedom Network. -Angela
SPECIAL SESSION ACTION ALERT
EDUCATION BILLS WOULD WRECK OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS!
With the special session in its last days, lawmakers are almost out of time to fix school finance and make sure Texas kids attend top-notch schools. But all we are seeing from the Capitol is smoke and mirrors. In the name of “reform,” legislative leaders are cobbling together compromise bills that threaten our kids’ education by:


turning over hundreds of public schools to failed private, for-profit education companies like Edison Schools, Inc.;




eliminating quality education standards for some schools; and




greatly expanding a troubled charter school system that has already wasted millions of taxpayer dollars and failed students across the state.



TAKE ACTION! TEXAS CAN DO BETTER!
Call your legislators today and tell them to vote NO on the conference committee bill, H.B. 2. Find contact information for your legislators here.

Texas can do better! Lawmakers should take the oath: “Do no harm!” They should either pass good, honest reforms or go home. Texas can’t afford bad legislation that raises taxes for most Texans while cutting them for the wealthiest, still leaves public schools short of the money they need and includes bad public policies that undermine our kids’ education. This isn’t “reform” – it’s a disaster.

(NOTE: The defeat of H.B. 2 would not threaten the opening of schools in August. State leaders still have the authority to fund schools this fall.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Texas Freedom Network advances a mainstream agenda of religious freedom and individual liberties to counter the radical right.
Make a donation to support the work of TFN.
Tell a friend! To subscribe to TFN News Clips, Alerts or Action Teams, use the form here. Subscribers may choose to receive News Clips on a daily or a weekly basis.
You are subscribed to this list as valenz@mail.utexas.edu. To change your TFN subscription preferences click here.
Home | Privacy & Security Policy | Contact Us
Copyright 2004-2005 Texas Freedom Network. All Rights Reserved.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 12:58 PM 8 comments Links to this post

According to the 2003-2004 National Assessment of Educational Progress [see http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ ] 9-year-olds posted record scores in reading and mathematics. 13-year-olds made modest gains, especially see math results. High school students' performance (17-year-olds) remained flat, however. For minorities, the test gap (not to be confused with the real achievement or educational attainment-gap) has apparently been dramatically narrowed as well.

See a related San Francisco Chronicle (7/15) report.

-Angela

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 12:43 PM 0 comments Links to this post

OK, the session is winding down. The problem with this tax bill overall is that both bills take some of the tax burden off the weaoty8est 20% and shift it to the rest in our state. Average middle-class folks in medium-priced homes will see a decrease in property taxes, but not enough to justify much of a shift for most. This might mean, for example a decrease to as low as $1.10 per $100.00 valuation by 2007, saving this family a mere $125.00 or so.

In return, the sales tax could go up to 7.25 cents on the dollar, giving Texas the highest tax rate in the country. This is very regressive. An analysis by the Legislative Budget Board demonstrates that unless one belongs to a household that earns more than $140.000.00 per year, the 1 cent tax increase will cost more to us personally than the property tax "saving" will put back. Where's the much-needed leadership in our state who will fight not only for the working- but also the middle-class families of our state?

Even with these proposals, the business establishment is resisting, not wanting to get "hurt" Business wants to have it both ways, paying the least amount possible into public education at the same time that they want a well-educated citizenry and workforce that will minimize their workforce training/educating costs.

In the meantime, the Texas Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of the current school funding law, so school finance promises to loom as a concern for sometime.

-Angela

Negotiators hope to pick up speed.
By Jason Embry
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Saturday, July 16, 2005

Facing renewed pressure from businesses and a looming legislative deadline, lawmakers entered a critical weekend of negotiations over school finance reform Friday. With the 30-day special session scheduled to end Wednesday, it was clear that talks about proposals passed in the House and Senate would go down to the wire. Key lawmakers have been meeting behind closed doors all week but have not announced any agreements on legislation to send back to their chambers for final approval.

Lawmakers are trying to pass two major pieces of legislation: One focuses on education reforms and spending increases, the other on cutting billions of dollars in property taxes while raising sales and business taxes.

"Everybody knows the clock is ticking and we've got to get this done," Gov. Rick Perry said. "I think the alternative is not acceptable."

Negotiators working on the education proposal have met for several hours a day this week, at times going until midnight. Some of the key differences have been how to structure teacher pay raises and how much money to spend on technology.

Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst sounded upbeat when they stepped out of a meeting on the education proposal Friday night, although they did not specify the remaining sticking points.

"We're down to four or five issues," Dewhurst said. "(Perry) and I walked in and threw out some solutions to help both the House conferees and the Senate conferees reach an agreement."

Tax negotiators met publicly twice on Friday but remained at odds over how much they should increase the sales tax, whether there should be increases in alcohol taxes and how much they can cut in property taxes.

Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, said the two sides need to reach an agreement by early Sunday to avert a filibuster attempt by tax bill critics in the Senate.

He and his House counterpart, Ways and Means Committee chairman Jim Keffer, R-Eastland, bemoaned the fact that Texas lawmakers will not cut property taxes as much as they had talked about earlier this year because neither side passed a sweeping reform of business taxes.

"Sometimes you've got to go in increments," Keffer said.

One House negotiator, Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, said the House wants to cut the maximum property tax rate for school maintenance and operations by at least 20 percent over the next two years.

While lawmakers did not extend the state's general business tax, the corporate franchise tax, to partnerships as some had hoped, about 10,000 corporations that have set up partnerships to avoid it will have to start paying it under both the House and Senate versions.

Perry and Dewhurst acknowledged that some oil and gas companies that would have to pay the franchise tax for the first time are trying to persuade lawmakers to vote against the tax plan.

"I would not want to be a member of the Legislature to go back to my district and to say that I could not support a revenue shift to those companies that should have been paying the franchise tax for the last decade," Perry said.

jembry@statesman.com; 445-3654

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/shared/tx/legislature/stories/07/16finance.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:59 AM 0 comments Links to this post

With my mother ill with cancer, I'm contemplating my own relationship with my mother and in turn with my two daughters and how all of this connects up to health. A good friend of mine sent this article to me that is quite illuminating on the power of our most intimate relationships and how together with our minds and bodies, have implications for our personal health and well being. Amazingly, at the exact moment of this writing, John Mayer's hit song, "Daughters," played on the radio. Dr. Northrup (see below) is onto something. -Angela

MOTHER DAUGHTER
Understanding the Feminine Legacy of Good Health
an interview with Christiane Northrup, M.D.

BY CYNTHIA CHATFIELD
As women encounter various life stages, we are called upon to create ourselves anew. But unknown territory is scary. We naturally seek the guidance and support of someone who’s been there before. Someone who knows us well and can show the way. If she’s standing firm in her own wisdom and power, it’s our mother who becomes our North Star, a beacon of strength and practical counsel…
Dr. Christiane Northrup, America’s leading voice empowering women to become active participants in their own physical, mental and emotional development, now shares poignant insights as to how mothers can help daughters grow up and move forward with confidence. And how both can learn to live a joyous, creative and full life on their own terms.
As a practicing obstetrician/gynecologist and the mother of two grown daughters, Dr. Northrup has come to understand that the mother-daughter relationship “has more clout biologically, emotionally and psychologically than any other relationship in a woman’s life.”
Through more than two decades of hands-on healthcare treating thousands of women, Northrup has noted that if a woman’s relationship with her mother is supportive and healthy, and if her mother has given
http://www.naturalawakeningsmag.com/resources/content/0505_Featured_Article_May

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 9:39 AM 0 comments Links to this post

By MICHAEL JANOFSKY / NYTIMES
Published: July 16, 2005

DES MOINES, July 15 - A large majority of high school students say their
class work is not very difficult, and almost two-thirds say they would work
harder if courses were more demanding or interesting, according to an online
nationwide survey of teenagers conducted by the National Governors Association.

The survey, being released on Saturday by the association, also found that
fewer than two-thirds believe that their school had done a good job
challenging them academically or preparing them for college. About the same
number of students said their senior year would be more meaningful if they
could take courses related to the jobs they wanted or if some of their
courses could be counted toward college credit.

Taken together, the electronic responses of 10,378 teenagers painted a
somber picture of how students rate the effectiveness of their schools in
preparing them for the future.

The survey also appears to reinforce findings of federal test results
released on Thursday that showed that high school seniors made almost no
progress in reading and math in the first years of the decade. During that
time, elementary school students made significant gains.

"I might have expected kids to say, 'Don't give us more work; high school is
tough enough,' " said Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia, a Democrat and chairman
of the governors association, which opens a three-day summer meeting here on
Saturday.

"Instead," Mr. Warner said, "what we got are high school students actually
willing to be stretched more. I didn't think we'd get much of that."

The governors' survey was conducted as part of the association's effort to
examine public high schools and devise strategies for improving them. Mr.
Warner has made high school reform his priority as chairman of the
association. His term ends on Monday, when Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, a
Republican, is scheduled to succeed him.

While a vast majority of respondents in the survey, 89 percent, said they
intended to graduate, fewer than two-thirds of those said they felt their
schools did an "excellent" or "good" job teaching them how to think
critically and analyze problems.

Even among the remaining 11 percent, a group of 1,122 that includes
teenagers who say they dropped out of high school or are considering
dropping out, only about one in nine cited "school work too hard" as a
reason for not remaining through graduation. The greatest percentage of
those who are leaving, 36 percent, said they were "not learning anything,"
while 24 percent said, "I hate my school."

Experts in education policy said the survey results were consistent with
other studies that have shown gaps between what students learn in high
school and what they need for the years beyond.

"A lot of business people and politicians have been saying that the high
schools are not meeting the needs of kids," said Barbara Kapinus, a senior
policy analyst for the National Education Association. "It's interesting
that kids are saying it, too."

Marc Tucker, president of the National Council on Economic Education, an
organization that helps states and school districts create programs that are
more tailored to contemporary student needs, said he did not believe that
American high schools could adequately prepare students without a
fundamental change in how they operated.

Mr. Tucker said American schools had been too slow to adapt high school
curriculums to the real-life demands of college and the workplace. Except
for that small fraction of highly motivated students with an eye toward
prestigious private colleges and state universities, many more students, he
said, are under the impression that just having a diploma qualifies them for
the rigors of college and the workplace.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/16/education/16STUDENTS.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 7:36 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Fri, Jul. 15, 2005

Please Dull the Pain
Fort Worh Star-Telegram

After abandoning their goal of modernizing the state's tax code and putting public schools on firm financial footing, lawmakers in Austin are left to tinker with the stopgap measures they've adopted.

Expect legislators and their leaders to hail their efforts as a success, but it's not true. The best that Texans can hope for now is that some of the most harmful parts of the pending legislation will be removed before final passage:

• A House-passed bill would cap the amount of local property tax money that wealthy school districts would have to give up to equalize funding with property-poor. This provision is a multimillion-dollar windfall for the super-rich Highland Park enclave of Dallas, and it was openly designed to be so.

Some lawmakers have floated proposals to reduce or disguise its effects, but the Texas Legislature should not approve such an obvious ploy to deliver even more financial advantage to those wealthiest school districts that already have so many advantages.

• The House would apply the sales tax to motor vehicle repairs. Wealthy people who tend to drive newer cars have no worry. But those Texans who cannot afford to buy a new car every few years will face real hardship when a big repair bill is made even bigger by sales tax.

Measures like this have been included so the Legislature can afford to order big local school property tax cuts. Better to back off on the property tax cut than to approve sales taxes on car repairs.

• The House would reserve 15 percent of all future increases in available state revenue to pay for further local property tax reduction. It may indeed be good for future lawmakers to help school districts reduce their local taxes, but that should be a decision that they make after they have weighed all of the state's needs at that time.

• Textbook funding -- for books already ordered and sitting in warehouses -- still hasn't been approved. Buy the books, for goodness' sake.

• The House would increase the sales tax by a full penny on the dollar, while the Senate would hold the increase to a half-cent. An increase in alcohol taxes, like what's in the Senate plan, should be used to help hold down the sales tax increase.

• A modest increase in the homestead exemption -- like the $7,500 increase proposed by Gov. Rick Perry -- would help spread more of the benefits of proposed property tax cuts to lower-income Texans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2005 Star-Telegram and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/12139807.htm

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:27 AM 1 comments Links to this post

July 15, 2005

By SAM DILLON / NYTimes

WASHINGTON, July 14 - America's elementary school students made solid gains in both reading and mathematics in the first years of this decade, while middle school students made less progress and older teenagers hardly any, according to federal test results released on Thursday.

The results, considered the best measure of the nation's long-term education trends, show that 9-year-old minority students made the most gains. In particular, young black students significantly narrowed the longtime gap between their math and reading scores and those of higher-achieving white students, who also made strong gains.

Older minority teenagers, however, scored about as far behind whites as in previous decades, and scores for all groups pointed to a deepening crisis in the nation's high schools.

The math and reading test, known as the National Assessment of Educational Progress, Long-Term Trends, has been given to a representative national sample of students ages 9, 13 and 17, every few years since the early 1970's, virtually without modification, and social scientists study it carefully.

The results were from a test given to 28,000 public and private school students in all 50 states during fall 2003 and spring 2004. It was the first time the federal Department of Education had administered the test since 1999.

Nine-year-old students, on average, earned the highest scores in three decades, in both reading and math.

In the reading test, the average score of 9-year-old black students increased 14 points on a 500-point scale, from 186 in 1999 to 200 in 2004. Reading scores of 9-year-old white students rose 5 points, to 226 in 2004 from 221 in 1999. As a result the "achievement gap" between black and white 9-year-old students narrowed to 26 points over those five years from 35. The gap was 44 points in 1971.

The test measures students' skills, but does not include a passing grade or indicate whether they are performing at grade level. Over all, the 30-year trend in reading for 9-year-old students has been one of steady, modest increases, with the sharpest gains in the last five years.

Bush administration officials credited the president's signature education law, No Child Left Behind, with raising the scores.

But groups that have criticized the law, including both national teachers unions, noted that it had only been in effect a year or so when the test was administered. They said that state efforts to increase testing, bolster teacher training and reduce class sizes, as well as an increase in early childhood and kindergarten programs should also be credited.

President Bush celebrated the results Thursday before a largely black audience in Indianapolis, arguing that the federal law's emphasis on standardized testing should be extended to the upper grades.

"I'm proud to come here to talk about the new results," Mr. Bush said. "They're from the first long-term test, by the way, since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act. Over the last five years, American children have made significant gains."

"No Child Left Behind is making a difference in the elementary and middle schools, and I believe we need to expand this process to our high schools," he added.

Darvin M. Winick, the chairman of the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees the test, agreed that there was "considerable good news to report."

But Mr. Winick, who was appointed by the former secretary of education Rod Paige, urged caution in attributing the gains narrowly to the federal law. Increased testing and reporting of student data and other reform efforts that got under way in many states during the Clinton administration probably also contributed, he said.

No Child Left Behind, which requires states to test students in third through eighth grades in English and math every year, and to break out scores of minority students, first took effect in fall 2002.

In math, 9-year-old blacks narrowed the 28-point gap separating them from white classmates in 1999, to 23 points in 2004.

Hispanic children also gained ground. The average reading score for 9-year-old Hispanics, for instance, rose to 205 in 2004 from 193 in 1999. In math, the average score rose 17 points, to 230 in 2004 from 213 in 1999. The math gap between 9-year-old Hispanic and white students narrowed to 18 points from 26.

"These results show that as a country we're headed in the right direction," Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings said in an interview.

Regardless of race, the scores of older students were less impressive, with a few exceptions.

Thirteen-year-old students, for instance, achieved math scores that on average were the highest in the history of the test. But their reading scores were no better than in 1980.

Seventeen-year-old students performed the worst. Average reading and math scores for that group were unchanged from the early 1970's.

Those low scores appeared likely to fuel a debate about how to improve the high schools.

No Child Left Behind requires states to test teenagers in one of their high school years, and Mr. Bush has proposed expanding the testing to include Grades 9, 10 and 11.

But Robert Schaeffer, the public education director of Fairtest, an advocacy group critical of standardized testing, said that more than 20 states have already introduced new high school tests in the form of exit examinations required for graduation. Many of those states have reported sharp score increases on those exams, and the National Assessment results released on Thursday seemed to call the validity of those state scores into question, Mr. Schaeffer said.

"Stagnant results for 17-year-olds indicate that soaring exit exam passing percentages reported by many states, such as Texas and Florida, reflect test score pollution, not real learning gains," Mr. Schaeffer said.

Freeman Hrabowski, president of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, who has written on raising successful African-American children, said that among the tests' more discouraging findings were those concerning homework and reading trends.

Students who took the reading test were asked how many hours they had spent on homework the previous day, and the results showed that many were spending less time. The percentage of 13-year-old students devoting less than an hour on their homework, for instance, increased to 40 percent in 2004 from 36 percent in 1984. And the percentage of 17-year-old students who said they were not assigned any homework at all rose to 26 percent in 2004 from 22 percent in 1984.

For teenage students, the results showed a direct relation between higher scores and more time spent on homework.

The group of 17-year-old students who said they "never or hardly ever" read for fun increased to 19 percent in 2004 from 16 percent in 1999.

"Clearly, you learn by reading and studying, and not enough kids are spending that time," Dr. Hrabowski said.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:25 AM 0 comments Links to this post

by Mike Allen
Thursday, July 14, 2005; Page A04


It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.

Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong."

"By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

Mehlman, a Baltimore native who managed President Bush's reelection campaign, goes on to discuss current overtures to minorities, calling it "not healthy for the country for our political parties to be so racially polarized." The party lists century-old outreach efforts in a new feature on its Web site, GOP.com, which was relaunched yesterday with new interactive features and a history section called "Lincoln's Legacy."

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean spoke to the NAACP yesterday and said through an aide: "It's no coincidence that 43 out of 43 members of the Congressional Black Caucus are Democrats. The Democratic Party is the real party of opportunity for African Americans."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 9:46 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Commentary

by W. GARDNER SELBY
 
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, July 14, 2005

In the 2005 Legislature's version of "Groundhog Day," Republican leaders are wrestling again behind closed doors over how Texas manages and funds public schools.

They will reach deals, or not, before the 30-day special session ends next week. But we can suss out now what's vanished like a Bobby Abreu power shot.

Gone: Any broad new business tax, though corporate-owned partnerships could be required to pay the corporate franchise tax, with partnerships owned by individuals remaining exempt. Gov. Rick Perry, who opposes new taxes that could hurt job creation, endorsed the patch path last month.

The Texas Taxpayers and Research Association, representing businesses, calls the change uneven.

"If you're going to have a business tax, it should apply to all businesses equally, not just corporations," chief economist Dale Craymer said.

Gone: The celebratory 2003 vow of Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and senators to halve local school property taxes to 75 cents per $100 valuation while improving financial equity among school districts with a statewide property tax.

At the time, an aide to House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, gave the Senate's scheme no chance.

"It's like rolling a body out of the morgue and saying, This is going to be our wide receiver,' " he said.

Wise guy, sure. Yet the latest House and Senate plans cut maximum tax rates for school operations to $1.10 at best. And voters can add 15 pennies of taxes for local needs. And the plans raise sales, tobacco and other taxes paid disproportionately by lower-income households. Possibly gone: Earmarked money for textbooks. Rep. Kent Grusendorf, R-Arlington, envisions districts choosing how to spend money best. Publishers with books awaiting delivery (they share photos of stacked tomes) fear financial wedgies. Grusendorf said: "One way or another, they will sell those books."

Gone: The notion that in the 150-member House and 31-member Senate, single votes don't count. Craddick and Dewhurst kept tax plans alive with their ayes. Craddick was no surprise, but

Dewhurst intoning was a stunner, especially since, in doing so, he surrendered his long-held hope for creating a broad employer tax to replace the franchise tax.

Gone: Public negotiations at the end of legislative sessions. In 1995, the last time lawmakers made sweeping changes to education law, a House-Senate conference committee sweated through issues in public. This year, leaders are huddling privately -- though not so secretively that they couldn't be spotted ambling in and out of a second-floor room. Location happens to be the Governor's Press Conference Room.

Never gone: School funding and taxes as trouble.

For starters, the Texas Supreme Court is weighing an Austin judge's call for more school aid and less dependence on property taxes.

The Supremes established their school finance role by declaring the old system inequitable in 1989, two-plus years before "Groundhog Day" premiered. If the court finds fault again, Perry could yank legislators in for another 30-day run.

wgselby@statesman.com; 445-3644

http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/auto/epaper/editions/thursday/metro_state_246dd0df01b8510f00b0.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 9:39 PM 0 comments Links to this post

DALLAS MORNING NEWS

School Finance Crisis: The Lege is failing again; court must be enforcer
12:05 AM CDT on Thursday, July 14, 2005

Texas' school funding crisis continues to play out on two tracks. The Legislature's working in special session to fund schools, while the Texas Supreme Court reviews a lower court ruling that says legislators have failed to adequately fund them. Here's a look at both fronts:

The Legislature
This is it? Two years of work on school finance, three legislative sessions devoted to the subject, and all the good citizens of Texans are likely to get from their governor and legislators are higher sales taxes and diddly property tax relief?

Apparently so. By all estimations, Austin's settling in on a plan that'll hit Texans with the highest sales taxes in the nation and substantially less than a 15 percent cut in their school property tax rates. Even worse, the plan will leave schools vastly underfunded. If you call this progress, we've got some beachfront property in Waco to sell you.

To be fair, legislators aren't the only culprits. Gov. Rick Perry is responsible as well, declining to take the lead in the special session to secure passage of a new business tax to help fund schools.

Parts of the Texas business community are to blame, too. While some corporations and firms testified in favor of various business tax options to help schools, others took the small view and worried only about how a new tax would affect their bottom line. You have to wonder where they plan to get smart workers if Texas doesn't adequately fund its schools.

And speaking of adequacy, the school funding proposal now being fine-tuned could put less than $3 billion in new money for schools over the next two years. Six weeks ago, lawmakers were considering $3 billion. Now, that figure looks to be going down faster than the Dow on a bad day.

Even the most pessimistic observer of Austin couldn't imagine the Legislature would go this route. Texas schoolchildren are getting shortchanged. Consumers are getting hijacked. Property owners are getting puny relief. And business is largely getting a pass. Pitiful.

The Court
We can only hope the state Supreme Court is watching this mess unfold. It's hard to understand how such a minimal investment in schools, which doesn't even account for inflation, qualifies as "adequate" funding of Texas schools.

The justices also must deal with the argument the state presented them last week that says, hey, you don't have a dog in this hunt.

That's effectively what Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz told the court when he argued school funding is a legislative issue, not a judicial one. He's right, of course: Legislators must find a way to adequately , efficiently and equitably fund schools. The Texas Constitution requires it meet those three standards.

But some entity has to ensure those standards are met, and that body is the Texas judiciary. For the last 16 years, it has ruled in at least five court cases about the state's duty to fund schools right. Going back to its first big decision in 1989, and in its follow-up rulings, the justices have shot down the argument that it has no business intervening in school funding.

The court need not dictate school funding solutions. But remember, the people of Texas are the voice in the Constitution. And the people left it to the courts to enforce their right to quality schools. It's ludicrous to think the court doesn't have standing in this case.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 9:31 PM 2 comments Links to this post

TOP STORY
Thursday, July 14, 2005

By Kavan Peterson, Stateline.org Staff Writer
U.S. governors wind up a year-long push for tougher high school standards this weekend touting actions by more than a dozen states that will make it harder for students to earn a high school diploma.
 
Governors said their initiative to redesign secondary education has galvanized states into sending students a stern message that they must learn more mathematics, science and other core academic subjects to succeed in college or the workforce.
 
"It's an economic and even a national security imperative that we have a well educated work force that is prepared to meet the challenges of the global marketplace," said Virginia Gov. Mark Warner (D), outgoing chair of the National Governors Association (NGA), who made high school reform the centerpiece of his agenda.
 
At the governors' annual summer gathering July 15-18 in Des Moines, Iowa, the NGA will crown Warner’s initiative by distributing up to $15 million in grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to help implement high school reforms. The money will go to 10 states selected from the 31 that applied.
 
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) will be installed as Warner’s successor at the meeting and plans to focus on health care issues during his tenure as chairman.
 
The NGA also plans to announce that states will adopt uniform standards for calculating and reporting high school graduation rates. States have been faulted for claiming an average graduation rate of 83 percent, far higher than independent measures which estimate that less than 70 percent of public high school students nationwide graduate in four years.  (See June 24 Stateline.org article "States fudging high school dropout rates")
 
"If we're going to focus on fixing our high schools we've got to have a common definition for accurately measuring graduation rates," Warner told Stateline.org.
 
A flurry of recent reports by education experts spotlighting the failings of America's high schools prompted governors to hold a National Education Summit on High Schools in February, at which education and business leaders urged more rigorous standards for high school students.
 
Although President George W. Bush's second-term initiative to expand federal testing mandates to high schools is sputtering, state-led efforts to raise academic standards for high school students are gaining traction, education experts say.
 
At the summit, 13 states formed a coalition to adopt high school standards developed by the American Diploma Project (ADP), which advocates raising graduation requirements to match the skills demanded by colleges and employers. Achieve Inc., a nonpartisan education research organization that developed the project, announced last month that five more states -- Alabama, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina and Oklahoma – had joined the group, bringing the total to 18.
 
Eight of those states -- Arkansas, Oklahoma, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Iowa and Louisiana -- have adopted tougher course requirements for students to get a diploma since the education summit.
 
"This movement is coming from the states. It's not being driven by the federal government," said Matt Gandal, Achieve’s vice president.
 
Mississippi's board of education in April adopted one of the most rigorous high school curricula in the nation. Beginning in 2008, Mississippi 9th graders will be required to complete four years of English, math, science and social studies to earn a diploma.
 
Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry (D) signed legislation last month requiring all high school students to take a college-bound curriculum unless their parents sign an opt-out consent form. Delaware, Kentucky and Washington are launching programs that help high school students match their course work with their career and college goals after graduation.
 
Arkansas, Indiana and Texas also soon will require college-bound curricula for all students. And starting with the high school class of 2011 in Indiana, students will have to complete the state's Core 40 curriculum for admission to Indiana's four-year public colleges.
 
"We have to send a message to our kids so they know we're serious that if they don't take these classes they won't get into college," Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction Suellen K. Reed said.
 
Send your comments on this story to letters@stateline.org. Selected reader feedback will be posted in the Letters to the editor section.

Contact Kavan Peterson at kpeterson@stateline.org

http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=42864

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 12:55 PM 0 comments Links to this post

July 13, 2005
Requests Win More Leeway Under NCLB
Ed. Dept. Gives 16 States Approval on Changes
By Lynn Olson / EDUCATION WEEK

Federal officials by late last week had sent decision letters to 16 states approving at least some of their requested changes to accountability plans under the No Child Left Behind Act, which should make it easier for schools and districts to show progress. Another 31 states are awaiting such letters, although many have received oral approvals or denials.

The slew of requests—including proposals that federal officials have rejected in the past—was spurred, in part, by U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings’ April 7 pledge to take a more “common sense” approach to carrying out the law.

The large number of proposed revisions has left the Department of Education scrambling to provide a response in time for states to identify before the start of the new school year the schools and districts in need of improvement. The logjam has displeased some state officials who were already upset about implementation of the 31⁄2-year-old federal law.

“The U.S. Department of Education has taken more than five months to act on requested amendments to Virginia’s accountability plan that, for the most part, have already been granted to other states,” Thomas M. Jackson Jr., the president of the Virginia board of education, complained in a statement last month. “This continued disrespect toward a state that has faithfully implemented the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is bewildering.”

“From where we sit, the process is slow,” said Patricia I. Wright, the deputy superintendent of education in Virginia, which submitted its initial request in January. “But the issues are complicated, so to give credit to the U.S. Department of Education, they have taken quite a bit of time to consider each state’s individual request.”

The failure to make states’ proposed changes public also has bothered advocacy organizations, which are concerned that states are trying to water down their accountability plans without public scrutiny.

NCLB Implementation Changes

As of July 7, the U.S. Department of Education had approved, via final decision letters, at least some of the requested changes to 16 states’ accountability plans under the No Child Left Behind Act. The most commonly approved amendments are:

• Raising the minimum subgroup size:
Georgia (for all subgroups); Minnesota (for students with limited English proficiency, from 20 to 40)

• Using a "confidence interval" of 99 percent in calculating adequate yearly progress:
Mississippi, Wisconsin

• Using a 'confidence interval' of 75 percent under the law's "safe harbor" provision, which provides a second look at schools and districts that did not make AYP initially:
Delaware, Indiana, Oklahoma, Wisconsin

• Averaging results across years:
Alabama and Maryland will average participation rates over a three-year period; Minnesota will average proficiency rates for up to two years

• Identifying districts for improvement only when they do not make AYP in the same subject for two consecutive years in elementary, middle, and high school:
Alabama, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Oregon, Wisconsin

• Revising annual AYP targets to increase in 10 equal increments through 2014:
Missouri

• Adjusting upward the percent of proficient students with disabilities in schools that failed to make AYP based solely on their special education subgroup:
Georgia, Idaho, Maryland, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education


“If this process is going to be perceived as having any real credibility, then it needs to be conducted more in the open,” said Dianne M. Piché, the executive director of the Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights, a Washington-based watchdog group. She noted that states’ proposed amendments to their accountability plans are not posted on the federal Department of Education’s Web site until after the department has acted, and that the decision letters often are not posted right away. The department does not post rejected proposals.

“Decisions are being made below the radar screen,” contended Michael A. Resnick, the associate executive director of the National School Boards Association. “It’s very difficult for real people at the local level to get a sense of what the larger picture is.”

The federal law requires states to test students in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 and once in high school. Those results are used to help determine whether schools and districts are making adequate progress, so that all students score proficient on state tests by 2013-14, with a series of cascading interventions for schools and districts that miss their annual targets. Each state must submit an accountability plan for approval by the federal government that describes in detail how it is carrying out the law’s accountability provisions. States can request changes to their accountability plans at any time.

In January, federal officials notified states that they had until April 1 to submit proposed amendments to their accountability plans that would affect how they calculate progress based on data from the 2004-05 school year. In April, that deadline was extended to June 1 so that states could take advantage of additional leeway offered by the federal government.

Most notably, Ms. Spellings sent a letter to state schools chiefs May 10 outlining new options for determining the progress of students with disabilities. Forty-two states have asked for that flexibility, including a number of states that had to revise their original requests.
Tinkering and Tweaking

Many of the changes approved so far reflect flexibility already granted to other states. For example, Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, and Virginia all received permission to increase the minimum number of students who must be in a subgroup before a school is held accountable for that subgroup’s performance.

That action has raised concern among civil rights organizations, said Ms. Piché, because as the minimum subgroup size rises, many schools will no longer have to demonstrate progress for some populations of students, such as those who receive special education services.

“With any of these decisions, I think the ultimate test should be how many children are being counted, and how many children are not being counted,” she said.

A number of states also have asked to use a statistical technique known as a “confidence interval” to help determine with greater reliability whether schools have met their achievement targets. States also have received permission to identify districts for improvement only when all three grade spans—elementary, middle, and high school—do not make adequate progress in the same subject for two years in a row.

Florida and Missouri got the go-ahead to revise their annual achievement targets for schools, replacing a large jump in those targets in 2004-05 with smaller, annual increments. And several states received permission to include in their high school graduation rates special education students and English-language learners who take more than four years to earn a diploma.

“This seems to be the game that we’re into,” said Mr. Resnick of the NSBA, based in Alexandria, Va. “Limited modifications are being made, perhaps to enable some schools to make adequate yearly progress that hadn’t before. But you run out of room to do that.”
Pushing the Envelope

Other states are trying to push the Education Department farther, although so far they have not succeeded. Connecticut, Virginia, and Washington want to limit public school choice and tutoring to students in subgroups that did not make adequate progress, rather than to all students in a school identified for improvement. So far, the department has rejected that request.

Minnesota, Virginia, and Washington state also want to identify a school or district for improvement only if the same subgroup misses its achievement targets in the same subject for two years in a row, another proposal that federal officials have turned down. And Minnesota and Virginia hope to reverse the order of the remedies, so that students would be offered tutoring before public school choice, a proposal that is pending.

States such as Washington also have repeated earlier requests to exempt students who are new to the United States from taking tests in English for three years or until they have reached a minimum level of English proficiency, whichever comes first.

Although federal officials have rejected such requests in the past, as Mary Alice Hueschel, a deputy superintendent of education in Washington state acknowledged, “honestly, our approach was to keep our issues up front, knowing that we’ve been told no more than once.”

But in a June 22 statement, Connecticut Commissioner of Education Betty J. Sternberg complained, “the increased flexibility which the federal agency has promised simply is not happening for Connecticut.”

She noted that the department had agreed to only two minor amendments to her state’s accountability plan. Two others were identified as “acceptable … with modifications,” while the rest were essentially denied.

“An answer to Connecticut’s central request—to use frequent, classroom-based ‘formative’ tests in grades 3, 5, and 7, rather than add statewide standardized accountability tests in those grades—was put on hold,” she said.

Federal officials also rejected a request to test some students with special needs at their instructional levels, not their grade levels. As a result, Ms. Sternberg said, Connecticut will have to devise a separate set of tests for special education students in grades 3-8, “adding tremendous additional costs to the estimated $8 million shortfall in federal funding for NCLB test development.”

Connecticut’s attorney general has said he plans to sue the federal government over the law.
2 Percent Option

One of the biggest questions is which states will be able to use new flexibility in measuring the progress of special education students.

In May, Secretary Spellings said the department would soon issue a notice of proposed rulemaking that would permit states to draft “modified” achievement standards, and tests based on those standards, to determine whether a limited group of students with “academic disabilities” was making progress. According to the department, such students make up about 2 percent of the school-age population.

Until the final regulation is in place, states that show they are meeting a set of core conditions can choose an interim option that allows them to adjust the percent of proficient students with disabilities upward. Only states that intend to write “modified” achievement standards and tests are eligible for the short-term flexibility.

Forty-two states applied for such leeway. So far, 29 have received at least oral approval; six more have been rejected. Those states may resubmit a different proposal for review, according to department officials.

Though many states are hoping to use the 2 percent option for the accountability decisions they make this summer, Ellen Forte-Fast, an education consultant who has analyzed state accountability plans for the Washington-based Council of Chief State School Officers, asserted that “nobody is going to be helped.”

“This is the appearance of flexibility,” she said. “It’s not flexibility. It doesn’t have any impact.”

After running a simulation model, for instance, West Virginia officials discovered that the so-called 2 percent rule did not help more than one or two schools, said Liza Cordeiro, a spokeswoman for the state education department. In Delaware, based on preliminary information, only about 16 schools did not make adequate progress solely because of their special education subgroups, and the new flexibility helped only a handful of those schools.

“It did help a couple, so anything that would help a couple is certainly worth it,” said Robin R. Taylor, Delaware’s associate secretary of education for assessment and accountability.
Vol. 24, Issue 42, Pages 1,20-21

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:46 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Bill would cut up to $500 million for new programs, teacher pay

08:53 PM CDT on Wednesday, July 13, 2005

By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News


AUSTIN – Lawmakers apparently will have up to half a billion dollars less than previously announced to fund new education programs and teacher salaries in the school finance bill being hammered out by House and Senate negotiators.

Several legislators confirmed Wednesday that the proposed amount of new money for schools over the next two years – not counting additional funds for enrollment growth – will be about $2.4 billion. That figure, representing an increase of about 3.5 percent, is $400 million to $500 million less than originally proposed for schools.

Senate Education Committee Chairwoman Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, said the reduced figure probably means that the Legislature will have to put off some education improvements for one year and possibly scale back other proposals in the school finance bill. One proposed change is a new merit pay program for teachers.

"We may have to wait until the 2006-07 school year to start a lot of these programs," Ms. Shapiro said. "When this much money has been cut out of what you were intending to use, it doesn't leave us much choice."

The senator also noted that lawmakers are under a time crunch as many school districts will be starting their school year in a month. This could be the last year that classes begin in August as both the House and Senate approved a new, mandatory starting date – the Tuesday after Labor Day – effective in fall 2006.

The drop in funding stems from a disagreement between House and Senate leaders over potential sources of new revenue for schools. While the Senate wanted to temporarily use money from the state's multibillion-dollar tobacco settlement to free up revenue for education, House leaders objected.

"All you're doing is smoke and mirrors. ... The House is not for using one-time funding mechanisms," said House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland.

He also said the overall funding increase is really more than Senate leaders estimate since there is additional money for schools in the education appropriations bill passed by the House. That money is in addition to adjustments for enrollment growth, he added.

It was unclear Wednesday how much individual school districts would be guaranteed over the next two years with the revised funding level for the school finance legislation. Previously, lawmakers had said no district would receive less than a 3 percent increase – or an average of 1.5 percent each year.

By contrast, testimony in the state's school finance lawsuit last year indicated that school districts needed $4 billion to $5 billion a year in new money to meet an array of state and federal requirements.

E-mail tstutz@dallasnews.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/071405dntexschoolfinance.1ad7cd0.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:23 PM 0 comments Links to this post

July 13, 2005

by SAM DILLON / NYTimes

CLEVELAND - When Ohio enacted a pilot program of school vouchers here a decade ago, David Brennan, an Ohio businessman, quickly founded two schools for voucher students.

Three years later, with voucher programs under attack, Mr. Brennan closed the schools and reopened them as charter schools, another educational experiment gaining momentum at the time.

That decision reflected the fortunes of the two parallel school choice movements that once shared the cutting edge of the nation's school reform efforts. Charter schools, which are publicly financed but privately administered, have proliferated across the nation, with 3,300 such schools now educating nearly one million students in 40 states. In contrast, voucher programs, which use taxpayer funds to pay tuition at private schools, serve only about 36,000 students in Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin and Washington, D.C.

"Vouchers are moving slowly," said Paul T. Hill, a professor who studies school choice as director of the University of Washington's Center on Reinventing Public Education. "The American people don't want a complete free market in education. They want some government oversight of taxpayer-funded schools."

Last month voucher advocates achieved a rare victory when the Republican-dominated Ohio legislature created 14,000 new publicly financed "scholarships" or vouchers to allow students in failing public schools to attend private schools. That will make Ohio's voucher program, which began in 1996 with the Cleveland pilot program, the largest in the country. Earlier this spring the Utah Legislature also created a small voucher program that will allow disabled students to study at private schools at public expense.

But those twin victories were the meager results from the most ambitious legislative campaign yet by voucher advocates. Republicans introduced proposals in more than 30 legislatures for voucher or tuition tax credits, an arrangement under which parents receive a subsidy for children's private schooling through the tax code rather than as a direct grant. Vouchers were defeated in Florida, South Carolina, Texas, Indiana and Missouri.

Still, in the view of voucher proponents, the legislative sessions brought significant advances, and they are celebrating, especially because this is the 50th anniversary of the 1955 essay in which University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman suggested the use of vouchers.

In an interview, Dr. Friedman, now 93, said he believed that vouchers would eventually become more widespread than charter schools. But he acknowledged disappointment with vouchers' modest growth. "My personal belief is that the rapid expansion of charter schools will be a short-lived phenomenon, because they are only a halfway solution."Dr. Friedman said.

Many voucher students attend parochial schools like St. Agatha-St. Aloysius, housed in a crumbling brick hulk of a building on Cleveland's East Side. The neighborhood has changed much, from mostly Irish-American to mostly black, but the school, where Sister Sandra Soho has been a teacher or principal for 35 years, has not. Boys wear white shirts and ties, shelves in the basement library are stocked with trophies won by teams a half-century ago, discipline is strict and daily homework is a given.

Charter schools here and elsewhere encompass a range of curriculums and styles. The several Hope Academies in Cleveland, managed by Mr. Brennan's company, follow a back-to-basics approach. Some charter schools, like the City Day Community School in Dayton, are intimate academies. Others are technology-rich, where students take notes in class on computers.

Legislative debates over voucher programs and charter schools have tended to become fierce political brawls. "The entire educational establishment - the unions, the administrators, the school boards - is opposed to vouchers," said Kent Grusendorf, a Republican Texas state representative who chairs the House Education Committee.

Several Republican lawmakers voted with Democrats to defeat a voucher proposal in Texas last month. "This is one area where management and unions work in perfect unison," Mr. Grusendorf said.

The nation's first voucher program and its first charter schools began at about the same time. In 1990, Wisconsin enacted the first voucher program, in Milwaukee. A year later, Minnesota voted the nation's first charter school law. Many legislatures approved charter schools because they seemed less radical and aroused less opposition than vouchers, said Clint Bolick, president of the Alliance for School Choice, a Phoenix-based group.

"Charters are glasnost and vouchers are perestroika," Mr. Bolick said, referring to Mikhail Gorbachev's twin reform policies in the Soviet Union, the former a halfway measure of openness, the latter a more radical restructuring. "The educational establishment has been willing to allow charters in some states just to forestall vouchers."

As an example, he cited Arizona, where in 1995 lawmakers came within a few votes of enacting a broad voucher program. Instead, the Legislature passed a law that has made it easier to create charter schools there than anywhere else in the nation. Arizona now has 500 charter schools, but no voucher program. This year, the Legislature enacted a tuition tax credit, but Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, vetoed it.

Voters got a chance to give their opinions on voucher programs in 2000, when proponents succeeded in getting initiatives on the ballot in California and Michigan. That year vouchers programs got much positive publicity when George W. Bush spoke in favor of them during his presidential campaign. But voters overwhelmingly rejected the two state proposals that November.

Ohio launched its pilot voucher program in Cleveland in 1996, offering taxpayer-financed "scholarships" to about 2,000 students. By this past school year, the program had grown to about 5,600 students attending 44 private schools.

Also over the past decade, more than 200 charter schools have been started in Ohio. Mr. Brennan, the businessman who opened and then closed the two voucher schools in Cleveland, today runs 34 profit-making charter schools across Ohio.

The Cleveland voucher program has become quite popular, especially with black parents like Andrea Holland. Black children make up about half of the city's voucher school students.

Ms. Holland, who runs an electrical contracting business with her husband, enrolled their son Jonathan, 13, at St. Agatha-St. Aloysius parochial school two years ago, transferring him from a public elementary school where he had faced bullying, she said.

"I'm not otherwise able, like rich folks, to take my kid out and put him into a private school," Ms. Holland said. "But with this program I can afford to."

Kim Metcalf, an education researcher who conducted a nine-year study of the Cleveland voucher program, concluded that average achievement levels of Cleveland's voucher students were in some instances significantly higher, and were never lower, than those of students in the Cleveland public schools. In contrast, achievement levels at most of Cleveland's charter schools were somewhat lower than in Cleveland's traditional public schools with similar student populations, according to a 2003 study by Ohio's Legislative Office of Education Oversight, a nonpartisan agency.

Because voucher programs divert tax dollars from public to private schools that are not subject to the same government accountability measures - standardized tests, for example - both national teachers' unions, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, oppose them. Officially, at least, the unions support charter schools, as long as they are governed by nonprofit groups, are held accountable for student achievement and meet other criteria. In New York City, the United Federation of Teachers is working to start its own charter schools.

In states like Ohio that permit private companies to govern whole chains of charter schools, the unions have fought them bitterly.

"Charters and vouchers are equal on our agenda," said Tom Mooney, the president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers. "We consider charters more insidious right now, because they've grown larger, but vouchers could grow, too."

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 9:42 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Bill would cut up to $500 million for new programs, teacher pay

08:53 PM CDT on Wednesday, July 13, 2005

By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News


AUSTIN – Lawmakers apparently will have up to half a billion dollars less than previously announced to fund new education programs and teacher salaries in the school finance bill being hammered out by House and Senate negotiators.

Several legislators confirmed Wednesday that the proposed amount of new money for schools over the next two years – not counting additional funds for enrollment growth – will be about $2.4 billion. That figure, representing an increase of about 3.5 percent, is $400 million to $500 million less than originally proposed for schools.

Senate Education Committee Chairwoman Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, said the reduced figure probably means that the Legislature will have to put off some education improvements for one year and possibly scale back other proposals in the school finance bill. One proposed change is a new merit pay program for teachers.

"We may have to wait until the 2006-07 school year to start a lot of these programs," Ms. Shapiro said. "When this much money has been cut out of what you were intending to use, it doesn't leave us much choice."

The senator also noted that lawmakers are under a time crunch as many school districts will be starting their school year in a month. This could be the last year that classes begin in August as both the House and Senate approved a new, mandatory starting date – the Tuesday after Labor Day – effective in fall 2006.

The drop in funding stems from a disagreement between House and Senate leaders over potential sources of new revenue for schools. While the Senate wanted to temporarily use money from the state's multibillion-dollar tobacco settlement to free up revenue for education, House leaders objected.

"All you're doing is smoke and mirrors. ... The House is not for using one-time funding mechanisms," said House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland.

He also said the overall funding increase is really more than Senate leaders estimate since there is additional money for schools in the education appropriations bill passed by the House. That money is in addition to adjustments for enrollment growth, he added.

It was unclear Wednesday how much individual school districts would be guaranteed over the next two years with the revised funding level for the school finance legislation. Previously, lawmakers had said no district would receive less than a 3 percent increase – or an average of 1.5 percent each year.

By contrast, testimony in the state's school finance lawsuit last year indicated that school districts needed $4 billion to $5 billion a year in new money to meet an array of state and federal requirements.

E-mail tstutz@dallasnews.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/071405dntexschoolfinance.1ad7cd0.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 9:35 PM 0 comments Links to this post

"The National Council of Teachers of English has warned that standardized state tests mandated by the federal No Child Left Behind law, as well as the College Board's new SAT writing sample, are actually hurting the teaching of writing in this country. For their part, the makers of these tests emphasize that they don't mandate a writing formula, and they, too, say it would be a mistake if schools taught only by the formula." The incentives to formulaic writing, however, are impossible to resist. Read on. -Angela

July 13, 2005

Study Great Ideas, but Teach to the Test
By MICHAEL WINERIP /NYTimes

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich.

BECKY KARNES, a high school English teacher, recently completed a graduate-level writing course that she loved at Grand Valley State University.

"The course taught us better ways to teach writing to kids," said Ms. Karnes, a 16-year veteran who is finishing up her master's degree. "It showed you ways to stretch kids' minds. I learned so much, I had my eyes opened about how to teach writing."

Ms. Karnes learned all sorts of exercises to get children excited about writing, get them writing daily about what they care about and then show them how they can take one of those short, personal pieces and use it as the nucleus for a sophisticated, researched essay.

"We learned how to develop good writing from the inside, starting with calling the child's voice out," said Ms. Karnes, who got an A in the university course. "One of the major points was, good writing is good thinking. That's why writing formulas don't work. Formulas don't let kids think; they kill a lot of creativity in writing."

And so, when Ms. Karnes returns to Allendale High School to teach English this fall, she will use the new writing techniques she learned and abandon the standard five-paragraph essay formula. Right?

"Oh, no," said Ms. Karnes. "There's no time to do creative writing and develop authentic voice. That would take weeks and weeks. There are three essays on the state test and we start prepping right at the start of the year. We have to teach to the state test" (the Michigan Educational Assessment Program, known as MEAP).

"MEAP is not what writing is about, but it's what testing is about," Ms. Karnes said. "And we know if we teach them the five-paragraph essay formula, they'll pass that test. There's a lot of pressure to do well on MEAP. It makes the district seem good, helps real estate values."

In Michigan, there is added pressure. If students pass the state tests, they receive $2,500 college scholarships, and in Ms. Karnes's middle-class district, families need that money. "I can't see myself fighting against MEAP," she said. "It would hurt my students too much. It's a dilemma. It may not be the best writing, but it gets them the money."

In this fashion, the five-paragraph essay has become the law of the land: introductory paragraph; three supporting paragraphs, each with its own topic sentence as well as three supporting ideas; and summary paragraph.

Students lose points for writing a one-sentence paragraph.

Many English teachers have developed a standard five-paragraph form with blanks to fill in.

Topic sentence:__________.

Literary example:_________.

Historical example:_________.

Current event:__________.

Concluding sentence:_________.

The National Council of Teachers of English has warned that standardized state tests mandated by the federal No Child Left Behind law, as well as the College Board's new SAT writing sample, are actually hurting the teaching of writing in this country. For their part, the makers of these tests emphasize that they don't mandate a writing formula, and they, too, say it would be a mistake if schools taught only by the formula.

But Nancy Patterson, the Grand Valley professor who offers the popular course for teachers here, says in the face of those tests, teachers cling to the formula and it spreads like kudzu. "A lot, particularly the younger ones, have been raised on the five-paragraph formula, and are insecure about their own writing," she said. "They drink up what we do here, but then go back to teach to the test. It shuts them down. It narrows the curriculum."

"If you give kids the formula to write an essay, you're taking away the very thinking that a writer engages in," she said. "Kids are less apt to develop a writer's thinking skills." And it is spreading downward. In preparation for the fourth-grade state writing test, she said, she sees third-grade teachers pressed to use the five-paragraph formula. A teacher in Dr. Patterson's class described her frustration over a practice essay test in her district asking third graders to "defend or refute from a patriotic standpoint" whether a friend should go to a Memorial Day parade. "For 9-year-olds?" said Dr. Patterson. "Defend or refute?"

Dr. Patterson has her teachers write in every class - something she did with her students during 29 years in the public schools. They draw maps of their neighborhoods, then write a story of something that happened there. They envision a character they'd like to create, make a paper doll of it, then pair up with another student and together write a story with the two characters interacting.

"You're teaching them narrative - how to tell stories that are dear to them," she said. She has them read good essays that start a hundred different ways - with a quote; a question; a simple declaration of a problem; a run-on sentence; a word or two. There are lessons on how a writer blows up an important moment and how to turn a personal piece of writing into a researched essay.

RECENTLY, Kristen Covelle, 24, has been going on interviews for English teaching jobs. She mentions exciting things she's learned from Dr. Patterson. "The interview will be going great," Ms. Covelle said, "and then MEAP will come up. They want to know will I teach to the test, that's what they're looking for. They asked how I feel about using "I" in writing. Would there ever be a case when "I" is appropriate in an essay. I knew the answer they want - you're not supposed to use it. But I couldn't say that. I said there could be times, you just can't close the door. They didn't say anything but it was definitely the low point of the interview."

Ms. Karnes isn't totally against the formula. "For kids struggling, if you can give them a formula and they fill in the blanks, some will pass the MEAP test who wouldn't otherwise," she said. "But it turns into a prison. It stops you from finding a kid's potential."

She loves the last month of school, when state tests are over, she said. Last spring she did lessons on poetry and writing short stories. "I found interests and talents in those kids I didn't know were there," she said. "It would have been nice to have a whole year to build on those things."

E-mail: edmike@nytimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/education/13education.html?

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:55 AM 0 comments Links to this post

July 13, 2005, 12:44AM

Rate is higher than other states, despite increased abstinence and contraceptive use
By MELANIE MARKLEY
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

Teen pregnancies have been declining for more than a decade in Texas and Harris County, reflecting a nationwide trend that's attributed to more young people delaying sex and more using effective contraception.

Still, teens here are more likely to have babies than their peers in many other parts of the country, prompting people who work with Houston's youth to call for continued vigilance.

In one national study, only Mississippi ranks worse than Texas in teen birth rates. Other research reveals that among the 100 largest cities in the nation, only nine had higher teen birth rates than Houston in 2000. But state figures also show that the teen pregnancy rate in Texas dropped 32 percent between 1996 and 2003. And in Harris County, the decline was 37 percent.

"I do think we are, for the most part, following a national trend," said Chan McDermott, perinatal coordinator for the Texas Department of State Health Services. "We are just following a little bit behind it, and it will probably take us a little bit longer to reach the same level of achievement that has been reached in other states."

Dr. John S. Santelli, a pediatrician and professor of population and family health at Columbia University in New York City, said his research shows that delays in sexual activity account for about 50 percent of the nationwide decline, while better contraceptive use is responsible for the other 50 percent.

"We have made progress," he said, "and a lot of people should be patting themselves on the back ... But clearly, there is a lot of work to be done."


The role of race
Teen pregnancies, here and nationwide, are characterized by sharp racial differences.



In 2003, for example, black teens in Texas were more than twice as likely as their white peers to have a baby. And Hispanics were more than 3 1/2 times as likely as Anglos to give birth in their teen years.

Public health experts in Houston and elsewhere say the disparity is influenced by a wide range of issues, including social, cultural, educational, economic and religious factors. The high numbers in Texas, they say, are strongly influenced by the state's sizable population of Hispanic immigrants.

Debra Delgado, a senior associate at the social services-oriented Annie E. Casey Foundation in Baltimore, said there is a direct correlation between poverty and high rates of teen pregnancy.

"It's a worldwide phenomenon," she said. "We just see that when people live in poverty, their chances at becoming pregnant at an earlier age are much higher, and when you improve economic circumstances, you will see that the rates of early child-bearing will be reduced."

Still, even among the poor, teen pregnancies have been steadily declining virtually everywhere since 1991.

Youth advocates offer a variety of explanations.

Condom use is up, they say, in large part because of the HIV/AIDS scare. Advances in hormonal birth control now permit sexually active girls to prevent pregnancies by wearing a patch or getting a periodic shot instead of having to remember every day to take a pill.

And at a time when abstinence is the primary emphasis in school health curricula, more teens are apparently heeding the message that delaying sexual activity is the most effective method of birth control and disease prevention. Virginity, they say, is more in vogue with this generation.

"We are all talking about the importance of delaying pregnancy, and we have identified the reasons why it is better," said Dr. Ruth Buzi with the Baylor Teen Clinic. "I think we are clear about those messages, and I think we are making a bigger effort in communicating those messages to teens."

In one family-based program, East End teens in Planned Parenthood's Brighter Futures project meet after school and during the summer at St. Andrew's United Methodist Church to learn how to make better decisions in life, including preventing pregnancies.

A group of high school-age teens at a recent gathering of Brighter Futures said that the majority of their peers are having sex, although many who do are using birth control, primarily condoms.

"The last thing you want is a baby," said Hernan Mazariegos, 16. "That's a smart thing to do, and the stupidest thing is not doing it with protection."

The teens also said that oral sex is fairly common and that those who do it believe it's safe and won't affect their virginity.

How much the students are learning in their sex education classes, however, varies greatly by school. By law in Texas, the emphasis must be on abstinence. But Debbie Schultz, a parent who co-chairs the Houston school district's School Health Advisory Council, said schools can opt for an abstinency-plus curriculum that also teaches students how to protect themselves if they are sexually active.

Martha Garcia, 15, said her health class offered little information beyond the importance of abstinence and the risk of unfortunate consequences for those who don't abstain.

"Really," she said, "they just tell you not to get pregnant."

Although the nation's teen pregnancy rate is dropping, it remains substantially higher than other developed countries.


'Tools' of prevention
Meryl Cohen, vice president of education and counseling at Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas, said she recently visited a few European countries to learn why their rates are several times lower.



Cohen said the other countries have governmental policies that provide teens with information on sexual health as well as easy-access services to prevent pregnancies.

"It's really about respecting the right of the teen to be responsible," she said. "But it's the adult's responsibility to make sure they have the tools they need. And that's just different than the way we approach it."

Chris Markham, a behavioral sciences professor at the University of Texas School of Public Health in Houston, said that despite the decline in teen pregnancies, there is still evidence that younger people are involved in risky sexual behavior.

In a study she's working on with Houston middle school students, she said, about 14 percent of seventh-graders say they have had sex and about 8 percent have had oral sex.

She said there are too few studies to show how this compares with past generations. But she said it does raise concerns about the continuing trend in teen pregnancy.

"I think we can't be complacent and assume these declines we've seen are going to keep on declining," she said.

melanie.markley@chron.com
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory/3262123

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 9:58 AM 0 comments Links to this post

EDITORIAL / NYTIMES
July 12, 2005
A Halfway Measure on College Loans

Correction Appended

The Republican Congressional leadership had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, but it has finally pledged to do the right thing and close an appalling loophole that permits lenders to skim billions from college loans, money that should be going directly to students. The loophole, which guarantees lenders a mammoth 9.5 percent return on loans for which the prevailing rate is 3.5 percent, is especially outrageous at a time when college aid is falling far short of the national need.

But ending this part of the giveaway is just a start. Lawmakers should also embrace a bipartisan bill, the Student Aid Reward Act, that would wean lenders and colleges off the subsidized system, known as the Federal Family Education Loan Program. Instead of offering private lenders unnecessary federal subsidies to make government-backed loans, the measure would encourage schools to use a system that would actually turn a small profit for Washington by allowing students to borrow directly from the government through their schools.

The lenders have done a good job of confusing lawmakers with trumped-up numbers. But analyses by the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget have shown that direct loans are considerably cheaper. They require no subsidies to the banks and return interest payments to the government itself.

The pending bill - sponsored by Representatives Thomas Petri, Republican of Wisconsin and George Miller, Democrat of California - would allow colleges to keep half of the money saved through direct loans. The schools would pump that money back into student aid. Such a step would be useful indeed, given that hundreds of thousands of students are being turned away from colleges for financial reasons.

Correction
An editorial on the federal student loan program misidentified Representative Thomas Petri. He is from Wisconsin, not Ohio.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/opinion/12tue2.html?th&emc=th

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 1:03 PM 1 comments Links to this post

There is a very tragic history here to be mindful of. In 1976, children in Soweto protested against the school language law demanding Afrikaans, the language of the police who brutally oppressed African South Africans under apartheid. The children were viciously attacked by police and literally hundreds of students died in the protest. In standing up to oppression, the children ignited the powerful movement that ended apartheid in South Africa. So language policy always reflects deeper, poltical dynamics that are resurfacing again. -Angela


July 12, 2005 edition

By Stephanie Hanes | Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor

JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA – As the South African Department of Education tells it, there was a straightforward reason for forcing the Afrikaans-language Mikro Primary School to enroll a group of English-speaking first-graders: In Kuilsriver, a rapidly growing suburb east of Cape Town, there wasn't room for them elsewhere.

But to the white, Afrikaans-speaking parents and officials at Mikro, as well as to Afrikaners and opposition leaders nationwide, the government's move was nothing less than a threat to their culture.

Ever since the start of the school year in January, when 21 English-speaking children showed up, Mikro has been the focus of an emotional national debate about language, education, and even the soul of today's South Africa.

It has also become the center of a high-profile legal battle. The Supreme Court of Appeal, the country's second-highest court, is expected to rule on the case soon.

On one level, the issue is whether a school that wants to teach in one of South Africa's 11 national languages - in this case, Afrikaans - can be forced to accommodate speakers of other languages. But it's clear the case has many layers.

The school is filled with Afrikaners - white descendants of long-ago Dutch settlers. The students who want to enroll are black or mixed race. Some believe the school is using language as an excuse to keep the races separate.

"They maintain that it's about Afrikaans," says Gert Witbooi, spokesman for the Western Cape education department. "We don't think so.... This is one of the apartheid legacies. It's our contention that they want the school to be exclusive to a particular community."

Others see the black-led government as trying to destroy Afrikaans culture - a culture they say should not forever be linked to the apartheid system established by Afrikaners in 1948.

They see a nationwide trend of government officials pressuring Afrikaans schools to accept English speakers. About 3 percent of the country's public schools teach only in Afrikaans. But the schools that open up to English speakers tend to lose their distinct culture, experts say.

Some also wonder why the 21 English-speaking children in Kuilsriver weren't sent to a nearby school that already teaches in their language. "This kind of thing has been happening all over the country," says Will Burger, a professor of Afrikaans literature at the University of Johannesburg. "It is simply unfair. If the government is really serious about the idea of education in one's native tongue, this kind of thing shouldn't happen."

Language in schools has long been a sensitive topic here. Under apartheid, the government forced all schools to teach in Afrikaans. That move wrecked black students' academic performance and was seen as an attack on black culture. In 1976, students in Soweto protested against the school language law and were attacked by police. Hundreds of students died during protests that year.

After the end of the racially repressive system in 1994, the South African Schools Act gave schools the right to choose their language. Other laws give students the right to education in their mother tongue.

But the vast majority of students in South Africa are taught in English. Many speakers of other African languages, such as Zulu and Xhosa, want their children to learn English, the language of business and government here. While few say Afrikaans is at risk of extinction, many Afrikaners worry about the future of their literature and culture.

Kuilsriver was once a heavily Afrikaans area. But the suburb is growing by about 48,000 people a year, many of them non-white, says Melvyn Caroline, the district's director of education. And school construction has not kept up.

But some surveys show that the number of Afrikaans students in the area is growing more than the number of English-speakers, says Erhard Wolf, head of the governing body of Mikro Primary.

It was in this environment that Julia Du Preez, a black English-speaker, tried to find a school for her 6-year-old, Grant. She first tried to enroll him in the dual-language De Kuilen Primary School, about a kilometer from Mikro. But De Kuilen told her there wasn't space. When she tried Mikro, it rejected her application, saying there was not enough space or money to create an English track. Then the government stepped in, announcing that black and mixed-race English-speaking children would be able to attend.

The school objected. It had already struggled to create enough space for the Afrikaans-speaking children. If the school had to add an English group, officials said, there would be more than 40 students in each Afrikaans classroom.

But the government and the new families said these were weak excuses. "The black middle class is moving into the area," Ms. Du Preez says. "They see us as a threat. I don't know why."

A judge in Cape Town agreed with Mikro, but he allowed the students to stay until the end of the year, or until there was another place for them. Now the appeals decision is pending.

Mikro has tried to make the 21 new students feel welcome, and Du Preez says her son, unaware of the controversy, is "very happy at the school." Mr. Caroline says the school's actions are tough on the English-speaking students, "but they are prepared to walk this road for the future."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0712/p12s01-legn.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:00 AM 0 comments Links to this post

EDITORIAL BOARD /AUSTIN AM-STATESMAN
Tuesday, July 12, 2005

The Texas Senate works a very odd schedule these days. It convenes at 2 on a hot summer Sunday afternoon, but doesn't do anything for six hours. Then, senators walk in from backrooms, argue over a tax bill until 3:34 the next morning and finally vote something out.

Maybe they were just too embarrassed to do it in daylight.

The bill they passed is somewhat better than the House version. The Senate would raise the state sales tax by a half-cent per dollar, while the House would raise it by a full cent. Both would close loopholes in the state's franchise tax on businesses and raise the cigarette tax.

The Senate would also raise alcohol taxes by 20 percent.

All this is being done in the name of cutting school property taxes, which the House would cut deeper than the Senate.

But even with property tax cuts, which apply to businesses as well as homes, most Texans would pay higher taxes under either bill. The Legislature's own tax study of the House bill concluded that only households with an annual income of $100,000 or more would see a net tax decrease. Everybody else — 80 percent of Texas households — would see a net tax increase. That increase could be justified if it meant more money for public education or better public services, but it wouldn't.

A similar study was not done on the Senate bill because, said Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, it would be misleading. We think it's safe to say that if he expected a result much better than the House measure, Ogden — who showed little enthusiasm for the bill, which he sponsored in the Senate — would have trumpeted the difference.

The Senate version at first had a proposal to expand a state business tax in exchange for more property tax relief, subject to voter approval. However, it was removed on a 15-14 vote, with Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst — who had favored the proposal — casting the deciding vote to take it out. He said that, realistically, opposition from Gov. Rick Perry and House Speaker Tom Craddick meant it had no chance of becoming law.

Perry's stout opposition also helped kill a proposed payroll tax in the House. Whatever his virtues or faults, the governor today stands unchallenged as the most effective business lobbyist working Capitol hallways.

A conference committee of House and Senate members is expected to negotiate a compromise for approval by both chambers and the governor.

But in looking over legislators' work so far, we have an alternative proposal, inspired by Rep. Dawnna Dukes, D-Austin, who missed a key House vote last week because she was in France. (She has returned.)

The Legislature should retreat to France, cheer bicyclist Lance Armstrong, enjoy the summer and leave Texas alone.

It just doesn't make sense to raise taxes on 80 percent of Texas households just to give the most affluent 20 percent a property tax break. (Unless you're running in the Republican primary in March.)

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/07/12taxes_edit.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 9:54 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Monday, July 11, 2005 /Associated Press

AUSTIN - Texans would shell out more for booze and cigarettes, but slightly less in school property taxes under a school finance proposal the Texas Senate approved early Monday.

The chamber struggled behind closed doors, delaying floor debate for about six hours before finally bringing the measure to the chamber for public debate. The proposal passed 20-8.

The bill still must be negotiated with members of the House in a conference committee before the session ends July 20.
Also Online

Senate backs off business tax

Democrats in the 31-member chamber were opposed to increasing the sales tax rate by more than half of a percent, but Republicans opposed a voter referendum that would allow a business tax that includes a calculation of a company's payroll. That provision was later stripped from the bill, under pressure from Republican Gov. Rick Perry.

Number crunchers struggled to find a tax mix that would raise enough money to give Texas homeowners a property tax cut and could still garner enough votes to adopt the measure.

One provision in the legislation would have allowed voters to approve a restructured and expanded business tax in exchange for additional property tax relief. That provision was removed, but barely. After a 14-14 vote, Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst cast a rare tie-breaking vote. It was Dewhurst's first vote since being elected to lead the Senate almost three years ago.

"I would like to have seen a reform of our business tax system. But in reality, that's not possible today in light of the governor's comments and the House's position," Dewhurst said.

Instead, senators added a measure that would end the franchise tax as it now exists in two years and create a 15-member task force to explore modernizing Texas' system of taxing businesses.

Republican Sen. Steve Ogden, who crafted much of the legislation, said the proposal would stimulate economic activity in Texas.

"The cost of owning a piece of the American dream just went down," Ogden said, when asked what he would tell voters when the measure passes.

Critics say the tax bill unfairly taxes middle- and low-income Texans, while only wealthy homeowners would receive a net tax cut.

Property taxes would be cut from the current maximum $1.50 per $100 of property value, to $1.30 in 2006 and $1.25 in 2007. Future property tax cuts would written into law, though no funding measure was included. That would leave future lawmakers to raise taxes or find other money to pay for property tax cuts.

The property tax cuts were significantly less than originally planned. Dewhurst and senators had hoped to reduce property taxes by a third -- down to $1 per $100 of property value.

The bill would pay for those immediate property tax reductions -- without spending any of the new money on schools -- by increasing the sales tax from 6.25 percent to 6.75 percent. A provision to tax computer programming services was removed.

Low-income Texans would receive a sales tax rebate.

Loopholes in the state's main business tax would be closed to incorporate about 10,000 businesses that now avoid paying the state tax.

The cigarette tax would be increased by a dollar, and alcohol taxes would be increased by 20 percent.

The measure also would require that 15 percent of future state surpluses be spent on further property tax reductions.

An attempt to legalize video slot machines at horse and dog racing tracks in Texas was narrowly defeated in a 14-14 vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/071205dntexschoolfinance.95da493b.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 1:32 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Want to let folks know that I'll be silent on this blog for a little while. I'm going to West Texas where my parents live in order to spend time with my mother who is battling cancer of the esophagus. This follows a bout she's already had with breast cancer in recent years.

She has a strong will to live, but her body isn't cooperating....

I asked my massage therapist what advice she had for me at this point in my life and she said that I should feel thankful that I have this opportunity to spend time with my Mom in this way at this time, and also that our parents never really die since they continue living in and through us.

Her words make me contemplate my mother's impact on my life. My parents are both ministers as were my Mom's parents before them. They have always combined their beliefs with a social justice perspective, influencing me to think of my own work in the academy and in the community in a similar manner. I cannot conceive of any greater kind of inheritance.

Regarding my mother, in particular, I admire the way in which she deflects attention from her own plight through her wonderful sense of humor—though even that response is becoming more difficult. I have much to learn in these coming days. Your thoughts, wishes, and prayers are appreciated.

-Angela

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:28 AM 0 comments Links to this post

This tax bill nearly failed in the house, revealing a clear lack of consensus. An analysis by the Legislature concluded "only Texas families who earn more than $100,593 annually would get an overall tax break under the measure. For those making less, higher state taxes would outweigh the property tax break." Unfortunately, an attempt to extend the franchis tax which currently exempts an inordinate number of businesses failed. Also, just as during the regular session, Speaker Craddick named a negotiators on a school overhaul bill related to the tax measure who are not diverse. This despite the diverse makeup of our public school system. This is never a good move. Not that "token" representation is desirable, but rather that substantive representation of members in those districts like HISD with so few Anglo children in them should be at the table. The Senate and House will be battling it out. In the end, depending on the Supreme Court, neither approach may pass constitutional muster. We'll see. The court decision is expected to take a few months. -Angela

School Funding Bill Gets a Nod from the House
7/07/2005 12:00 AM CDT
Peggy Fikac
Chief, Express-News Austin Bureau

AUSTIN — With no votes to spare, the House gave preliminary approval 73-72 to a measure Wednesday to lower local school property taxes with dramatic sales and cigarette tax increases plus a tweak of the state business levy.

The bill initially failed 74-73, despite a public vote of "aye" by GOP House Speaker Tom Craddick and a continuing push by GOP Gov. Rick Perry that included a Wednesday morning meeting with House Republicans.

It passed only after a roll call showed two Democrats initially shown as voting against the bill on the House's electronic tally board were found to be absent: Reps. Craig Eiland of Galveston and Trey Martinez Fischer of San Antonio.

Both absences later were announced as excused due to illness.

Democratic Rep. Dawnna Dukes of Austin also was absent but wasn't shown as voting.

"I regret that we couldn't all show up to be able to defeat this," said Rep. Mike Villarreal, D-San Antonio.

Thirteen of the 87 Republicans in the House voted against the bill, including Rep. Joe Straus of San Antonio.

If approved in another House vote, which could come today, the measure will go to the Senate for consideration.

A defeat of the bill at this point in the 30-day special session, which is more than half-over, would mean, "School finance is over," Villarreal said.

Rep. Robert Puente, D-San Antonio, who voted against the bill, said the divided vote sends a poor message to Texans about how policy is developed.

"If we're going to change our taxing structure, you would hope it would be with a much more unified voice," Puente said.

The edge-of-the-seat final vote came after backers of the bill spent the day turning aside major changes to the proposal.

"You can tell the property owners in your district that you responded to their cry for help," Rep. Jim Keffer, R-Eastland, said of House Bill 3, which he carried as head of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, although he'd wanted a change in its business tax provision.

Opponents said the measure would shift more of the tax burden to middle and lower-income Texans to provide relief to wealthier property owners.

A Legislative Budget Board analysis concluded only Texas families who earn more than $100,593 annually would get an overall tax break under the measure. For those making less, higher state taxes would outweigh the property tax break,

Supporters countered that a comptroller's analysis said it would increase investment, personal income and employment.

The bill would raise more than $7 billion in state taxes over the next two years, dedicating the revenue to reducing the maximum local school property tax rate for maintenance and operations from $1.50 per $100 valuation to $1.23 this year and then to $1.12. A two-thirds vote would be required for the relief to take effect right away.

The bill's backers fought back major amendments including one offered by Democrats to deliver a big part of the property tax relief in the form of a larger homestead exemption instead of the lowest possible rate. That would have shifted more tax relief to homeowners from businesses.

Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, made an unsuccessful effort to more thoroughly revamp the business tax by reaching past corporations to hundreds of thousands of other entities that avoid the current franchise tax.

The House turned down his proposal to reach labor-intensive businesses by adding the option of a payroll tax along with the current franchise tax.

House passage of the measure would be an important step for Perry, who championed key elements of it. Along with policy considerations, Perry faces a GOP primary challenge from state Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn. School finance is sure to figure prominently in the race.

Perry ran radio ads pushing HB 3, and he met with the House Republican Caucus the body convened Wednesday. About 50 lawmakers attended, Perry spokeswoman Kathy Walt said. The House, with 149 current members, includes 87 Republicans.

"The governor talked with them about House Bill 3, the importance of closing the loopholes in the franchise tax, and the opportunity before legislators to provide real and historic property tax relief of more than $7 billion for the people of Texas," Walt said in an e-mail.

Perry called lawmakers into special session after the House and Senate were unable to agree on a school plan in the regular session. The House had wanted to lean more heavily on sales taxes to relieve local school property taxes, while the Senate wanted to spread more of the burden to the business tax.

Because lawmakers couldn't reach agreement on a broad business tax revamp, Perry backed the plan that's included in the bill to simply close escape hatches in the current tax that allow many corporations to avoid the franchise tax by the way they're organized.

The tax bill was considered on the same day that the Texas Supreme Court heard arguments on a district judge's ruling that the current school funding system is unconstitutional in part because of the way it relies on local property taxes.

Many school districts have reached a cap on how much money they can raise for operations. A number of lawmakers said they've heard from constituents strangled by high property taxes, while others say their constituents are less concerned about that issue than about providing proper funding for public education.

Besides the business tax change, the bill as taken up by the House would raise the sales tax rate by a penny on the dollar, to 7.25 percent. It would expand the sales tax to bottled water, computer programming that's not now taxed, and auto repair. It also would raise cigarette taxes by $1 a pack, to $1.41.

Chisum, in offering his proposed amendment to the measure, noted the traditional sentiment on tax bills overall.

"This is not the perfect tax bill," he said. "The perfect tax bill is the bill that taxes you and not me."

Also Wednesday, the House approved a bill to reinstate more than $33 billion in public education spending that Perry had vetoed in an effort to spur action on school finance reform. The measure next goes to the Senate.

In addition, Craddick named House negotiators on a school overhaul bill related to the tax measure.

As they were during the regular session, the negotiators are Anglo Republicans, a makeup that drew concern previously among those who said more diversity was in order given the large number of minority students in Texas classrooms.

The negotiators are Reps. Kent Grusendorf of Arlington, chairman of the Public Education Committee; Dan Branch of Dallas; Dianne Delisi of Temple; Rob Eissler of The Woodlands; and Bill Keffer of Dallas.

The Senate next would name its negotiators to try to work out differences between House and Senate versions of the bill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
pfikac@express-news.net

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:15 AM 0 comments Links to this post

July 9, 2005, 6:18PM

Governor Takes Plan for Schools on Road
Perry's aides say education proposal is not motivated by politics or his bid for re-election
By KELLEY SHANNON
Associated Press

RESOURCES
PERRY'S PLAN
Some of the main elements of Gov. Rick Perry's school finance proposal:
•Closing loopholes in the franchise tax on businesses.
•Raising the cigarette tax by $1 per pack, up from 41 cents.
•Increasing the state sales tax from 6.25 percent to 6.95 percent.
•Cutting the school property tax rate to $1.20 by 2007 and capping rate at $1.05 by 2010, though without funding after 2007.

AUSTIN - It's a campaign kind of summer for Republican Gov. Rick Perry.

Before he asks for Texans' votes for his 2006 re-election bid, Perry is campaigning for passage of a public school finance plan, now that the Legislature is back in session.

Besides huddling at the Capitol with fellow Republican leaders, Perry has traveled the state stumping for his education proposal. He's even spending $400,000 of his own campaign money for statewide radio ads urging legislative results.

It's an important undertaking for the governor, who faces a Republican primary challenge next year from Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn. If lawmakers don't reach a school solution, Strayhorn is sure to keep attacking Perry over it, alleging lack of leadership.

It also could be a tough political position for Perry if Texas is forced into school funding action by the Texas Supreme Court, which heard arguments Wednesday in a lawsuit between school districts and the state.

Perry's aides insist his motivation is the best interest of the schools and the children.

"Politics does not play a role here for the governor," said spokesman Robert Black.

In June, Perry took a major political risk and used two of his biggest powers as Texas governor: the veto and the ability to call a special legislative session. Perry vetoed $35 billion in public education funding and called a 30-day special session.

He proposed his own school funding plan, describing it as a compromise between the plans approved by the House and Senate in the spring regular session. The two chambers never agreed on middle ground.

Then Perry began using what he calls the bully pulpit of the governor's office. He traveled to 11 cities in three days to push his plan in public appearances.

Critics of Perry's proposal, including Strayhorn and Democrats, say it won't raise the money it promises or that is doesn't strike a fair balance between businesses and consumers.

Even some skeptical Republicans worry it's only a short-term fix and would force lawmakers to address school finance again in 2007.

"I think most of the senators would prefer to solve this now so we won't have to take it up again," said Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, president of the Senate.

Perry's camp says school finance will have to be addressed by future legislators because it's never solved once and for all. His aides also say critics, such as Strayhorn, should come up with their own proposals.

Perry's plan won a legislative victory when the House approved a similar business tax.

But many educators who lobby the Legislature would rather wait to see what the Supreme Court decides. It could take weeks or months for the justices to rule on the state's appeal of a lower-court ruling that declared Texas' school finance system unconstitutional.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/3259025

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:10 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Thursday, July 7, 2005

Under House-passed school plan, poor will pay more

Brandi Grissom
El Paso Times

AUSTIN -- More than 200,000 of El Paso's poorest families would pay more taxes under a bill House legislators approved Wednesday on a razor-thin vote of 73-72.
"The history of Texas has always denied equality to the poor," said Rep. Paul Moreno, D-El Paso, who voted against the measure.
The bill is the second of a two-part plan to revamp the way Texas pays for its schools. It would replace cuts in school property taxes with increased and expanded state sales and business taxes. The bill must be approved a second time in the House and by the Senate before going to the governor for approval.
Republican Gov. Rick Perry called lawmakers back to Austin last month after they couldn't agree on a plan to overhaul the $33 billion state school-funding system during the regular legislative session, which ended in May.
Perry vetoed more than $35 billion legislators budgeted for education for the next two years, hoping to spur lawmakers to find a solution. Lawmakers also approved a budget bill that would restore that funding later Wednesday evening.
The House and Senate have both already passed different versions of a bill that would give schools an additional $3 billion over the next two years, increase teacher pay and push back the school starting date.
All the El Paso representatives, except Moreno, voted for the reform plan last week. During the regular session, the delegation opposed the bill.
The House tax plan lawmakers debated Wednesday would reduce the cap on school property taxes from $1.50 per $100 in property valuation to $1.23 per $100 in 2005 and to $1.12 in 2006.
To make up for the more than $7 billion in property tax revenue the state would lose over those two years, the bill would increase the state sales tax from 6.25 percent to 7.25 percent, making it the highest in the nation. All five El Paso representatives voted against the tax bill.
"This is a damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, said Rep. Joe Pickett, D-El Paso. "What this bill is supposed to be doing is really trying to reduce property taxes."
Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso, called the plan the "great tax shift," which relieves tax burden for the wealthy while penalizing the poor.
Based on 2003 census numbers and a Legislative Budget Board analysis of the tax-swap bill, about 94 percent of El Paso households would see an increase in their tax spending.
About 205,000 El Paso households would see their tax payments rise, while the wealthiest 12,000 would see a property-tax reduction.
"To me, that's not fair, and we will fight it," Shapleigh said.
The most equitable way to pay for schools, he said, is a state income tax, which Shapleigh has been touting for more than two years with little success.
If the bill is approved in the House again today, it will move to the Senate for debate.
Brandi Grissom may be reached at bgrissom@elpasotimes.com

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:56 AM 0 comments Links to this post

July 6, 2005, 11:24PM

by JENNIFER RADCLIFFE
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

Rather than taking a break with her students this summer, teacher's aide Yolanda Smith is scrambling to complete a series of online courses so she can keep her job helping autistic children at Will Rogers Elementary School.

Even with 14 years of experience and 38 hours of college credit, Smith is among hundreds of Houston area school employees in danger of being pushed out of low-wage jobs if they don't meet higher employment standards by a federal deadline at the end of the upcoming school year.

The 47-year-old is determined to keep her job.

"I'm going to finish. It's necessary," she said. "I love working with children. That's what I do."

To keep their jobs at schools that receive certain types of federal funding, most teachers' aides, special education assistants and other types of "paraprofessionals" must have two years of college or complete an equivalent type of training.

Even though the deadline to meet those standards was extended from January until the end of the 2005-06 school year, hundreds of workers still haven't cleared the bar. If they don't meet the deadline next May, area schools could be left with droves of vacancies in some of their lowest-paying, hardest-to-fill positions.

"There's a whole lot of people who don't have it," said Helen Wheatley, chief of staff for the Houston Federation of Teachers. "They're just going to leave. I'm sure that's what's going to happen. They're going to lose all of these people with all of those skills."

In Aldine Independent School District, for example, 402 of 1,061 teachers' aides still need to prove that they have finished the college hours or completed the alternative training by the end of the school year.

In the Houston Independent School District, 952 teachers' aides meet the higher standard. Another 2,017 paraprofessionals are enrolled in a free online district course that also satisfies the requirement, but HISD officials couldn't specify how many paraprofessionals the district has and how many of them need to meet the requirement to avoid being reassigned.

"We've been really working hard trying to get the word out," HISD Superintendent Abelardo Saavedra said.

The national push toward standardized tests and increased academic performance has prompted teachers to rely more heavily on paraprofessionals in the last decade. Rather than just serving as classroom helpers, many aides are viewed as frontline instructors who can tutor children and offer extra assistance to teachers, Wheatley said.

Because of their evolving role, lawmakers opted to include the higher employment standards in No Child Left Behind, the federal education legislation signed by President Bush in January 2002.

Paraprofessionals who don't meet the requirements must be moved to non-instructional duties, such as front-office or cafeteria jobs. They won't be allowed to help tutor, manage classrooms or assist in computer labs at campuses that receive so-called federal "Title I" funding, which is used to help educate economically disadvantaged students.

Some leaders said that requiring these workers, most of whom earn less than $20,000 a year, to take additional coursework or classes is unfair. Many of these employees haven't attended schools in decades and took jobs as paraprofessionals to have the same work hours as their school-aged children.

"Asking for two years of college is insane. It's a lousy idea," said Gayle Fallon, president of the Houston Federation of Teachers.

Others see the possible benefits of the higher standards. Even though Smith is struggling to meet the requirement, she plans to use it as a starting point to become a full-fledged teacher.

She worries, though, that some of the older workers won't be able to complete the online classes or finish the work in time. Most only have high school diplomas and don't have computers at home, she said.

HISD "should have had books. They should have had more one-on-one. They should have had people to come in a classroom setting to make sure you got this," she said.

The district's online courses cover reading, math, technology, classroom management and special education skills. Employees must earn a score of 85 percent on five of seven tests to earn a certificate.

HISD officials said mentors are available on each campus to help paraprofessionals who may still be learning English study for the test.

Rennette Brown, chairwoman of the Houston Federation of Teachers' paraprofessional task force, said she fears some of the district's most dedicated employees might be scared off by the requirements.

Many teaching assistants may opt to retire early or to pursue higher-paying jobs that have lower hiring standards.

"I hope we don't lose any of the good aides because of it. The people who may suffer would be the kids," said Brown, an aide at Jones High School, who completed the requirement a few years ago.

The higher standard isn't a factor for many affluent school districts, where the bulk of campuses don't receive Title I funding. In the Katy school district, for example, only three schools are subject to the law. At those schools, 21 of the 22 paraprofessionals already met the bar.

"It's great that they extended the deadline, but we would have met it by January," said Steve Stanford, communications coordinator for Katy ISD.

Pete Stewart, director of human resources for the Aldine school district, said he thinks most employees will meet the standard by May.

"I feel confident that they will," he said. "We have sent out written communication to each of the teachers' aides reminding them that this is a requirement and they're taking care of it."

jennifer.radcliffe@chron.com

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 12:28 PM 8 comments Links to this post

Wednesday, July 06, 2005 - 2:15:50 AM

Vermont Hopeful on New Education Waivers
by HOWARD WEISS-TISMAN
Reformer Staff


BRATTLEBORO -- The state is looking for a little flexibility in how it complies with the federal No Child Left Behind law.

Last month, Richard Cate, commissioner of the Vermont Department of Education, sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Education, asking that most disabled students in the public schools be exempt from having to take tests in their grade levels.

Earlier this year, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings softened the requirements for the federal education law, and allowed states to apply for waivers that would increase the number of students who could test out of grade level.

Prior to Spellings' announcement, only 1 percent of children in special education could take tests out of their grade level. A 10th-grader with a learning disability could take his or her annual test and be counted in the fourth-grade scores, for example.

In May, Spellings announced that states could apply for the new waiver that would allow up to 3 percent of the children to test out of grade level.

"This would affect students with severe cognitive disabilities," Cate said. "We don't want to frustrate students and force them to take tests that are beyond their abilities. We want to give them some chance to do well on the tests."

If the federal office approves Vermont's request, about 1,600 students would be affected.

The U.S. Department of Education is basing its decisions on which states could increase their number of disabled students taking alternate assessments by looking at test participation rates, how states publish their data, and if states are making progress in raising test scores.

In the past month, Georgia, Virginia, and Maryland were given the new flexibility, while requests from Connecticut and California were denied.

"We're in pretty good shape," Cate said. "I expect our request to be granted."

Cate said he expected to hear from the U.S. Department of Education in September.

"This is a good thing," said Deborah Merchant, director of family and instructional services for the Windham Southeast Supervisory Union. "If you have a child who is reading out of grade level, you don't want them taking that test."

At the local level, Merchant said the decision as to whether a child should test out of grade level is made by the child's special education support team. If the team, made up of teachers, school counselors and district officials, think that the student would benefit by taking alternate tests, they apply to the state.

The ultimate decision is made in Montpelier.

At the May state board of education meeting, Cate said that the department receives about 1,500 requests annually and approves about 20 percent of the requests, according to meeting notes.

He said the new 3 percent limit would likely increase the number of requests but he said the department has a process in place for determining and approving eligibility.

Under the 2001 No Child Left Behind law, schools are required to test every student in math and reading in grades 3-8, and in high school.

The scores are reviewed annually, and schools are expected to make adequate yearly progress.

Test scores are also looked at separately for low-income students, racial minorities and special education students. Scores are expected to rise in every category. If even one category does not show yearly improvements, the school is labeled as not showing annual progress.

The way the law is now written, test scores for a special education student count at that grade level, and often bring down the overall results for the school.

If Vermont receives the federal flexibility, test scores for severely learning disabled students would count in the lower grades at which they perform.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 12:20 PM 0 comments Links to this post

COMMENTARY

by F. Scott McCown, LOCAL CONTRIBUTOR
Thursday, July 07, 2005

If you have two boys, one big and one small, and you give the big boy a cookie and ask him to share, the little boy will get crumbs. And as long as the big boys are allowed to "share" this way, they won't throw in their nickles to buy a big enough cookie for all of the kids. When it comes to school finance, Texas needs a really big cookie.

On Wednesday, however, the attorney general asked the Texas Supreme Court to let the big boys divide the cookie. The attorney general dressed up his argument in some fancy legalisms, but the ugly naked truth is that he asked the Supreme Court to take a walk.

Frankly, the Supreme Court put on its walking shoes when it amended its original ruling in the first Edgewood case that districts must have substantially equal access to funding and instead ruled that funding could be unequal as long as it was adequate.

Now, the justices are being asked to actually take a hike by deferring to the Legislature in defining adequacy, or finding funding to be adequate when it is not. Under either scenario, the big boys get the cookie.

The Supreme Court, however, is in a tough spot. On the one hand, if it rules that funding is adequate, it will be so far from the truth as to have transparently abdicated what it has boldly declared to be its judicial responsibility. On the other hand, if it rules that funding is inadequate, it will have necessitated a judicially imposed tax increase.

There is a way off the spot, however. The Supreme Court need only rule that when funding is equal, the court will defer to the Legislature about adequacy. But when funding is unequal, the state has the burden to prove that funding is adequate — and the state has not met that burden.

The Supreme Court can then give the Legislature two choices: Equalize funding or increase funding. Under this ruling, the court has neither abdicated its responsibility nor imposed a tax increase. Rest assured, given these two choices, the big boys will pull together a few nickels to buy a slightly bigger cookie, and they will divide it more fairly.

We have a large, rapidly growing child population, a high percentage of whom are economically disadvantaged and many of whom do not speak English. By 2040, enrollment in our public schools will double, from over four million to about eight million. To maintain a working democracy and our economic prosperity, we must ensure that these children have an education. Although that will be costly in the short run, it will more than pay for itself in the long run.

After I retired from the bench, a young law student approached me at a reception at the law school and asked if I had been the Edgewood judge. When I said yes, he told me he was from Socorro school district, which is a very poor district in El Paso County. Of its 30,000 students, about 72 percent come from economically disadvantaged homes. Socorro has less than $100,000 of taxable property value per student.

I remembered the moving testimony at the Edgewood trial of the Socorro superintendent about the district's struggles. The law student shook my hand while telling me, "Edgewood made it possible for my brother and me to move into the middle-class." For the sake of the children behind him, we can only pray the Supreme Court doesn't take a walk.

F. Scott McCown was the trial judge in the Edgewood II – IV cases and West Orange Cove I. He retired in 2002 to become the director at the Center for Public Policy Priorities in Austin.

Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/07/7McCown_edit.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 12:29 PM 0 comments Links to this post

The Daily Texan
Issue: 7/7/05
Texas Supreme Court hears districts' school finance arguments
By Jimmie Collins

The Texas Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday from the state and lawyers representing nearly 300 school districts in the appeal to the school finance case that could leave schools penniless. A decision is pending in the court but could take anywhere from days to weeks.

Last year, State District Judge John Dietz ruled with the plaintiffs that the Texas school finance system is unconstitutional, calling it "financially inefficient, inadequate and unsuitable."

Arguments Wednesday from the plaintiffs paralleled those from the original trial, stating that property-poor districts don't have the school financing to provide a constitutionally adequate education to their students. Schools in Texas are held to three standards: They must provide a "general diffusion of knowledge," make "suitable provisions" and "make an efficient system of public free schools," according to the state constitution. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, arguing the case for the districts, said the schools wish to have a finance system that will provide a "general diffusion of knowledge to all students" and is equal and efficient across all districts.

MALDEF's desired outcome is for the Texas Supreme Court to provide guidance to the Texas Legislature in meeting its constitutional duties.

"Should the court deny the relief sought by the property-poor districts, not only will the children suffer, but our great state of Texas will too," said David Hinojosa, MALDEF staff attorney and lead counsel in the case.

But the state argued that, according to the Texas Constitution, the decision is not for the courts to make.

"Issues surrounding how much money and what kind of education should be provided are policy issues for the Legislature to decide," argued Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, in the trial. "The Texas Constitution clearly says that education policy will be decided by the Legislature and not the courts."

However, the court determined that the Legislature is responsible for deciding how schools meet the constitutional standard, and the judiciary is responsible for making sure that they actually meet it.

"Whether districts are exercising discretion in expenditures is not a state matter," argued Solicitor General Ted Cruz. "It is up to the individual district to decide the property tax level and how money is spent."

House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, said in a written statement he believes House Bill 2 and House Bill 3, the school finance reform legislation currently in the House, will create a fair and constitutionally sound school finance system.

But not all lawmakers in the Legislature feel the same way about the turn school finance is taking. While the court heard arguments Wednesday, lawmakers continued to debate the relevant legislation.

"If we stay on the course we are on now with House Bill 2, we are on a road to nowhere," said Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Houston, in a written statement.

Turner mentioned he met with several superintendents of school districts in Harris County who said they would rather deal with the Robin Hood Act and what financing they have now rather than deal with HB 2.

Turner explains that the bill mandates changes by the districts, such as teacher pay raises, but doesn't appropriate funds for these actions. Turner also said he is concerned that property tax relief has taken priority over education and argues that one cannot be separated from the other.