Wed, Aug. 31, 2005

Investment in defense editorials
Star-Telegram

Gov. Rick Perry reached for the headlines last week with his executive order aimed at forcing schools to spend at least 65 percent of their money on "direct classroom instruction," but there was more to the order than that.

He also wants school districts to report how much they spend on dues to organizations, including money spent for the purpose of lobbying, and how much money they devote to legal services, "including legal fees spent on lawsuits against the state."

These issues were considered but not passed during the many recent legislative debates on school finance. Unlike the "65 percent solution," they're things that the governor might have some authority, through the commissioner of education, to require. They would add to the information provided to taxpayers about how their money is being spent, and that's a good thing.

The negative that they carry, of course, is an implication that school district spending for lobbying or for lawsuits against the state is inherently wrong. It's spending taxpayer money on things that end up costing taxpayers more money, some say.

But when public schools are being abused or neglected by the Legislature, who is more suited to put up a fight than the districts themselves?

Anyone who thinks that the Legislature is not fully capable -- even inclined -- to abuse the public schools need only look at recent history. The long string of Edgewood lawsuits in the 1990s detailed that abuse as a Texas Supreme Court-certified fact.

And neglect? Look at the West Orange-Cove lawsuit currently before the Supreme Court. School districts filed that suit when the Legislature and the state's top political figure wouldn't pay any attention to their complaints that they were being forced to collect an unconstitutional state property tax. The case has blossomed with detailed proof that Texas does not provide adequate funding to meet education mandates.

Yes, report school district spending to parents and other constituents and let them decide whether it's right. But assume that spending on lobbying and lawsuits is wrong? Let's not stick our heads in the sand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.dfw.com

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:08 PM 0 comments Links to this post

This report is consistent with Linda McNeil's chapter, "Faking Equity," in my book, LEAVING CHILDREN BEHIND. However unfortunate, these news are consistent with what we've already observed here in Texas where the only thing that's been going up are the students' test scores. Every other indicator—ACT, SAT, TASP, high school completion—runs diametrically in the opposite direction. Yet we continue pursuing the same path and leading the nation down it, as well.... -Angela

State's class of 2005 scored 502 compared with U.S. average of 520
By April Castro
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Although college-bound high school students across the nation scored higher than ever on the math portion of the SAT, Texas students lagged significantly with scores that have remained stagnant over the past decade.

The Texas class of 2005 scored an average of 502 on the math portion of the college entrance exam, below the national average of 520. The math and verbal sections of the SAT are each graded on a 200 to 800 point scale.

For the past decade, Texas scores on the math portion have teetered around 500 while the national average has improved consistently. Nationally, this year's math scores are the highest ever on the test, which has been in use since the 1940s. Scores from individual school districts were not available Tuesday.

More students taking advanced courses such as pre-calculus, calculus and physics led to widespread higher math scores, according to the College Board, which owns the test.

Texas test takers also lagged on the verbal portion, scoring an average of 493. The national average was 508. The average verbal score did not change in the past year but fell slightly from the average of 495 a decade ago.

"The relatively flat trend in verbal scores indicates what we have observed for years: the need to redouble efforts to emphasize the core literacy skills of reading and writing in all courses across the curriculum, starting in the earliest grades," said Gaston Caperton, president of the College Board.

The number of Texas students who took the test rose 4 percent to 133,115, continuing a decade-long increase, said Debbie Graves Ratcliffe, a Texas Education Agency spokeswoman. That means 54 percent of graduating seniors took the test, which most Texas universities consider in determining admissions.

Some open-enrollment community colleges do not require tests from students.

Nationally, the number of SAT takers rose to an all-time high of more than 1.4 million, a 4 percent increase over the previous year.

In Texas, 48 percent of test takers were minorities. Of those, Hispanics and black students scored lower than those groups nationally.

Though the test now includes a writing section, the class of 2005 was not required to take that version.

Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/auto/epaper/editions/wednesday/
metro_state_345185b2a58440a010c1.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 8:47 AM 0 comments Links to this post

This piece ties the 65% rule to the privatization agenda. This is pretty illuminating. Read on. -Angela

Effort seeks 65% of money for classsrooms, as Perry has decreed
By Jason Embry
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, August 30, 2005

In a television commercial that has run in Arizona, a teacher points toward a chalkboard, children diligently flip through notebooks and a narrator says the state needs to spend more money in its classrooms.

Halfway across the country, a commercial urging more spending in Minnesota classrooms featured the same teacher, the same children and almost the same message.

A little-known group called First Class Education paid for the commercials in both states as part of its nationwide effort to see that school districts spend at least 65 percent of their budgets on classroom expenses, such as teacher salaries, student computers and after-school activities. But documents obtained by the Austin American-Statesman indicate that the group also hopes that the issue will create rivalries between teachers and administrators while boosting Republicans' political credibility on education issues, making it easier for them to build support for charter schools and private school vouchers.

Nowhere does the effort to limit nonclassroom spending have more momentum than in Texas.

Gov. Rick Perry ordered last week that the state require schools to meet the 65 percent threshold, phased in over several years, and Education Commissioner Shirley Neeley quickly assembled a panel of school superintendents to help determine what that means. Although officials in other states have discussed a 65 percent rule, Perry is the first governor to use an executive order to get there.

Politically, it is an easy sell: Instead of raising taxes to put more money into classrooms, schools should spend less on administrators' salaries and other costs that are not directly tied to teaching.

"Until we have the 65-cent solution in place, voters and parents are not going to support more money without some (assurance) that the increase in money is going to be properly spent," said Tim Mooney, an Arizona political consultant who works for First Class Education.

But critics say the plan takes power away from local school boards, risking that they will spend too little on counselors, libraries or security. In Texas, the debate comes at a time when a state judge has said the state spends an unconstitutionally small amount of money on schools.

"Applying an arbitrary standard to 1,000 school districts across a state as diverse as Texas is a mistake," said Brock Gregg of the Association of Texas Professional Educators.

Texas Education Agency spokeswoman Debbie Graves Ratcliffe said the "starting point" for the superintendents trying to determine what constitutes classroom instruction will be the definition used by the National Center for Education Statistics, a branch of the U.S. Department of Education. That definition includes salaries for teachers and their aides, classroom supplies and school activities such as football and band.

The center's statistics focus on operating expenses and not capital projects such as new schools.

Using the national center's numbers, Texas spends 60.4 percent of its operating dollars on instruction. According to First Class Education, that ranks Texas 33rd in the nation.

The Arizona-based group, saying only four states now meet the 65 percent threshold, says every state and Washington, D.C., should make that threshold a requirement by 2008. And the group has made some headway. The Louisiana legislature passed a resolution this year encouraging state officials to implement the 65 percent requirement, and Mooney said he hopes that the issue will be on the ballot for public approval in at least 10 states next year.

A First Class Education memo obtained by the Austin American-Statesman lists a series of "political benefits" of putting the 65 percent plan on the ballot. The memo says the plan will create divisions within education unions as dollars flow from administrators to teachers, and it says the plan will divert dollars away from other political goals of the "education establishment."

Citing voter trends, it also says the plan can help build support for voucher and charter school proposals, which critics say take money away from public schools.

"Women in particular want public education fixed, not replaced," it says. "Once additional fixing and funding of public education can be achieved via the First Class Education proposal, targeted segments of voters may be more greatly predisposed to supporting voucher and charter school proposals, as Republicans address the voting public with greater credibility on public education issues."

The document speaks specifically to the political benefits of having the 65 percent rule on a public ballot, which is not an immediate issue in Texas because Perry has already ordered the change.

Mooney would neither confirm nor deny Monday that the document came from his group.

Aware that education is always a key issue in elections, Mooney said he took the 65 percent idea earlier this year to Patrick Byrne, the 42-year-old president of Overstock.com Inc., an online retailer. Mooney said he chose Byrne because he had been a vocal supporter of "school choice," a term frequently used by advocates of vouchers and charter schools.

Byrne has contributed at least $100,000 to the group and become its public face. Mooney would not pinpoint the amount or identify other funders.

Officials with the group and Overstock.com said Byrne was unavailable for comment.

The 65 percent proposal was part of legislation in the Texas House and Senate this year to change the state's school finance system. That effort ultimately failed.

Senate Education Committee Chairwoman Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, said Monday that she had no interaction with Mooney's group and that she heard about the 65 percent rule from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which advocates smaller government. Her House counterpart, Rep. Kent Grusendorf, R-Arlington, said he did not recall any interaction with First Class Education and that a House colleague first suggested the 65 percent cap a couple of years ago.

"This is an idea that comes from our constituents, our Rotary clubs, our service clubs," Grusendorf said.

Mooney said he worked with a Texas small-government group called Americans for Prosperity to promote the idea here and that, once he heard it was moving in Texas, First Class Education sent Perry some information about the idea. He said that the group talked to Perry's staff but that it was the governor's idea to issue the executive order.

Perry spokesman Robert Black stressed the same point. "We have numerous conversations with numerous different education stakeholders," Black said. Among the issues that superintendents could grapple with when setting the rule is whether to make exceptions for school districts with many low-income students who require spending on federally funded meal programs or for large districts in rural regions that have high transportation costs.

Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, said he sees the 65 percent rule as part of an effort to paint other education expenses as wasteful, making it more difficult for schools to build political support for spending increases.

"If you don't want taxes to go up, what do you do?" Coleman said. "You shift the money internally. But you can't shift the money internally and have a system that's whole."

jembry@statesman.com; 445-3654

What counts as classroom instruction?

Federal guidelines that Texas will use as a starting point in deciding what qualifies as classroom instruction.

Instruction:

* Salaries and benefits for teachers and instructional aides

* Textbooks

* Computers

* Supplies


Non-instruction:

* Transportation

* Curriculum development

* Administration

* Salaries for nurses, counselors, librarians

Source: National Center for Education Statistics

Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/auto/epaper/editions/tuesday/news_344170c1a584b0e900a5.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:45 PM 1 comments Links to this post

So pleased to be reading these frank analyses of the school finance debate, revealing the not-so-hidden agrenda of those wanting to privatize our public schools. (NOTE: See today's other post regarding the privatization interests behind the 65% rule that I've been covering.) State Representative Dunnam expresses: "Had it become law, House Bill 2 could have subjected over 800 Texas campuses to privatization. That's not just vouchers; it's vouchers on steroids." They agenda, according to Dunnam, is lifted from the pages of the California-based, Koret Task Force.
-Angela

Sunday, August 28, 2005

Jim Dunnam Guest column

Bipartisan solution is there if GOP leadership will yield

“The enemy of public education” -– that's what Devine, Texas, School Superintendent Rickey Williams, a self-described Republican, wrote this month about his party's conduct in Austin.

Based on the party's actions in the last five special and regular sessions, it is hard to dispute his claim.

Although Republicans control all branches of Texas government, they have not offered a single school finance plan that was really about improving education or cutting taxes for all Texans.

The nonpartisan Legislative Budget Board reports that the Republican tax plans would have slapped a net tax increase on 90 percent of all Texans, with only those making over $100,000 a year getting a net tax cut. Everybody else would pay more.

Gov. Perry talks a lot about property tax relief. But when the taxman takes more from your pocket than he puts in your hand, it is a tax increase.

While the GOP plan asked 9 out of 10 Texans to pay more, not one penny of those tax increases would go to improve our schools, revealing the fundamental flaw in the Republican House Bill 2 school plan.

In fact, the “reforms” in House Bill 2 literally were lifted from recommendations made by a California think tank's “Koret Task Force,” a group of private school voucher advocates.

The Republican leadership actually ignored the advice of Texas educators and listened to these California crazies.

The real goal of their plan was revealed this May by Rep. Kent Grusendorf, who “led” the Republican school finance effort. During the House floor debate, Grusendorf said:

“We have gone through over the last two or three decades of airline deregulation, trucking deregulation, electric deregulation, telephone deregulation. The only thing we haven't addressed is deregulating our schools.”

So when Republicans say “reform,” they mean treating our public schools like a deregulated industry.

I think most Texans agree that neither Enron nor the insolvent United Airlines pension fund is a model for improving public education.

Consider one House Bill 2 “reform” that would have allowed the state to turn over neighborhood school campuses to private companies.

Privatization problem

Local voters and school boards would have had no say in the matter, because the decision to privatize a campus would be made by the non-elected Texas commissioner of education in Austin.

Had it become law, House Bill 2 could have subjected over 800 Texas campuses to privatization.

That's not just vouchers; it's vouchers on steroids.

Fortunately, this misguided agenda was too much for the House majority to stomach.

A number of Republican House members broke ranks with their party leaders and joined Democrats to adopt a real plan offered by Democratic Rep. Scott Hochberg.

Although it cost no more than the Republican plan, this alternative earned bipartisan and educator support because it provided more property tax relief for middle class home-owners, $2 billion more in state dollars for our schools and a real teacher pay raise.

Shortly after the Hochberg plan was adopted, Speaker Craddick pulled the plug on the session rather than allow a majority to move forward.

Although we were disappointed, defeating dangerous House Bill 2 was a good move.

The Republican leadership must accept responsibility for their failure, a fact that seems to elude them.

They are even trying to shift blame to our educators and school leaders.

Apparently, the courts will have to force those in charge to fix our schools.

Meanwhile, no taxpayer is getting a property tax cut, and no additional support is being provided to improve test scores.

A bipartisan House majority voted to do those things, but leadership blocked our way.

For Texas students, teachers and taxpayers, defeating Republican tax and school bills was the right thing to do.

But before we start the meter running on another costly special session, those who really believe in public education must demand that our priorities are the basis for a real school finance solution.

Hopefully, the Republicans in charge will not stand in the way next time. Our schoolchildren's future should not be shortchanged by “the enemy of public education” in charge in Austin.

State Rep. Jim Dunnam, a Waco Democrat, represents District 57.

8/20050828wacdunnam28.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 7:44 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Aug. 30, 2005, 8:49PM

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
Perry's order on spending says more about own failings than about school districts'
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle


The movie critic A.H. Weiler once remarked that nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself. Few things bring that observation to mind with more alacrity than Gov. Rick Perry's order on school spending.

Having failed to lead state government toward fulfillment of its first duty — to provide an adequate and equitable system of public schools — the governor ordered the Texas Education Agency to see to it that school districts spend 65 percent of their budget on classroom instruction. The attorney general apparently forgot to inform Perry that the executive powers of Texas governors border on the nonexistent.

Taken alone, the guideline of devoting most of a school district's resources to classroom instruction seems reasonable. In an ideal world, the state would fund schools so generously that 35 percent of the budget would cover construction, maintenance, debt service, buses, meals and all administration expenses, leaving 65 percent that could be lavished on teachers and classroom equipment. That is not the case in Texas, where pleasing campaign contributors trumps providing children an adequate education.

Perry's order is particularly highhanded at a time when school energy costs are going through the poorly maintained schoolhouse roof. If Perry wants schools to cut back or end school bus service to meet the budget goal, let him say so.

The problem with school funding is not waste. The problem is that the state pays only 40 percent of public education's cost. In Houston, the state covers a ridiculous 12 percent, yet Perry wishes to dictate how 100 percent of the money will be apportioned — one of the most grotesque unfunded mandates since the term came into use.

The director of a group of tax resenters argues that the Houston Independent School District has an excessive 2,000 nonteachers — one for every 100 students. HISD Trustee Harvin Moore counters that the best private schools in Houston have 10 or more counselors, librarians and other support staff per 100 students. Perhaps that's one reason private schools get so much better results.

Low tax proponents claim that more money won't cure what's wrong with the schools. There is an ideal cost-benefit ratio, but Texas schools are nowhere near it. The money the state provides is not enough to cover yesterday's needs, much less tomorrow's. The cost of providing education is rising, because of higher enrollment, higher energy and construction costs and the need to pay teachers more to attract qualified staff.

No one would argue that paying more at the pump won't put gasoline in your tank. No one should assert that adequate school funding won't help.

Under Perry's order, school districts would have to account for what they spend on lobbyists and lawyers to sue the state for a constitutional school finance system. If Texas had responsible leaders and legislators, the school districts would have no need to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Gov. Perry's order serves two useful purposes. It demonstrates his indifference to the plight of public education, and it draws a bold diagram of how desperate that plight grows in Texas' leadership vacuum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article is: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/3332258

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 5:05 AM 1 comments Links to this post

This should be read in tandem with my other previous post on a district taking the state to court over the validity of the state's current assessment system. Here we read in depth about a dearth of professional development activities for such teachers. -Angela

JULY 2005

Listening to Teachers of English Language Learners
Their Challenges, Experiences, and Needs

California’s classrooms are changing. Will teachers be up to the task of ensuring all students, including English language learners, meet the state’s high academic standards?

A new survey of more than 5,000 teachers finds few professional development opportunities targeted on working effectively with second language learners. A lack of time and instructional resources also hamper teachers’ ability to reach the nearly 1.6 million students designated as English learners in California’s public schools. The teachers surveyed also said their efforts to teach English learners are complicated by their struggle to effectively communicate with the parents and families of English learning students.

California’s English Learner Population

Students in California’s public schools come from a wide variety of ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds. Almost 1.6 million, approximately 25%, are classified as English learners or “EL” and require special assistance from their teachers and schools to meet the state’s rigorous academic content standards while also learning English. The vast majority of teachers, over 80%, have one or more EL students in their classroom. California, with 32% of all EL students in the country, has a higher concentration of English learners than anywhere else in the U.S. California’s growth in EL student enrollment is also greater than the rest of the nation. The most recent language census data lists 57 different primary languages spoken by students in the state’s schools. Most of the state’s English learners, 85%, are Spanish speakers, with only five other language groups (Vietnamese, Filipino, Cantonese, Hmong, and Korean) even reaching the level of 1%-2% of the EL student population. An additional one million students come from homes where a language other than English is spoken, making students who speak a language other than English at home account for 40% of California’s K-12 school population.
English Learners in California Public Schools

With regards to student learning, only 10% of those identified as English learners passed the California English Language Arts Standards Test in 2004. Moreover, only 39% were able to pass the English Language Arts portion of the California High School Exit Exam in 2004, compared with 81% of English speakers. Only 49% of EL students passed the math portion of the exam compared with 78% of their English-only peers.

Surveying Teachers of English Learners

Because of the escalating numbers of English learning students in California’s classrooms, the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning partnered with Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) and the University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute (UC LMRI) to conduct a large-scale survey of teachers from across the state. We set out to learn what challenges these teachers face with regard to educating English learners, and to analyze how these challenges vary according to factors such as teacher experience, training, and student need. The report, Listening to Teachers of English Language Learners, documents the responses of over 5,000 California teachers regarding their challenges, experiences and professional development needs.

Survey Findings

* Over the last five years, many EL teachers had little or no professional development designed to help them teach these students, and the quality of training was uneven.
* Greater preparation for teaching English learners equaled greater self-rated ability to teach these students successfully.
* The majority of teachers expressed the desire and need to gain greater expertise for teaching English language learners.
* Communication with students and their families was of utmost importance to teachers.
* Finding the time to teach EL students all of the required subject matter, including English language development, presented the second greatest teaching challenge for elementary teachers.
* Teachers expressed frustration with the wide range of English language and academic levels often found in their classrooms.
* Teachers were challenged by the lack of tools to teach, including appropriate assessment materials and instruments.
* The more teachers knew about working effectively with English learning students, the more likely they were to cite shortcomings in instructional programs for their students.


 
Top 5 Challenges Faced by Elementary and/or Secondary Classroom Teachers
 
% Elementary
% Secondary
Teacher-parent/community communication
26.7
16.1
Lack of time to teach ELs
22.3
9.4
Variability in student academic needs/levels
18.9
19.5
Lack of appropriate tools and materials
15.9
13.8
Teacher-EL communication
15.6
22.6
Encouraging/motivating ELs
6.4
20.4

 
Frequently Cited Problems With EL Teacher Professional Development
 
% Elementary
% Secondary
Poorly planned and executed presentation by uninformed presenter with little or no EL experience
28.4
31.1
Not appropriate to teachers' needs for skills and knowledge; provided information that was not new
27.2
31.4
Not applicable or appropriate for teaching EL students
16.8
13.6
Not practical for use in the classroom and did not provide follow-up showing teachers how to implement what they learned
14.8
12.1

 

The Center View

Until the release of the important information taken from Listening to Teachers of English Language Learners, teachers of English language learning students who are on the front lines of California’s education system were seldom, if ever, asked about the challenges they faced in their classrooms or what they needed to ensure that every child meets the state’s rigorous academic standards. Using the best advice from the classroom, education policy-makers at the local, regional and state levels can strengthen teaching that affects the learning outcomes of a major portion of the state’s student population. As first steps we recommend that:

*

The governor and the leadership of the Legislature convene a summit of policy-makers, educational experts, and most of all, classroom EL teachers on “Teaching for California’s English Learners.” The purpose of this summit would be to carefully review and analyze the results of this survey and to chart a course of action that ensures high quality preparation and professional development for all teachers of English learners.

*

The California Department of Education should develop and make available to local school districts a package of evaluation tools and instruments to assess the quality of local programs for English learners and identify areas in need of improvement. We further recommend that as part of this process CDE identify state, federal, and other resources that local school districts can use to assist them in making program improvements.

*

Local school districts give high priority to the professional development needs of teachers of English learners as they implement the Teacher Credentialing or Professional Development Block Grant, recognizing the differing needs of teachers at the elementary and secondary levels identified in this research.



Increased attention to the needs of teachers of English language learners is warranted given the findings from this study: professional development is not targeted to meet the needs of English language learners; teachers are facing barriers to communication with their students and their students’ parents; and they are constantly accommodating for a lack of appropriate materials and resources to reach their students. Policy-makers and professional development providers across the state would be well advised to consider this fresh voice from the classroom when planning improvements for California’s teacher development system.

Excerpted from:
Gándara, P, Maxwell-Jolly, J, & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language learners: A survey of California teachers’ challenges, experiences, and professional development needs. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.

The full text of this report is available for download from www.cftl.org

 

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 1:19 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Are state assessments fair to English language learners? One California district takes the question to court.

by Naomi Dillon / American School Board Journal

Coachella Valley Unified School District couldn’t be farther from Coachella Valley, even though it’s right next door. The valley is home to acres of golf courses, high-end retail centers, and luxury resorts like Palm Springs. The school district encompasses an area of mostly arid and dusty land, where the median family income hovers around $30,000.

Many families can scarcely afford to hover, instead migrating in and out of the district as they follow the crops. Education -- the key to escaping the cycle of poverty -- is valued, but it’s secondary to survival.

The daily reality for these migrant families is felt within the Coachella school district, which is caught between state and federal accountability measures as it tries to educate a growing population of students whose native language is not English. Making ends meet academically has become an increasingly improbable task for Coachella, where 70 percent of the students are classified as English Language Learners or ELL.

Under California law, all ELL students must take state tests in English after only one year of instruction -- a requirement that perpetually leaves districts like Coachella “in need of improvement.” Under NCLB, districts can omit scores of ELL students for three years and even up to an additional two years after that, while the students learn English.

“The language in No Child Left Behind is pretty clear: There need to be accommodations that yield valid and reliable results,” says Shelly Spiegel-Coleman, president of Californians Together, a consortium of 16 statewide organizations seeking an equal and high-quality education for ELL students. “We don’t have that here. We assess in English. It’s the same test for everyone.”

Coachella’s school board -- joined by nine other school districts and civil rights organizations such as Californians Together -- has sued the state over how it tests ELL students. While the lawsuit focuses on getting new tests developed and modified instead of getting more money, its outcome promises to be no less influential in how states and communities assess the knowledge of the nation’s 5.1 million English Language Learners.

“The fact is, you need to have highly qualified teachers, tutoring programs, teachers’ aides, and smaller classes if you want any chance of these kids learning English, let alone learning core subjects and meeting academic standards,” says Tim Hogan, executive director of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, which won its case against the Arizona legislature over ELL funding.

Why the conflict?

Nationwide, the number of ELL students has almost doubled over the past decade and now makes up a little more than 10 percent of the estimated 49.5 million schoolchildren in the U.S. Almost 30 percent of the nation’s ELL students -- 1.6 million -- attend schools in California.

If current trends continue, the Urban Institute predicts, immigrant children will make up 30 percent of the nation’s total student population by 2015. And the migration pattern is spreading to nontraditional states such as Arkansas, Kansas, and Nebraska, which saw its ELL population increase by 320 percent from 1993-94 to 2003-04.

In Coachella Valley, the growth of the ELL population has been even more pronounced. Of the 14,621 students the district educated in 2003-04, a total of 9,813 are designated ELL and 2,557 are classified Fluent English Proficient. In the elementary and middle grades, 13.6 percent of all Coachella students met or exceeded state English and language arts standards, while 16 percent passed math tests in 2003-04. Twelve percent of high school students met standards in English and language arts; a slightly higher percentage -- 12.8 -- met math standards.

“Despite pretty clear research that it takes somewhere between five to seven years to acquire English sufficient to be able to test academics, California tests all kids regardless of language and proficiency in English,” says Marc Coleman, one of the attorneys representing Coachella and the other plaintiffs. “The only provision they make is that they won’t count scores for the first year.”

California’s accountability system, enacted in 1999, uses an Academic Performance Index to measure growth. Unlike the Adequate Yearly Progress provision in NCLB, which requires all students to be proficient in reading and math by 2014, the API rewards progress and improvement.

Bob Barnes, an administrator in the academic accountability unit of the California Department of Education, says NCLB requires all subgroups of students to meet the same standards. “The API is designed to get students off the bottom level and up the ladder. The AYP doesn’t do that. We’re much more caring here in California.”

Coleman concedes that API is a better form of measuring student progress. The sticking point is that a district’s API score is used in calculating whether it meets NCLB’s Adequate Yearly Progress requirements. Because ELL students are forced to take the tests in English after only one year, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit believe the test unfairly prevents them from meeting AYP.

Coachella’s statistics seem to bear this out. Slightly more than half of the district’s ELL students qualify for the NCLB exemption, and when their scores on the state test are excluded for three years, Coachella’s performance closely trails and in some cases exceeds the state average.

“When we look at this we’ve done a good job of teaching our kids English,” says Superintendent Foch “Tut” Pensis. “For us to be labeled as educational failures is absolutely wrong.”

Finding qualified teachers

Besides sharing a name, the only thing the school district and the valley have in common is the city of Indio. In this crossroads town, which is where the district’s boundaries begin and then extend eastward, one can see the area’s past and future in a series of murals clustered along Indio Boulevard. The Cabazon Indians, who still reside in nearby reservations, dominate the side of a building along Indio Blvd., while migrant farmworkers look suspended in time on the side of a department store around the corner.

Despite heavy gang presence, neither picture has been defaced or vandalized. “That shows you the level of respect people have,” says Chauncey Veatch, a Coachella Valley educator who was named 2002 National Teacher of the Year.

Veatch, who continues to work in the area as a teacher on assignment for the Riverside County Office of Education, illustrates both the impact a teacher has on the success of ELL students and the difficulty districts with large ELL populations have in finding qualified instructors. He has taken many of his students under his wing and shown them how they can succeed despite the odds.

“I have the opportunity to find these gifts in the kids and I build on these gifts,” Veatch says. “It doesn’t always happen at the same pace.”

Veatch, a retired U.S. Army colonel, was encouraged to try education by his siblings, both of whom are teachers. Without certification or background, he went to Coachella’s administrative building to apply for a substitute teacher’s position. He left the office with a full-time teaching position on an emergency credential basis.

Most of California’s ELL students are taught by teachers without the required certifications, the result of a national shortage of instructors in specialized fields like English as a Second Language. In fact, the latest U.S. Department of Education Schools and Staffing Survey discovered that only one-third of the ESL teachers received special training in their field.

Emergency credentials allow teachers to step into a classroom with only the promise of obtaining the required training within two to three years, a dangerous practice to employ in one of the most challenging areas of instruction, says Carla Meskill, an associate professor of educational theory and practice at the State University of New York in Albany.

“Imagine yourself as a 10-year-old kid and you are put in a French-speaking country without any French and some person tries to come off the street and teach you French,” says Meskill, who specializes in language and technology, particularly within ELL populations. “How effective do you think that’s going to be?”

Veatch has managed to be very effective, with a combination of unflagging energy, humility, and a love for what he calls “my kids.” In three years, he earned his certification and quickly garnered the respect of his peers, his students, and the community. Seven years after he started his second career, he earned the respect of the entire profession when he was honored as the nation’s top teacher.

“I don’t know why I was picked,” Veatch says, noting that his teaching style came from a combination of immersion in the culture and his fellow staff members showing him the ropes. “They made me the teacher that I am. I really feel like I was trained by the best.”

Indeed, it would be negligent to call Veatch an anomaly in the 1,200 square-mile school district. Dedication is a prerequisite for teaching in a place that has so many challenges -- language issues, poverty, high dropout rates, and gangs.

“That’s why you have to love them,” Coachella Valley High School Principal Manuel Arredondo says of the students. “Because we go above and beyond.”

Serving English language learners

Going above and beyond is arguably the only way to reach the underprivileged. With economic security and stability often absent in the home, ELL students are among the neediest of any subgroup. Logic follows that they require the most help.

From medical and dental services, to parent education classes and homework clubs, the Coachella school district does all it can to improve the students’ chances -- in many instances even before they arrive.

Because so many students enter the system with a weak education base, the district operates the Latino Family Literacy program, a 10-month countdown for parents and students that leads up to the child’s first day of kindergarten.

Each month, pre-kindergarten children and their parents receive two new books. While the student reads the English version in class with the teacher, the parent is instructed to go over the Spanish version at home. A disposable camera is included to document the process, and the pictures form a nostalgic scrapbook while they promote learning.

The district also spends its fair share on traditional methods of school improvement, investing in academic coaches, tutoring programs, and other forms of professional development. Every Wednesday at Coachella Valley High School, classes end shortly after lunch so teachers can take in-service courses on how best to instruct their diverse student population.

“Our teachers have to work doubly hard,” Pensis says. “Not only do they have to teach English, but they have to teach content.”

But even when schools have the proper funds, trained staff, and effective materials, most state and government classifications of ELL students often make them appear substandard. Students who have attained English proficiency are moved out of the subgroup, only to be replaced by someone who doesn’t speak English. That is the situation Coachella finds itself in daily.

“They have a stacked deck, and they have no way of overcoming it,” says attorney Coleman, adding that the long-term consequences of being labeled underperforming are pretty severe. He then lists several: “White flight, bright flight, poor teacher morale, students being stigmatized. It’s a bad reputation to have and an inescapable one in California.”

In its 2004 report, California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office warned that inattention to this growing group could have serious ramifications for everyone.

“The success of ELL students is a critical issue for the state’s K-12 system and for the state’s economy,” the report said. “If our schools are not successful with this group, we will have failed not only the students, but also failed to adequately provide a trained workforce for the state’s economy.”

Assessing the situation

Just as any discussion about improving student learning has to include instruction, any discussion about teaching English to non-native speakers always goes back to which model to use.

English immersion. Dual language. Bilingual. Each camp has its own supporters and detractors, the debate spawning articles, studies, and research. It’s a Pandora’s Box that never will truly be closed.

Still, California voters slammed it shut in 1998 with the passage of Proposition 227, which banned school districts from using the bilingual education model. Proposition 227 had its roots in the state’s disastrous performance in the 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress, where California ranked at the bottom among 37 participating states in reading. Both events had huge implications for the accountability system the state implemented in 1999.

“Kids are instructed in English, they are expected to master English, so they are tested in English,” explains Linda Lownes, a consultant with the education department’s Standards and Assessment Division, summing up the fairly straight and narrow path that California officials expect all students to tread.

NCLB leaves it up to the states to decide which language instruction program to use, mandating only that the selected model has proven research behind it. And some researchers, such as Jamal Abedi of the University of California in Los Angeles, say English immersion doesn’t work.

“It’s not effective,” he says, referring to findings from two major studies on immersion programs. “These are extreme measures that some policymakers make without paying attention to the outcome.”

Unless hard evidence and strong research drive policies, Abedi and others say, legislators can’t possibly expect to find sound and reliable results in classrooms. “Assessment is a consequence of instruction,” he says. “If instruction is not effective, you really cannot test [students].”

After studying the results of the state’s 2002 English-proficiency tests, California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office determined that the broad diversity within the ELL population makes it impossible to apply a one-size-fits-all approach to instruction.

And, on an anecdotal level, four seniors at Coachella Valley High School arrived at much the same conclusion.

As part of a History Channel-sponsored project, Alejandro Hernandez, Sergio Ceja, Jahaira Duarte, and Silvia Torres entered ELL classrooms and documented the different models of instruction used to teach English. After winning at the local and regional level, their film is currently in contention for a state award.

“It’s hard to say what is the most effective way,” Ceja says, “because kids learn differently.”

Seeking remedies

Plaintiffs in the Coachella case are quick to note that the case does not focus on instruction. It is not, as Coleman says, “an attempt to debate whether bilingual education is best or how to teach.”

“This case is just about leveling the playing field,” he says. “There’s an unfairness in the law, and it needs to be changed.”

Specifically, the lawsuit asks the state to develop primary language tests for students who have recently arrived or enrolled in bilingual classrooms. Currently, only 13 states provide translations of their standardized tests, with New York offering its tests in 52 languages. The suit also calls for a new standardized test that reduces unnecessary linguistic features that can cloud the true assessment of an ELL student’s knowledge base.

Abedi, who has studied whether accommodations can affect ELL students’ performance on standardized tests for more than a decade, says his research shows that modified exams are more reliable. In a few case studies, he says, simple changes -- such as using active voice instead of passive voice and eliminating idioms and unfamiliar words that aren’t related to content -- have dramatically improved ELL students’ scores.

California’s Department of Education plans to try out a new Spanish exam next spring that would supplement, not replace, the current standardized test. The test would be available for second-, third-, and fourth-graders by spring 2007. But Deborah Short, director of language education and academic development for the Washington, D.C.-based Applied Linguistics Center, says it is unrealistic to think that non-English speakers can master core subject areas in another language in the short time frame California now has.

“Standardized tests do have a place in ELL, if they are appropriate,” she says. “We need to learn what [students] know. But I don’t think it’s appropriate if they’ve only been here for one year.”

That’s what Coachella district officials think, too, which is why they agonized but ultimately decided to go to court. “If we want our kids to learn, we need to stand up to the state,” Pensis says.

You’d be hard pressed to find anyone in the district who didn’t stand behind the decision, although there’s a feeling that it’s a shame the situation has come to this.

Just before class breaks and the hallways flood with students, Arredondo stands in relative silence near Coachella Valley High School’s entrance. The principal hesitates and then stands stiffly.

“We are not whiners. We don’t complain,” he declares. “We do our job and we keep on trucking. These kids will succeed. The problem is the language.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Naomi Dillon (ndillon@nsba.org) is associate editor of American School Board Journal.

Photo by Michele Sabatier


Copyright © 2005, National School Boards Association. American School Board Journal is an editorially independent publication of the National School Boards Association. Opinions expressed by this magazine or any of its authors do not necessarily reflect positions of the National School Boards Association. Within the parameters of fair use, this article may be printed out and photocopied for individual or educational use, provided this copyright notice appears on each copy. This article may not be otherwise, linked, transmitted, or reproduced in print or electronic form without the consent of the Publisher. For more information, call (703) 838-6739.

© 2005, NSBA

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 1:12 AM 1 comments Links to this post

I agree that we are in a crisis due to macro-structural shifts in the economy as suggested below.

Folks should check out the report referred to herein by Herbert titled, Getting Smarter, Becoming Fairer by the Campaign for America's Future. In light of my other morning's post by George Schmidt of Substance, we should keep in mind that "educational reform" must also be accompanied with social policies addressing housing, poverty, and the social ills, including gangs, that often emerge from these. So yes, the Campaign offers a helpful starting point for reform, but care must be take to NOT continue along the present high-stakes testing and accountability trajectory and to expand broadly instead beyond the school in order to address the fundamental, frequently abysmal, inequalities that threaten our fragile democracy.

Moreover, in light of the failed, corporate model, our communities must also organize in order to gain control over our public schools. I encourage folks in Texas to support one such effort by the name of Texas Parent PAC. The public is shown time and again to support public schools but too many of our elected officials are beholding to the corporate interests that contribute heavily to their campaigns. For this reason, among others, the principle of representative democracy is thwarted with astounding regularity.

One hates to see a critique of either NCLB or of education generally, yet again get hijacked by a corporate definition of reform. So consider supporting the Texas Parent PAC. Do read the George Schmidt piece.

-Angela

August 29, 2005

Left Behind, Way Behind
By BOB HERBERT / NYTimes

First the bad news: Only about two-thirds of American teenagers (and just half of all black, Latino and Native American teens) graduate with a regular diploma four years after they enter high school.

Now the worse news: Of those who graduate, only about half read well enough to succeed in college.

Don't even bother to ask how many are proficient enough in math and science to handle college-level work. It's not pretty.

Of all the factors combining to shape the future of the U.S., this is one of the most important. Millions of American kids are not even making it through high school in an era in which a four-year college degree is becoming a prerequisite for achieving (or maintaining) a middle-class lifestyle.

The Program for International Assessment, which compiles reports on the reading and math skills of 15-year-olds, found that the U.S. ranked 24th out of 29 nations surveyed in math literacy. The same result for the U.S. - 24th out of 29 - was found when the problem-solving abilities of 15-year-olds were tested.

If academic performance were an international athletic event, spectators would be watching American kids falling embarrassingly behind in a number of crucial categories. A new report from a pair of Washington think tanks - the Center for American Progress and the Institute for America's Future - says an urgent new commitment to public education, much stronger than the No Child Left Behind law, must be made if that slide is to be reversed.

This would not be a minor task. In much of the nation the public education system is in shambles. And the kids who need the most help - poor children from inner cities and rural areas - often attend the worst schools.

An education task force established by the center and the institute noted the following:

"Young low-income and minority children are more likely to start school without having gained important school readiness skills, such as recognizing letters and counting. ... By the fourth grade, low-income students read about three grade levels behind nonpoor students. Across the nation, only 15 percent of low-income fourth graders achieved proficiency in reading in 2003, compared to 41 percent of nonpoor students."

How's that for a disturbing passage? Not only is the picture horribly bleak for low-income and minority kids, but we find that only 41 percent of nonpoor fourth graders can read proficiently.

I respectfully suggest that we may be looking at a crisis here.

The report, titled "Getting Smarter, Becoming Fairer," restates a point that by now should be clear to most thoughtful Americans: too many American kids are ill equipped educationally to compete successfully in an ever-more competitive global environment.

Cartoonish characters like Snoop Dogg and Paris Hilton may be good for a laugh, but they're useless as role models. It's the kids who are logging long hours in the college labs, libraries and lecture halls who will most easily remain afloat in the tremendous waves of competition that have already engulfed large segments of the American work force.

The report makes several recommendations. It says the amount of time that children spend in school should be substantially increased by lengthening the school day and, in some cases, the school year. It calls for the development of voluntary, rigorous national curriculum standards in core subject areas and a consensus on what students should know and be able to do by the time they graduate from high school.

The report also urges, as many have before, that the nation take seriously the daunting (and expensive) task of getting highly qualified teachers into all classrooms. And it suggests that an effort be made to connect schools in low-income areas more closely with the surrounding communities. (Where necessary, the missions of such schools would be extended to provide additional services for children whose schooling is affected by such problems as inadequate health care, poor housing, or a lack of parental support.)

The task force's recommendations are points of departure that can be discussed, argued about and improved upon by people who sincerely want to ramp up the quality of public education in the U.S. What is most important about the report is the fact that it sounds an alarm about a critical problem that is not getting nearly enough serious attention.

E-mail: bobherb@nytimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/29/opinion/29herbert.html?th&emc=th

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 8:28 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Thanks George, also on this list, for this helpful analysis of Chicago inner-city schools. It sheds light on the limits and harmful effects of high-stakes, corporate-based reform. If you are not a Substance subscriber, you can join the fun by sending $16 for a one year (ten issues) subscription to

Substance
5132 W. Berteau
Chicago, IL 60641

-Angela
-------------------------------------

August 28, 2005
>
>Colleagues:
>
>One of the reasons we can speak with such clarity here from Chicago
>is that every ploy of "standards and accountability" based on
>high-stakes uses of multiple choice tests has already been tried
>here since Mayor Daley took over the schools in 1995, and every one
>of them has failed.
>
>These ploys have not "failed" in the eyes of my colleagues in the
>Chicago media or the corporate apologists who dominate discourse in
>our town, but they have failed if the interests of the majority of
>the children (especially the poorest children in our more than 300
>racially segregated all-black schools) and improving schools are
>concerned. We've just wasted a prosperous decade and the lives of
>thousands here in a wretched orgy of propaganda, deception, and hypocrisy.
>
>But let me try to be specific, since a lot of people want to just
>parrot the corporate propaganda script. Let's just take one high
>schhool located in a community so poor and gang infested that the
>only justice for those who preach "school reform" would be if they
>(the people here who prattle in defense of "school reform"; the
>leaders of Achieve and the Education Trust, etc) had to live for
>years in that community and raise their own children in that
>community on the income available to residents of that community
>under the conditions of the people of that community. Englewood.
>Chicago. Since 1990. Savage Inequalities, USA-style.
>
>In the summer of 1997, Chicago's Englewood High School, in the heart
>of one of the city's poorest communities, was "reconstituted". The
>principal and many of the teachers were replaced, and the world was
>assured in the pages of the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times
>that the school had "failed" and that this massive overhaul (done
>because Englewood had "failed" the "standard" -- in those days, the
>scores on the TAP tests, the high school version of the Iowa Tests
>of Basic Skills) would solve the problems and improve Englewood.
>There was a slight nod to the fact that the USA had failed to solve
>the problems of housing, crime, health care, and poverty in the area
>surrouding Englewood, but only a brief nod. Teachers, principals and
>kids were going to be sanctioned. An extreme makeover before "reality" TV.
>
>The Gangster Disciples is one of the largest drug gangs in the USA.
>Don't take my word for it, Google them or Google "Larry Hoover". The
>GD gang was selling drugs nearby in the community. The poverty
>continued unabated. The housing continued to rot and crumble. But
>Chicago was doing "School Reform" by ranking and sorting children
>and teachers based on multiple-choice "standardized" tests and
>getting rid of the "bad" teachers from the "failing" schools
>according to "the bottom line".
>
>Since "reconstitution", over the next eight years, Englewood has
>been "reengineered" and otherwise overhauled several additional
>times. Last year, the administration of "CEO" Arne Duncan (likewise
>appointed, like the administration of Paul Vallas, by Richard M.
>Daley, our mayor) announced that Englewood High School would again
>be reorganized, this time under the name "Renaissance." (We in
>Chicago don't know why the ruling class keeps using these "RE" words
>every time it does this, but maybe it's just lack of imagination).
>So here is the way it looked from bottom up:
>
>If a child -- let's call her "RE" -- entered Englewood High School
>in September 1997 as a 9th grader, in 1998 she was in 10th grade; in
>1999 11th grade; and in 2000 12th grade. In June 2000, she
>graduated, having been part of the first wave of "RE"
>(reconstitution and reengineering) under Richard M. Daley's
>dictatorial rule over the Chicago Public Schools and evaluations
>based on ranking and sorting kids and teachers based on standardized
>test scores.
>
>But in 2000, when "RE" graduated, Englewood was still at the
>"bottom" on standardized tests. By then, however, Chicago had
>changed tests. Another trick of the testocracy is changing tests
>every so often, then announcing that the scores kept going "up"
>counting on the fact that your media friends wouldn't notice. If you
>change the tests, it's harder for an inattentiive public to follow
>the track of scores, and if you lie about the results of those tests
>-- as the public relations teams of our mayor do every year -- you
>can get away with a lot of trickery for a long time.
>
>Anyway, in June 2000 "RE" graduated (although her two brothers both
>dropped out, because of the problems in the community around
>Englewood, not because of the teachers, who, by the way, had all
>been replaced --- "RECYCLED"? -- at least once).
>
>And the Gangster Disciples continued to sell drugs nearby in the
>community, and the poverty continued unabated. And the housing
>continued to rot and crumble. But Chicago was doing "School Reform"
>by ranking and sorting children and teachers and getting rid of the
>"bad" teachers from the "failing" schools.
>
>In September 2000, "RE-RE" -- RE's play cousin -- entered the
>Reconstituted Reengineered Englewood High School as a 9th grader. In
>September 2001, RE-RE entered 10th grade. Every year, Englewood High
>School continued to score at the "bottom" on the ranking and sorting
>machine (the high-stakes tests), even though every year the Board of
>Education was doing another "RE" something to another low scoring
>high school somewhere. In September 2002, RE-RE was entering 11th
>grade. And in September 2003, RE-RE entered 12th grade, graduating
>in June 2004 (while, like RE, she watched her two brothers become dropouts).
>
>By the time of RE's graduation, Englewood had been reconstituted and
>reengineered. By the time of RE-RE's graduation, Englewood had also
>been Small Schooled once or twice.
>
>And the Gangster Disciples continued to sell drugs nearby in the
>community, and the poverty continued unabated. And the housing
>continued to rot and crumble. But Chicago was doing "School Reform"
>by ranking and sorting children and teachers and getting rid of the
>"bad" teachers from the "failing" schools.
>
>One of the things they teach you in AA and other "12-step" programs
>is that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting
>the results to be different.
>
>If we want to make schools better for kids, we have to do a lot more
>than rank and sort kids and schools based on standardized test
>scores. We have to have some idea of what schools can (and can't) do
>and promote rather than denigrate our public schools and their
>teachers. Continually "RE-ing" the public schools that serve poor
>children in the nation's poorest and most segregated communities is
>like prescribing Jack Daniels for the treatment of alcoholism. Only
>someone so ignorant as to be undeserving of any attention or so
>vicious as to want to destroy the "patient" would do so.
>
>And that's why I've concluded that those promoting corporate "school
>reform" here in Chicago are actually the heirs of all those who
>segregated and miseducated our poorest (usually minority) children
>for generations. I think they know exactly what they are trying to
>do and credit them with having had an ingenrious plan to do it over
>the past ten years.
>
>A small flicker of hope might have arrived yesterday. On page one of
>both daily newspapers, it was reported that our mayor, one of the
>most corrupt politicians ever to run a major city, has been
>inverviewed by representatives of the U.S. Attorney's Office. I'm
>not going to hope that justice will be done after all the racism and
>injustice Chicago has seen under two mayors named Daley, but who
>knows? I was surprised when so many corporate CEOs got caught and
>brought to justice for their crimes, so maybe within the next few
>years, Richard M. Daley will be tried for his.
>
>Sadly, from the point of view of all those teachers and children his
>version of "school reform" has destroyed, it will have been too
>late. But at least the hypocritical historical record will have been
>(partly) corrected.
>
>Meanwhile, though, the Daley administration continues to prescribe
>Jack Daniel to treat the ciirrosis our poor communities are
>suffering from, and since the passage of "No Child Left Behind" the
>whole country has begun to get a taste of what we've suffered here
>in Chicago since 1995.
>
>George N. Schmidt
>Editor, Substance
>www.substancenews.com

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 8:26 AM 2 comments Links to this post

Sunday, August 28, 2005

Collin County Opinions asked local lawmakers – including state Reps. Jodie Laubenberg, Ken Paxton, Brian McCall and Jerry Madden – to answer the following question. Only Sen. Florence Shapiro offered a response for publication.

Question: Many voters are angry that there still is no new plan to fund schools. Should they be angry? At whom?

Answer: Voters are frustrated and disappointed that the Legislature was unable to pass a bill to reform school finance. I share in that frustration and disappointment, but not anger. I don't blame any one party for this failure, but the combination of competing forces at play in the process with different interests and priorities.

Property taxpayers would like relief from high tax rates and are frustrated that there is no relief in sight. Educators and parents would like to see more money flow to schools and are frustrated that they will not see an increase this year. And the business community is understandably concerned about what new revenue or tax might replace local property tax, and how much the cost will be. With all of those forces at play and a school finance case pending before the Texas Supreme Court, the political reality was that we failed.

Dwelling on anger and blame doesn't move us toward a resolution. We must instead assess the situation, learn lessons from the experience we have gained thus far and build toward a solution that achieves our goals.

As the official elected to represent Collin County in the Texas Senate, I have voiced our community's desires and concerns and passed school finance reform legislation out of the Senate four times now. I have worked with my colleagues in the House to build compromise and consensus that members in both chambers could support.

I will continue that work until the job is done. In the immortal words of baseball legend Babe Ruth: "Every strike brings me closer to the next home run."



State Sen. Florence Shapiro represents District 8, which includes Collin County and parts of Dallas County. Her e-mail address is Florence.Shapiro@ senate.state.tx.us.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/collin/opinion/stories/DN-north_shapiro_28edi.ART.North.Edition2.4272b2d.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 12:51 PM 0 comments Links to this post

This is a powerful and rather pathetic statement made by the editors of the Houston Chronicle. -Angela

Aug. 25, 2005, 9:10PM

PRIVATE EDUCATION

Philanthropy should enrich public schools, but winds up having to provide basic support.

Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle


Texans are generous with their money and time, and education is a prime beneficiary. In a state with an adequate and equitable system of financing the public schools, philanthropy would enrich the learning of Texas children. As it is, private corporations and foundations are struggling just to keep the wheels from coming off the school bus.

According to the National Center for Education Information, 40 percent of the nation's teachers plan to leave the profession in the next five years, almost twice the rate for 1990-1995. Retirement will account for the bulk of the departures from a teacher corps that has aged considerably. But many teachers will leave because they can't make a living or burn out. Every time a teacher leaves, it costs some school district an estimated $11,500 to recruit, hire and develop a replacement.

The Texas Legislature's response to these conditions has been a failure to give teachers a raise and the refusal to provide public schools adequate funding. Fortunately, private charities have been more constructive.

The Houston-based Fund for Teachers gives direct grants to teachers for summer sabbaticals of their own design. The grants have sent teachers abroad to sharpen language skills and experience cultural immersion. They have underwritten research to find better ways to teach children with learning disabilities.

The result: retention of experienced and talented teachers; improved classroom teaching; and more student excitement for learning.

H-E-B, the grocery company, supports education across Texas. In the Houston area, the company, its corporate partners and its customers have raised more than $1 million to pay for school supplies for needy children. The need is so great, the National Education Association reports, that modestly paid teachers spend an average $1,200 of their own money on classroom supplies.

Every year, H-E-B also provides 50 teachers, principals and school districts with grants ranging up to $100,000 in recognition of excellence.

These are but two of the many organizations providing support for Houston-area public schools. Think of how much good they could do if Texas politicians had the decency to provide the basics.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 12:21 AM 2 comments Links to this post

by PAUL E. PETERSON and FREDERICK M. HESS

Johnny can‚t read ... in South Carolina. But if his folks move to Texas,
he‚ll be reading up a storm. What‚s going on?

It turns out that in complying with the requirements of No Child Left Behind
(NCLB), some states have decided to be a whole lot more generous than others
in determining whether students are proficient at math and reading. While
NCLB required all states to have accountability systems in place, it did not
say specifically how much students should know at the end of 4th or any
other grade.

Some states have risen to the challenge and set demanding proficiency levels
for their students, while others have used lower standards to inflate
reported performance. Not only is the disparity confusing, but, perversely
enough, the states with the highest expectations often stand accused of
having the most schools said to be in need of improvement˜even when their
students are doing relatively well.

Because of such disparities, the states with the highest standards will be
tempted to lower their threshold for determining proficiency, especially
when NCLB teeth begin to bite. With the passage of time, states may be
tempted to race to the bottom, lowering expectations to ever lower levels so
that fewer schools are identified as failing, even when no gains are being
made.

Because each state selects its own testing system and sets its own passing
scores, there is no direct way to compare the proficiency levels established
by one state against the others. However, NCLB does require each state to
administer the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to a
sample of students in 4th and 8th grade in reading and in mathematics.
Comparing the percentage of students achieving proficiency on state tests
with the percentage achieving proficiency on the NAEP suggests how demanding
each state‚s standards are.

For instance, if only 50 percent of a state‚s 4th graders are proficient by
the nationally determined NAEP standard, but the state claims proficiency
for 80 percent, then the state should be given an F for its failure to
establish high expectations for its students. But if a state with an
equivalent score on the NAEP says only 45 percent are proficient, then it
should be given an A for having standards that exceed even those of the
NAEP.

In practice, only five states˜South Carolina, Maine, Missouri, Wyoming, and
Massachusetts˜deserve the A grade. A lot more deserve Ds and Fs, the worst
grades going to Tennessee, Texas, and Oklahoma.

To help citizens of every state know whether their state is maintaining high
expectations for its students, Education Next plans to issue periodic
assessments of how the states compare with one another. Figure 1 shows
initial results for the 40 states for which both state and NAEP proficiency
levels are currently available. In the future, it will be possible to
compare all states with one another.

By reporting this straightforward, objective grading system, we hope to help
eliminate some of the murkiness that still prevails. It would be even better
if, as Caroline M. Hoxby recommends elsewhere in this issue (see „Inadequate
Yearly Progress,‰ page 46), the federal government issued its own grade for
each state.


Paul E. Peterson and Frederick M. Hess are editors of Education Next. Mark
Linnen provided research assistance.
http://www.educationnext.org/20053/52.html

http://www.educationnext.org/20053/52.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 12:06 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Jovenes Inmigrantes por un Futuro Mejor: March Against the Minutemen

Embrace your Culture, Fight Racism, & Defend the Future of our Children
6th Annual Mexican Independence Day Parade
Stand up against racism and ignorance. The arrival of anti-immigrant
vigilante groups like the Minutemen threatens to provoke more senseless
violence from these fringe groups in Texas. March against prejudice,
anti-immigrant groups, and racism; defend the future of our children. Our
silence will continue to promote injustice if we fail to take action.

* Date: Saturday, September 17, 2005
* March Time: 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm
* March Location: Riverside and Congress
* Rally Time: 5:30 pm -7:00 pm
* Rally Location: State Capitol Building in Austin, Texas

Join the Texas United Latino Artist, TCJC, UFW, NAACP, ACLU, CIME,
CDI-Dallas, UT Longhorn League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
Council, Jóvenes Inmigrantes por un Futuro Mejor de UT Austin, and grass
roots groups from across the Lone Star State for a march to the south steps
of the state Capitol.

Contacts: Joe Perez: 512-940- 4493 Julieta Garibay: 512-873-0576; Rebecca
Acuña 956-206-5853; Manuel Rodela; 214-330-0970 or 214-282- 1475 Ana
Yañez-Correa; 512-441-8123 x103 or 512- 587-7010; Miguel Reyes 214-914-6288;
Ray Ibarra; 520-440-2976.

MARCHA EN CONTRA DEL RACISMO Luchemos contra el racismo y la ignoracia,
debemos de promover soluciones reales al sistema de inmigración como el
DREAM Act. Grupos racistas estan tratando de promover el odio y los
sentimientos contra inmigrantes. Las acciones racistas de estos grupos han
causado la preocupación en todos los sectores desde grupos que protegen la
constitución Americana, grupos religiosos, hasta miembros de grupos que
protegen la seguridad pública y la dignidad humana.
Marchemos en contra del odio, en contra de los grupos anti-inmigrantes, y en
contra del racismo. Defendamos el futuro de nuestros hijos. Nuestro silencio
ayuda a la injusticia. No hoy excusa, APOYANOS!!!
Unase a la lucha contra el racismo y en la celebración de nuestra cultura
con el Texas United Latino Artist, TCJC, UFW, NAACP, ACLU, CIME, CDI-
Dallas, Concilio de LULAC en UT, Jóvenes Inmigrantes por un Futuro Mejor en
UT, y otras organizaciones del estado de la estrella solitaria.
Día: sábado, 17 de septiembre del 2005 Hora de la Marcha: 4:00 p.m. a 5:30
p.m. Sitio de la Marcha: Riverside y Congress Avenue Hora del Rally: 5:30
p.m. a 7:00 p.m. Sitio del Rally: Capitolio de la Ciudad de Austin, Texas

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 7:42 PM 0 comments Links to this post

This is a major news story that I am only now posting. What's significant is that even strong supporters of the law say that more funding would be helpful. I heard this discussion on education policy with the Civil Society Institute and one person aptly maintained that it's out of line for 14% of education funding from the federal government(I think this figure is right)determining 100% of the policy is unjustifiably skewed.

-Angela

'Hot spot' states could expand to eight, a new report finds. But supporters of the law still say it's effective.

By Alexandra Marks | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Just as students are heading back to school, frustration with the federal No Child Left Behind education law is hitting new heights at the grass-roots level from Maine to California.

Three states are already in open rebellion: Connecticut, Utah, and Colorado, which have either planned lawsuits or passed laws that trump the federal mandates. At least five other states - Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, and Virginia - are deemed "hot spots" that could join the revolt in the coming school year. And a total of 21 states are now considering some kind of legislation critical of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), according to a study released this week by the Civil Society Institute, a nonpartisan advocacy group in Massachusetts.

It rounded up a report of this dissatisfaction to call attention to what it says is a disconnect between the federal government and the educators, students, parents, and local lawmakers that live with NCLB every day.

The law's supporters counter that it is working, with test scores going up. They acknowledge there's frustration, but they contend it has more to do with the level of federal intervention in what used to be a primarily state and local issue. They also praise the federal Department of Education (DOE) for being flexible in dealing with state concerns.

But several independent education experts, as well as state legislators from both the Republican and Democratic sides of the aisle, say that even with this flexibility, frustration is on the rise.

"There is a palpable increase in the level of dissatisfaction that I see, but it's not being translated into legislation in Congress," says Jack Jennings, president and CEO of the nonpartisan Center on Education Policy in Washington. "There's really a disjuncture here between a growing dissatisfaction and the lack of a political response."

The roots of frustration

The frustration on the local level has to do with what educators call the rigidity of the law, which requires high-stakes, standardized testing and penalizes schools deemed as failing to make "adequate yearly progress." They're also concerned about a lack of funding to pay for the testing and the remedial services needed to ensure students make the grade.

For instance, Connecticut estimates it will cost the state $41.6 million more to implement NCLB than the federal government is providing. Local communities will bear additional costs, too.

The White House and the DOE dispute that. They point to two studies done by the Government Accountability Office in New Jersey and Massachusetts that found those states had enough federal resources to implement the law. They also note that since NCLB was passed, federal education spending has increased more than 30 percent.

"It is unfortunate that some appear to think that reform is more trouble than it's worth," says DOE spokeswoman Samara Yudof. "No Child Left Behind is working: Evidence from both the Nation's Report Card and the states' own data prove it."

Although test scores are going up, they were before NCLB was passed, as well. That's because of state education reforms and testing protocols put into place over the past 25 years. Indeed, there's been no research to determine which reforms get credit for the increasing scores. But many teachers and local legislators credit the earlier state improvements, and they're concerned that NCLB mandates are actually undermining their students' long-term success.

They argue that the high-stakes nature of NCLB's test encourages "teaching to the test" and actually undermines learning and critical-thinking skills. At the same time, they contend, NCLB mandates drain resources from key enrichment programs.

"The consequences especially for minority students are more and more tragic, and you see it in the data," says Sylvia Bruni, assistant superintendent of the Laredo, Texas, Independent School District. "We have enormous dropout rates, in my community as many 30 percent of all students.... Statewide there's a marked decline in the number of students who are prepared for higher education."

Ms. Bruni says that one of the biggest indications of NCLB's failure comes from the business community, which has found that students are "graduating as poor communicators, really weak critical thinkers, weak problem solvers."

But other states and school districts maintain that the law is having its intended effect of raising not only test scores, but also students' overall preparedness for the global economy.

For example, every single jurisdiction in the state of Maryland improved in performance in the past year, according to State Superintendent of Schools Nancy Grasmick. She credits NCLB, which she says forces schools to be in a "mode of continual improvement, raising the bar."

"In the past, even in some of our best schools, we've hidden behind the averages, and there were children who were not making substantial progress," she says. "The law ... now requires us to look at every subgroup. I actually think that's an extremely positive thing. We're never going to overcome an achievement gap ... until we do this."

NCLB's advocates also note the DOE has reached out to states to understand their concerns. Of the 40 states that have asked for waivers recently, more than 35 have been granted, according to the DOE.

More dollars

But even strong supporters of the law say that some of the regulations "need adjustment" and more funding would be helpful. Superintendent Grasmick notes that part of Maryland's success was a result of the state legislature approving an additional $1.3 billion in funds to help implement the program over five years.

"I know that's not true in a lot of states," she says. "They've actually experienced cuts in funding."

Several US representatives and senators are reportedly working on bills to amend NCLB in the upcoming legislative session, but few education experts believe it will happen before 2007, when the law comes up for reauthorization. But as the calls for change increase on the local level, that may change.

"I think the dissatisfaction will continue to grow," says Reggie Felton, director of federal relations with the National School Boards Association in Alexandria, Va. "That will result in a stronger sense of urgency in congressional districts, which will then result in members of Congress saying, 'We can't wait. We must act now because I'm up for reelection."

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 3:33 PM 1 comments Links to this post

USA - TODAY

This USA - Today piece questions a centerpiece of Bush's domestic agenda,namely, the No Child Left Behind Act and one of its aims to dramatically improve learning through the hiring of "highly qualified teachers." This goal, however, is incredibly corruptible with states defining who is qualified in questionable ways. Read on.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 3:27 PM 0 comments Links to this post

From Donna Garner. -Angela
8.25.05
 
Texas Gov. Rick Perry issued an executive order which directs 65% of school spending to go to the classroom.  On August 24, 2005, the Texas Commissioner of Education set up a task force to decide exactly what is considered the "classroom."  Since then the membership of the task force has been questioned.  For instance, where are the classroom teachers on this 65% rule task force?  Where are the Texas State Board of Education members?  Where are the common everyday taxpayers who pay the bills for these school districts?  Why are they not represented on this task force?  If wise spending is what this new executive order from Gov. Rick Perry is all about, then are these appointed members (listed in the second enclosure) the best ones to make those decisions? 
 
Also attached is an article (dated 7.23.04) from The Dallas Morning News entitled "Superintendents Get $2000 Consulting Fees To Hobnob with Vendors."  This article plus many others which have been published in the last several years about the misspent dollars in the public schools have made the citizens of Texas a little squeamish about allowing the "foxes to guard the henhouse."
 
Please notice that such members as Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD Superintendent Annette Griffin is a member of the task force and is also on the Rancho Mirage list. Several of the school districts from which task force members come are also noted on the DMN article. The Dallas ISD is presently embroiled in a controversy over possibly misspent government-regulated e-Rate funds which are tied to technology vendors. A number of the superintendents on the 65% task force make exhorbitant salaries themselves. These particular task force members may not be the best ones to represent the taxpayers who desperately want wise and transparent fiscal management in our states' public schools.
 
Donna Garner
wgarner1@hot.rr.com
 
=====================================================================================
 
 
 

This Week -- The Lone Star Report -- 8.24.05

Superintendents dominate spending task force
8/24/2005 4:59:34 PM

The Texas Education Agency has appointed a task force to craft rules to implement Gov. Rick Perry's rule to direct 65 percent of school spending to the classroom.
The 15-person task force includes two executive directors of regional service centers and 13 school superintendents. Several of the superintendents are currently suing the state, arguing that the state does not adequately fund Texas schools.
"This task force will build a consensus about the appropriate way to measure resource allocation in Texas public schools so that parents, taxpayers, and policymakers can apply a common standard for holding school districts accountable for their spending practices," said TEA Commissioner Shirley Neeley.
Among the members of the task force are Austin ISD Superintendent Pat Forgione and Houston ISD Superintendent Abe Saavedra.
Some conservatives are criticizing the move. Peggy Venable, the Texas Director of Americans for Prosperity - one of the key groups that pushed the 65 percent rule, called the task force makeup a "collossal mistake."
"I am surprised that it has been established and disappointed at the appointments made to the taskforce," Venable said. "The TEA Commissioner appointed 15 education bureaucrats. There are 13 school superintendents, and superintendents have almost universally opposed the 65% initiative."
Moreover, any taskforce should be focused on providing schools with suggestions on how to achieve the 65% standard and should include representation from the State Board of Education, teachers, parents and taxpayers," Venable said.
LSR has contacted Gov. Rick Perry's office for comment.
 
 
 
© 2003, The Lone Star Foundation
10711 Burnet Road, Suite 333 • Austin, TX 78758 • (888) 472-6051
 
 
======================================================================================
These members were appointed to the 65% rule task force on August 24, 2005, by Texas Commissioner of Education Shirley Neeley:
 
 
Members of the 65 percent rule task force are:
Superintendent David Anthony, Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District
Executive Director John Bass, Region 16 Education Service Center, Amarillo
Superintendent Carol Ann Bonds, Livingston ISD
Superintendent Cathy Bryce, Highland Park ISD, Dallas
Superintendent Bonny Cain, Pearland ISD
Superintendent Pat Forgione, Austin ISD
Superintendent Annette Griffin, Carrollton-Farmers Branch ISD
Superintendent Michael Hinojosa, Dallas ISD
Superintendent Robert Nix, Midland ISD
Superintendent Patricia Pickles, Pflugerville ISD
Superintendent Thomas Randall, Lamar Consolidated ISD
Superintendent Abe Saavedra, Houston ISD
Superintendent Jesus Sanchez, Eagle Pass ISD
Superintendent Carrol Thomas, Beaumont ISD
Executive Director James Vasquez, Region 19 Education Service Center (El Paso) 
     
======================================================================================
 
 
http://www.dallasnews.com/cgi-bin/bi/gold_print.cgi
 
 

Superintendents get $2,000 consulting fees to hobnob with vendors



07:24 PM CDT on Friday, July 23, 2004

By SCOTT PARKS / The Dallas Morning News

I had already posted this before. It's an eye opener. -Angela

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:26 AM 0 comments Links to this post

by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: August 24, 2005

Filed at 8:01 p.m. ET

ATLANTA (AP) -- Education Secretary Margaret Spellings on Wednesday called claims that the No Child Left Behind Act isn't fully funded ''a red herring,'' and suggested states that are balking may simply fear seeing the test results.

Connecticut filed a lawsuit Monday that claims the federal government has not provided enough money to pay for the testing and programs associated with the 2001 law.

Spellings, speaking to the Atlanta Press Club, said the lawsuit ''does trouble me a little bit'' and, afterward, suggested states that oppose the law simply fear the results of its accountability measures.

''I just see that as a red herring,'' she said of Connecticut's claim that this year's federal funds will fall $41.6 million short of paying for staffing, training and tests for No Child Left Behind.

''What are they afraid of knowing, I guess, is one of the things I'd like to know.''

Connecticut officials responded sharply to Spellings's comments.

''Three words for federal officials -- read the law,'' said Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. ''Under the law, the federal government must pay for any additional testing. They have not done so.''

Connecticut was the first state to sue, but lawmakers in other states have complained about its funding and experts expect that other states could join Connecticut's lawsuit or sue on their own.

The National Education Association, a national teacher's union, filed a lawsuit last spring on behalf of local districts and 10 state union chapters, including Connecticut.

Spellings said annual testing is a cornerstone of the federal program and needed to assess student achievement and help struggling students catch up with their peers.

''Parents want to know where their children stand,'' she said. ''That's a reasonable expectation for Connecticut and Georgia and Texas and every other state in the land.''

Connecticut Education Commissioner Betty Sternberg said the testing prescribed by No Child Left Behind doesn't add to data that already exist.

''We already know where the problems are and we're aggressively working to solve them,'' she said. ''So additional testing isn't going to tell us more than we already know.''

Spellings plans to visit several cities promoting national test results she said have improved since the inception of No Child Left Behind.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:48 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Also check out this related editorial titled Candidate Perry Changes the Subject in the Austin Am-Statesman. Perry really can't legislate the 65% rule. -Angela

Wed, Aug. 24, 2005

You're doing what? editorials
Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Hand it to Gov. Rick Perry and his advisers: They know how to run an election campaign.

Got a tough election ahead? Come out swinging, early and often.

Got legislators who won't cooperate? Make them scapegoats.

Don't have the laws on the books that you want? Write them yourself.

Wait a minute. Exactly where in the Texas Constitution does the gov-ernor get the authority to make laws? Perry assumed that authority Monday when he announced that he was ordering school districts to spend 65 percent of their money on "direct classroom instruction."

That might make dynamite campaign material. (Perry and Comptrol-ler Carole Keeton Strayhorn are in a slug match for the gubernatorial nomination in the Republican primary next March.) For months, part of the rhetoric about school funding in Texas has been an allegation that too much money goes to non-classroom expenditures -- an issue raised in many other states as well.

In fact, the Legislature considered setting classroom spending requirements during its regular session and two failed sessions on school finance this year. But that's the point: The Legislature did not act. Perry wants to take over from there: "Even though the Legislature did not act, I will."

It's not a good thing for a governor in the heat of a re-election campaign to bypass the Legislature.

Says Perry: "I will continue to use my constitutional authority to ensure that the education reforms mandated by the people are implemented according to their will."

It is regrettable that the state senators and representatives elected directly by the people haven't found their way to a better school finance system, but that's no clear sign that the governor knows better than they what their constituents want.

And Perry's claim of constitutional authority is a sham.

The Texas Constitution's Article 2 divides state government into executive, legislative and judicial branches and says that "no person, or collection of persons, being of one of these departments, shall exercise any power properly attached to either of the others."

Article 7 directs the Legislature to "establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools" and gives the Legislature authority "to pass laws for the assessment and collection of taxes in all school districts and for the management and control of the public school or schools of such districts."

No mention of the governor there.

Robert Scott, deputy commissioner of education and Perry's right-hand man on education issues, says that the Legislature ceded authority to the governor on education spending requirements in 2001 when it directed the education commissioner to devel-op and implement a financial accountability rating system for school districts.

But that law only discussed a reporting system for how money is spent, not requirements as to how it must be spent.

On average, Texas school districts spend about 60 percent of their money in the classroom. But that figure can vary according to how classroom spending is defined, and some people put the current figure closer to 50 percent.

There are valid questions about setting a single spending figure to be met by the 1,000-plus diverse school districts across the state, and the Legislature heard many of them when it considered this requirement.

School leaders point out, for instance, that expenditures for counselors, librarians, food service, transportation and teacher training typically aren't classified as part of direct classroom instruction, but all are essential in a well-run school. Spending on school security also is not counted, but it is a huge cost for large urban districts.

What Perry says he is ordering may sound good, and it undoubtedly will resonate with the people whom he counts as his core voters. But the Texas Constitution does not rest lawmaking power in the hands of one person -- and, importantly, not one who is fighting for re-election.

Lawmaking power rests in the Legislature's deliberative process. There is good reason for that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2005 Star-Telegram and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/12461775.htm

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:08 PM 2 comments Links to this post

This so-called "65 percent solution," requiring dollars to get re-apportioned in our state's districts is being pursued by Gov. Perry as a way to get around the fact of several failed legislative sessions that should have increased the spending amounts overall. It's questionable just how much more work magically reproduced in test scores can be engendered when they're already squeezed in terms of all they can give, produce. We/Texas should know. We've been at this for 2 decades. -Angela

Aug. 23, 2005, 7:21PM
Why Texas schools need the '65 percent solution'

Move would translate into $1.6 billion without tax hike
By PEGGY M. VENABLE


It's a tough pill to swallow: reforming state taxes to increase the state's share of education funding. But it is clear public schools are ailing as test scores fall and many district rankings drop.

While education lobbyists clamored for as much as $6 billion to $8 billion more in education funding, the citizen group Americans for Prosperity in Texas believes that more money won't fix the problem. One symptom of the system's problems is fiscal mismanagement of existing education dollars.

Even the school finance lawsuit currently before the Texas Supreme Court has left taxpayers questioning how our education dollars are being spent. While school districts are using millions of tax dollars to sue the state for more tax dollars, the court heard that Socorro Independent School District justified a waterslide by claiming it lowered dropout rates.

SISD is a good example of misguided spending priorities. In addition to a waterslide, it has as many nonteaching staff as teachers and its "acceptable" academic rating isn't really acceptable to parents and taxpayers.

When is a waterslide considered to be educational? When it teaches us how education dollars are being wasted. And while property taxes are escalating, this is no time for public schools to be squandering dollars.

Houston Independent School District's superintendent was among those who recently said at a House Public Education Committee hearing in Austin that it was impossible to push more of the existing education dollars to the classroom. Superintendents across the state uniformly opposed reforms that provide fiscal transparency and put more dollars into the classroom. Mind you, HISD has more than 2,000 more nonteaching staff, representing clearly misplaced education spending priorities. And when numbers of schools in the district are rated academically unacceptable, it is clear reforms are needed.

HISD is not alone. Texas spending on instruction is below the national average. Texas schools' average classroom spending is 60.4 percent, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, ranking Texas 29th in the nation. At 58 percent, HISD is spending even less than the state average on instruction.

The reform students, teachers and taxpayers need is "the 65 percent solution."

This simple concept directs 65 percent of the existing education spending into the classroom, which includes all credit courses and enrichment programs.

Gov. Rick Perry has championed the "65 percent solution" and House Public Education Chairman Kent Grusendorf embraced the measure. But with the education bureaucracy lobby opposing it, the legislation didn't pass. So the governor is using executive order to put 65 percent into the classroom.

The move from 60.4 percent to 65 percent seems like small change. How much difference can 4.6 cents make? This small change will add up to big change in our schools. It would put $1.6 billion more a year into Texas classrooms without a tax increase.

The initiative has tremendous support. Polling found 77.5 percent of Texans surveyed support the 65 percent requirement on school districts; 91 percent support it after learning it would put an additional $1.6 billion into Texas classrooms without a tax increase; and 89 percent said they were more likely to support a candidate that supported the 65 percent requirement.

A survey by the Tower Institute conducted in January found 63 percent would consider increasing the percentage of money spent in the classroom, without any additional dollars added to the system, to be an increase in public education spending.

While support is widespread, strangely absent from efforts to put more of the funding in the classroom is the education lobby.

Students and teachers will benefit most from Texas schools spending 65 percent on instruction.

One would think teachers, frustrated with the pork-laden gravy train many superintendents have enjoyed, would be clamoring for the measure. But there has been no visible support from the education lobby.

One reason rests firmly on the shoulders of the taxpayer-funded lobbying by administrators, particularly superintendents. Texas superintendent salaries have grown as much as 77 percent in five years.

More than 200 Texas school districts are already spending 65 percent in the classroom. It is a realistic goal that would put our dollars where our priorities are in the classroom.

As Perry has said, "The measure of our success is not whether we provide more money for education but more education for our money."

Venable is former a White House liaison for the U.S. Department of Education and is currently Texas director for the citizen group Americans for Prosperity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/3322433

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:51 PM 1 comments Links to this post

EDITORIAL BOARD
Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Gov. Rick Perry's sudden assertion of executive authority regarding school reform already has accomplished its most important mission, which is political: To change the subject from his and the Legislature's failure to enact a school property tax cut as promised.

On Monday the governor issued an executive order, directed to Education Commissioner Shirley Neeley, "relating to a comprehensive financial accounting and reporting system to ensure transparency and fiscal efficiency in school district operations."

The headline-grabber was his order that Neeley include "a requirement that 65 percent of school district funds" be spent on classroom instruction. And the order directed the commissioner to "conduct special accreditation investigations of school districts exhibiting poor financial management . . ."

Sounds good — make all those wasteful school bureaucracies spend more money in the classroom, less on administration.

But education law experts point out several problems with the governor's order.

One is that it is unlawful for the governor to order the education commissioner to adopt a particular rule. The commissioner's powers were delegated to her by the Legislature, not the governor.

Perry can't even fire Neeley without the approval of the Texas Senate. As a practical matter, of course, Neeley, who was appointed by Perry, is not likely to defy him.

Even so, Neeley cannot simply adopt his order. State law lays out a process for adopting rules, and that includes hearings and public comment. It's a process that can take months — but that's OK because the motive here isn't to improve the schools but to score political points with the public. If the schools were the point, the governor would have issued this order a long time ago.

And even if the commissioner eventually adopts a 65 percent rule, she apparently has little or no authority from the Legislature to punish those who come up short. In fact, the state already has a similar rule setting 54 percent of funds spent on classroom instruction as a benchmark for districts to meet in proving their financial accountability under the state law cited by Perry's executive order. If they spend less, the Texas Education Agency can order the district to hold a public hearing on the shortfall, said an agency spokeswoman, Debbie Graves Ratcliffe. Asked if the commissioner can apply tougher measures, Ratcliffe said, "That's something we've got to do more research on."

And there's this: In considering a 65 percent rule, state law requires the commissioner to consult with the state comptroller — that would be Carole Keeton Strayhorn, who is challenging Perry in the GOP primary and who already has said the governor's order is a cover-up for declining classroom spending.

Most of what the governor ordered is probably being carried out already by most districts. Certainly Texans want school districts to account for all their spending.

But the 65 percent requirement is so controversial that the Legislature could not agree on whether to make it law this year despite a regular and two special sessions.

We don't think the governor can dictate it into law, either. But we doubt that really matters to him; what matters is changing the subject.

Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/08/24perry_edit.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:41 PM 0 comments Links to this post

by Bruce Fuller
BRUCE FULLER is a professor of education and public policy at UC Berkeley.

August 24, 2005

PRESIDENT BUSH'S love affair with the scientific community is awkward at best. The White House science advisor, John H. Marburger III, is on record as saying that "in this administration, science strongly informs policy." But where's the romance for scientists if Bush casts a blind eye over evidence of a human role in global warming or the difference between evolution and intelligent design?

Now the administration's propensity to ignore empirical data threatens the search for effective school reforms. The latest case of science snubbed emerged last week and involves the quiet quashing of new findings on the success of bilingual teaching in the nation's classrooms.

Californians understand how important such research is ˜ almost two-fifths of the state's schoolchildren come from non-English speaking homes. And parents and employers everywhere want to know what advances children's reading and language skills. Figuring that out was the charge given, along with 1 million in taxpayer dollars, to Bush's prestigious National Literacy Panel, appointed three years ago.

Panelist Robert Slavin, an education professor at Johns Hopkins University, was asked to review the best-designed experiments, where children were randomly assigned to either bilingual or English-immersion classrooms. The administration, rightfully, wanted to test reforms with the same rigor with which it tests new drugs. Or so it said.

Slavin found that, according to the best data, children's early literacy skills climbed at a faster rate in bilingual classrooms. He wanted to publish his findings immediately; the Education Department said to wait until the panel's full report was done.

"From the perspective of academic freedom, I didn't like the idea of something being held up," Slavin said. He resigned from the panel.

Now the panel's report is finished. Another of its members extended Slavin's research, with the same results: Good bilingual education programs produce faster results than good English-only programs. These findings (and others ˜ for instance, that reading is best taught via basic skills, like phonics) have been peer-reviewed, but Bush's Education Department won't make the report public.

"They said they weren't going to release it," the panel chairman, University of Illinois psychologist Timothy Shanahan, told me last week.

Kathleen Leos, who heads the Office of English Language Acquisition in the Education Department, denies the report is being deep-sixed. "We are in negotiations, it's just not ready," she said. But another panel member, David Francis of the University of Houston, said the negotiations are over getting the government to relinquish copyright, so that the findings may be published independently.

Why would the administration sideline its own report? It's possible that the bilingual education results weren't what it wanted to hear. "English only" is a rallying cry in the culture wars, and evidence that works against it also works against such Bush allies as English First, which has lead the charge against bilingual education.

And this wouldn't be the first time the administration has buried inconvenient education data. It was not until the New York Times brought suit and forced the release of a charter school study that we learned that such schools ˜ which are mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act in some cases ˜ do no better on average than public schools.

And Republicans aren't alone in this game. In 2000, Clinton administration officials tried to recast research I led, which found that many toddlers were entering unhealthy child-care settings in the wake of its welfare reforms.

Scientific evidence alone shouldn't make or break public policy. But as conservative John Locke argued in the 18th century, government must advance objective knowledge so that citizens can reason through remedies to their shared problems. When the government invests in legitimate research, we should not be prevented from hearing the results.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-
fuller24aug24,0,2834526.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 9:10 PM 0 comments Links to this post

by ROBERT A. FRAHM
Courant Staff Writer

August 23 2005

As some of the state's leading educators and politicians hailed Connecticut's filing of a lawsuit against a controversial federal education law Monday, two national civil rights leaders called the action ill-advised.

The criticism from civil rights advocates, including former Connecticut lawyer John C. Brittain, came as Connecticut became the first state to go to court challenging the No Child Left Behind Act, the centerpiece of President Bush's education agenda.

The disagreement reflects a national debate over the most sweeping federal education law in 30 years. The law calls for a broad expansion of testing and a shake-up of schools that fail to make sufficient progress with all students, including low-income children, special education students and members of minority groups.

The state filed suit in federal district court in Hartford against U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, contending the law will unfairly cost state and local taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

"Our message today is: Give up the unfunded mandates or give us the money," said state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, flanked by about a dozen politicians and representatives of the state's education establishment.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Education said the lawsuit "sends the wrong message to students, educators and parents."

"The funds have been provided for testing," said Susan Aspey, "but Connecticut apparently wants to keep those funds without using them as intended."

A key goal of No Child Left Behind is to close the achievement gap that finds many low-income and minority students lagging academically behind white, middle-class children.

Although educators across the nation have complained that the law does not provide enough money for schools to make the necessary improvements, some observers, such as Brittain, believe it has focused long overdue attention on low-income and minority children, whose academic performance generally has lagged behind that of other students.

"We believe poor children will suffer if the state of Connecticut wins" its lawsuit, said Brittain, who for years was a central figure in the Sheff vs. O'Neill school desegregation case that sought to improve racial balance in Hartford's public schools.

"No Child Left Behind keeps the accountability on the states, where it belongs," said Brittain, chief counsel and senior deputy director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in Washington, D.C.

In a letter to Blumenthal, Brittain and noted civil rights lawyer William Taylor took no position on whether No Child Left Behind has been funded properly but alleged that Connecticut has failed to comply with the law's requirements to help local school districts meet academic standards.

That failure, the letter said, cannot be excused by the state's claims that the law is under-funded.

Taylor, chairman of the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights, questioned the strategy of basing a lawsuit on claims of unfunded mandates. "There is no basis for thinking those lawsuits have been successful," he said. "I'm afraid lawsuits of this kind ... may encourage other states to resist. That cannot help this major effort to help poor kids."

Blumenthal said the state doesn't object to the goals of No Child Left Behind, but "with the failed implementation."

The federal government has repeatedly rejected Connecticut's requests for flexibility in interpreting the law, including waiving a requirement to add three grades to Connecticut's annual testing program at a cost to the state of nearly $8 million over the next two years.

The state - which for years has tested children in fourth, sixth, eighth and 10th grades - will add tests in third, fifth and seventh grades in the spring to meet federal requirements even though the additional tests "have questionable merit," said state Education Commissioner Betty J. Sternberg. She rejected the contention by Brittain and Taylor that the state had failed to help local school districts comply with the law.

Sternberg also has disagreed with the federal government over how to test special education students and children who speak little or no English.

Connecticut is one of many states that have clashed with the U.S. Department of Education over No Child Left Behind. Nevertheless, Blumenthal, despite months of effort, was unable to persuade other states to join the lawsuit.

"That's because almost every other state is in the process of asking the U.S. Department of Education for changes" in the interpretation of the law, said Jack Jennings, president of the Center on Education Policy in Washington, D.C., a private nonprofit group that monitors education policy. "I think they're afraid that if they file suit they won't get the changes they're asking for."

As for Connecticut officials, "I think they're fed up," he said. The lawsuit "is a clear signal there is a great deal of discontent with the law."

That discontent was evident at Blumenthal's press conference, where educators and politicians blasted the federal law.

State Rep. Andrew Fleischmann, D-West Hartford, compared the federal education department to a playground bully.

"While there are not other states that are currently joining us in this litigation, they are cheering us on because we are taking on the bully," he said.

One official noticeably absent from the press conference was Gov. M. Jodi Rell. The Republican governor has expressed reservations about challenging Bush's chief education program in court, but she did recently sign a bill authorizing Blumenthal to file the lawsuit.

Judd Everhart, a spokesman for the governor, said Rell was not invited to attend Monday's press conference.

The governor, however, issued a statement supporting Connecticut's existing school testing program.

"We need accountability. Our children deserve it," she said, "but we in Connecticut do a lot of testing already, far more than most other states. Our taxpayers are sagging under the crushing costs of local education. What we don't need is a new laundry list of things to do - with no new money to do them."

Courant Staff Writer Rachel Gottlieb contributed to this story.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-nochild0823.artaug23,0,5062469.story?coll=
hc-big-headlines-breaking

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:19 PM 0 comments Links to this post

08/21/2005 12:00 AM CDT

Peggy Fikac and Gary Scharrer
Express-News Austin Bureau

AUSTIN — When Republicans secured their dominance of the statehouse nearly three years ago, they painted a target on the Robin Hood school funding system that requires property-rich school districts to share with the poor.

Two regular sessions, three school-finance special sessions and one court ruling later, Robin Hood lives — the beneficiary in large part of GOP infighting over how to raise the state taxes needed to change the system's reliance on local school property taxes.

"When everything was said and done, there was more said than done," said Rep. David Swinford, R-Dumas, at the center of the battle to raise billions in state taxes to lower local school property taxes.

"It's all about money. It's hard to make the deal run when you're not robbing those rich folks like Robin," he said.

Just having House and Senate majorities and the key to the Governor's Mansion is a far cry from holding together lawmakers in the traditionally tax-shy party, especially on an issue like school finance that lawmakers have noted turns more on local concerns than party lines.

"We do have a majority of folks who are like-minded," said Rep. Frank Corte, R-San Antonio. "When it comes to school finance, it's a little more problematic than that."

GOP leaders insisted any money raised from new state taxes be used only to lower local school property taxes, but local school officials pressed for more funding than could be found without additional state tax revenue.

Democrats and some Republicans, meanwhile, resisted tax-swap plans that analyses showed would benefit the highest-income Texans, since everyone else would pay more in new state taxes than they would benefit from lower school property taxes.

With the public education community united against proposed school changes and the business lobby also putting up a fight against the tax bill, too many legislators lost their will "to resist all of that," said veteran Rep. Fred Hill, R-Richardson.

"We needed strong leadership, and we needed to move quickly. The longer you wait, the less likely you are to do something," Hill said.

Even some GOP resistance is significant in a House with a fairly tight majority and a Senate where a tradition requiring a two-thirds vote to bring up legislation means some Democratic support is necessary for measures to pass.

The end came after some House Republicans deserted the leadership to support an alternate school funding plan pushed by Democrats. It would have used some new state tax money to give teachers a bigger pay raise and grant lower- and middle-class homeowners more of a local tax break.

GOP leaders killed the school plan, and the related tax-swap plan also went down in defeat.

"We don't have a Republican team," Swinford said. "We've got a Republican group."

Many now believe Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who alone has the power to call lawmakers into special session, will wait to do so again until after the Texas Supreme Court issues a ruling on the school finance system.

The high court is reviewing a judge's ruling that the system, which relies heavily on local school property taxes, is unconstitutional. State District Judge John Dietz of Travis County preserved both the Robin Hood system and the equity that it created for property rich and poor schools.

But he said the state relies so much on the local property tax that it amounts to an unconstitutional statewide property tax, and that the state doesn't adequately fund education.

House Speaker Tom Craddick has urged the wait for a court decision, noting that past Legislatures — dominated by Democrats — had court guidance in making tough school-finance decisions. Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst have said that's not their first choice.

GOP leaders' school-finance measure, while not dedicating new tax money to schools, would have carved out new funding from the existing revenue stream. Some lawmakers don't want to spend that set-aside money before the court rules, Craddick said, in case it requires more funds in other areas.

"Then they will have to vote for a pure tax bill to fund it and most of the Republican members do not want to do that," Craddick said.

Rep. Jim Pitts — a Waxahachie Republican who voted for the Democratic school plan despite being on the leadership team as chairman of the budget-writing Appropriations Committee — said Craddick's right about the timing.

"I think that we're blindly going down the road," he said, and that uncertainty compounds the difficulty of the votes.

"Probably the hard issue is taxes. ... If you lower property taxes, you're going to raise taxes somewhere," Pitts said. "Why are we voting on this when we don't know what the courts are going to do?"

Pitts said he doesn't believe he broke with the GOP.

"I think the Republican Party would want you to vote with your district," he said. "The taxpayers in my district would like for us to get the money into the schools."

Pitts has already drawn a GOP opponent for 2006: Q.D. "Duke" Burge, who is on the Midlothian School District board. Pitts said Burge was recruited by school superintendents in his legislative district — but he said that didn't affect his vote.

School finance will evidently loom large in the race, since Burge's Web site describes him as "pro education, fiscally conservative, tax payer advocate."

"I think it'll be an issue," Pitts said. "I don't think it will affect, say, the governor and the lieutenant governor. But ... state reps are pretty local, and I think you could see some really tough races for state reps."

Democratic campaign consultant Ed Martin said even Republicans "are concerned and miffed that their party might be viewed as anti-education."

"That's a powerful campaign message when the electorate thinks that education is our top priority and believes that the state should be putting more resources into our schools," Martin said.

The combination of inadequate investment in public education and the proposed tax shift could benefit Democrats running in rural and suburban districts next year, Martin said.

But Martin conceded that Democrats likely will only see gradual gains in their legislative chambers next year because Republicans protected their districts while redrawing boundaries after the 2000 census.

Pitts said his district is "pretty Republican," so the GOP primary victor is likely to be the next state representative.

And in a Republican primary, said GOP consultant Royal Masset, inaction on the issue isn't a killer, given the options.

"Because we are a party that believes in limited government, we don't cry when nothing happens," Masset said. "Doing nothing, at least you don't spend money."

That means, he said, "You don't have the political whip to get something done. That's why you almost have to wait for the courts."

Longtime San Antonio legislator Frank Madla, a Democrat, doesn't blame Republicans, saying tax and school issues are inherently difficult.

"I've been here for 32 years. I don't see any difference today and back when we were debating the Edgewood (school equity case in the 1980s)," he said. "The only difference is the Democrats were in control then, and the Republicans are in control today."

Madla joins those who contend that Texas must spend more for education, citing the needs of his sprawling district that stretches from south San Antonio to the eastern fringes of El Paso.

Even guidance from the Supreme Court won't make it easy, he said. "It's tough to pass a tax bill any time. I don't know how we are going to get around that issue," Madla said. "My dad said there's no such thing as a good tax — period."


------------------------------------------------------------------------
pfikac@express-news.net


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA082105.1B.school_politics.31b7632.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:19 PM 0 comments Links to this post

August 2005 | Volume 47 | Number 8
  
Raising the Achievement of Black Boys
by Laura Varlas

Educators cannot overlook the persistent achievement gap between black boys and their peers. “These patterns are not going away and are not limited to one local area,” says Education Trust Senior Associate Carlton Jordan. “Wherever I go, African American boys are at the bottom.” Now that school systems must report and analyze disaggregated data about student groups, educators have begun “a new conversation” to find solutions for black boys, notes Jordan.

From the Principal's Office to Prison
Reports by the American Council on Education, the Education Trust, and the Schott Foundation show that black boys spend more time in special education, spend less time in advanced placement or college prep courses, and receive more disciplinary suspensions and expulsions than any other group in U.S. schools today. The Schott Foundation started the Black Boys Initiative in 2003, says President Rosa Smith, because “black boys represented the worst-case scenario for a group coming out of public education.” The foundation's 2004 state-by-state report on black male students found that, among other negative indicators, more black males receive a GED in prison than graduate from college.

“This problem is not genetic,” states author and education consultant Jawanza Kunjufu. “It is systemic.” In many cases, a debilitating combination of inadequate resources and low expectations in schools that serve large numbers of black boys results in this group being held back, researchers say. Jordan and his colleagues report that these schools have “more than their fair share of teachers who are out of field or long-term substitutes. And often the curriculum and the expectations are quite low.” Experts tracking black boys in schools also cite inattention to gender learning styles, misinterpretation and abuse of zero tolerance policies, negative peer pressure, and lack of commitment to create a culture of care and nurturance for black boys.

A 2004 study by the Schott Foundation, Public Education and Black Male Students: A State Report Card, found that although black males make up only 8.6 percent of public school enrollments, they represent 22 percent of expulsions and 23 percent of suspensions. In terms of discipline, these students face inconsistency, notes Vernon C. Polite, professor at Bowie State University and coeditor of the book African American Males in School and Society. In an independent study, Polite found that for the same offense, suspension days ranged from 2 to 22. Because of abuse and misinterpretation of federal and state guidelines for suspension and expulsion, Polite says, large numbers of African American boys are wandering the streets daily and engaging in crime. This is frustrating, Polite notes, because “the very problems we wish to mitigate are being exacerbated.”

Gender Affects Learning Styles
In many schools, black boys are removed from mainstream education by disciplinary interventions or by tracking them into special education. Kunjufu argues that a major agent in the disproportionately high representation of black boys in special education and in disciplinary interventions is the lack of accommodation for gender differences in learning styles. Part of the problem is that less than 1 percent of all elementary school teachers in the United States are African American men, Kunjufu adds. Because 83 percent of elementary teachers are white women, he sees a direct correlation to statistics showing that white girls are least likely to be referred for special education. Of black boys who enter special education, only 10 percent return to the mainstream classroom and stay there, Kunjufu notes, and only 27 percent graduate.

To create a more equitable learning environment for black boys, Kunjufu advises educators to accommodate specific learning differences tied to gender. “If you know that girls mature faster than boys—almost a three-year difference—instead of placing boys in special education, we should allow for those differences or consider single-gender classrooms,” Kunjufu suggests. Accommodations can include shortening lesson plans, allowing more movement in the classroom, and holding physical education classes daily. “If you know that girls are more verbal,” he adds, “then allow for the possibility that boys will not only communicate differently, but will also express an interest in reading a little later than girls.” To allow for these differences, Belgium, Germany, and Switzerland either delay the entrance of their boys until age 6 or 7, or they separate boys and girls. In addition, the United States has 500 single-gender classrooms and more than 100 single-gender schools.

Where single-gender is not an option, Kunjufu is optimistic about how schools are responding to accountability pressures from the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. One Maryland school implemented a prereferral process, in which teachers cannot recommend a child for special education placement without a six-week pre-intervention process of trying mainstreaming strategies. As a result, he says, that school has seen a 68 percent reduction of black boys in special education.

Access to Rigor, Access to Support
Rigorous academic focus was missing at the Midwestern high school Polite worked at and studied for his book African American Males in School and Society. With such a lack of focus, a student who is not geared toward college enrollment and who remains in school tends to become the “increasingly invisible student who sits in the back of the classroom and gets by,” says Adam Behar, director of public relations for the Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) program. AVID works with students who achieve at average academic levels to prepare them for four-year college eligibility by providing support during and after school.
AVID has shown that these students are capable of completing a college-prep curriculum, Behar says, “if we provide access to rigorous curriculum and intensive support.” A study of AVID's 2004 African American high school seniors reported that 100 percent graduated from high school and 81 percent were accepted to a four-year college. “Rigor and support—that's the proven formula,” Behar says.

Polite adds that school leadership needs to shift toward a focus on instruction instead of building management. Administrators can begin to address instructional needs by looking at the raw data of course enrollments. If you walk through the school and see groups of students missing from science and math advanced placement programs, you should be concerned, he says.

Combat Stereotypes with Care
In addition to harder data on the challenges black boys face in public schools, researchers point to less-quantifiable factors. Professor Melissa Roderick of the University of Chicago notes that black boys often do not feel cared for in their school communities. Roderick has found that the disconnect between black boys and a caring school is most acute when they transition from smaller, attentive middle schools to larger, anonymous high schools. Polite also noted that at Metropolitan High School (the name he used for the school in his book), the perceived lack of caring was the most devastating factor for black boys.

At Metropolitan, Polite recommended that principals and administrators focus their hiring practices on finding people who are able to relate to and care for students from different backgrounds. In addition, Polite pointed to professional development schools as places where teachers and teacher candidates can be trained to care through inquiry, curriculum development research, and reflection. Nell Noddings, a professor at Stanford University, a former K–12 math teacher, and the author of several books on caring, observes that “young black men and boys growing up without male role models and in conditions of poverty probably do need, more than anyone else, that assurance that somebody really cares. Many studies show the single most important thing in turning lives around is the ongoing presence of a caring adult.”

Unfortunately, black boys are often alone in their self-advocacy. They must combat the negative stereotype that being black and masculine does not match up with being smart and going to school. Extensive research shows that one of the principal factors contributing to the underrepresentation of minority men in college and their underperformance in primary and secondary schools is the absence of minority male teachers as role models. “No question,” says Kunjufu, “one thing we can do for black boys is increase [the number of] black men teaching.” As resources for change, Kunjufu suggests the 85,000 black churches, 106 black colleges, more than 10 national black sororities and fraternities, and almost 200 black radio stations in the United States. In Maryland, Rep. Steny Hoyer is establishing Men Equipped to Nurture, an intensive program designed to dramatically increase the number of African American and other males entering the teaching profession.

Litmus Test for Leadership
The downward trend for black boys in school and society will not end unless educators and community and business leaders make black boys “the litmus test for their personal leadership,” says Smith. As a former school superintendent, she encourages school administrators to lead in ways that nurture “this student group most vulnerable to school failure.” To improve the achievement of black boys, she advises school leaders to bring together reciprocal layers of communication, data collection, early education, accountability, and literacy instruction.
In its 2003 report, Education Trust highlights some schools, districts, and states that are improving math and reading achievement for African American boys. Jordan points to progress made by the D.C. KEY Academy in Washington and Norview High School in Norfolk, Va., which are looking at their data and making sure this vulnerable group does not fall behind.

“Regardless of race, gender, home environment, or the community or housing complex our students come from, high expectations for their behavior and academic performance will not change,” says Susan Schaeffler, founding principal of the D.C. KEY Academy. “The expectation that our children will perform at a high level is set in stone, and our staff is committed to doing whatever it takes to make sure our children succeed, regardless of the obstacles they encounter.”

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:20 AM 0 comments Links to this post

My sense of these schools is that they are far too regimented for my taste. I would never have my kids in one of these schools. But I do hand it to the teachers who I know kills themselves to help out their students. Another thought: Contrast this approach to this other one that focuses on offering an International Baccalaureate curriculum to children of color. It's in a piece written by Jay Mathews published Aug. 16 of the Washington Post. What a difference in approach! Wonder what others think. -Angela

Charter Schools Exceed Average

By Jay Mathews
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 11, 2005; A14

Twenty-seven KIPP charter middle schools, including one in the District, have posted "large and significant gains" beyond what is average for urban schools, according to a report by the Educational Policy Institute.

The Virginia Beach-based research organization, using data provided by the Knowledge Is Power Program, said 1,800 mostly low-income black and Hispanic fifth-graders showed gains significantly above average in reading, language and mathematics from 2003 to 2004.

It was the largest study so far of KIPP, which has 48 schools in the United States, including three in the Washington area. Some experts have cited KIPP, begun by two teachers in 1994, as an example of what disadvantaged students can achieve if given more time in smaller schools, as well as firm homework requirements and well-trained principals with the power to hire and fire teachers.

Steve Mancini, spokesman for the San Francisco-based organization, applauded the results but said, "We won't be fully satisfied until our students finally earn acceptances to college."

Statistical experts said more data on KIPP and more independent assessments are needed before any conclusions can be reached on the organization's methods. Jeffrey R. Henig, a professor of political science and education at Columbia University's Teachers College, said some scholars have suggested that KIPP fifth-graders arrive with more motivated parents and other advantages compared with their neighborhood peers. More research on whether the gains are sustainable over time also is needed, Henig added.

KIPP officials said their data show incoming students to be just as disadvantaged as other children in their neighborhoods. Test results, they said, showed that new students starting fifth grade in 2004 at the KIPP school in Southeast Washington averaged 34.1 in reading on a 99-point scale called a normal curve equivalent, compared with 46.2 for their classmates in neighboring schools.

The Educational Policy Institute study used the same scale, which is different from percentile ranks most often used to measure achievement and criticized as confusing by some experts.

Students show no growth on the 99-point scale from one year to the next if they make normal progress. Fifth-graders at the 27 KIPP schools included in the study showed an average gain of 7.5 points in reading, 9.1 in language and 11.6 in mathematics from fall 2003 to fall 2004. Educational Policy Institute President Watson Scott Swail said he hoped next to compare KIPP students with students of very similar backgrounds who attend regular schools.

The KIPP DC:KEY Academy, the first KIPP school in the Washington area, opened in 2000 and has 320 students in grades 5 through 8. It has the highest math scores in the city, though more than 80 percent of its students come from black families poor enough to qualify for federal lunch subsidies. This summer, KIPP schools opened in the District and Annapolis, and KIPP officials said there are plans for a third middle school and a high school in the District.

KIPP students are in school at least nine hours a day, compared with fewer than seven hours in regular public schools. Three weeks of summer school is mandatory. Students are urged to call teachers at home if they have questions about homework. Those who do not complete homework are disciplined. Good work and behavior are rewarded with points toward items from the student store and school trips, from which students with few points are excluded. Teachers are trained to be very active in their classrooms, involving all children in lessons and taking points off from those who do not pay attention.

Mike Feinberg and Dave Levin started the first KIPP fifth-grade program at a Houston elementary school. The 50 students' passing rate on a state test doubled in the first year.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:08 AM 1 comments Links to this post

I had somehow earlier missed this. Wal-Mart is anti-union and discriminatory toward women. This is a principled stance. -Angela

Aug. 10, 2005, 9:16PM
Teachers' unions boycott Wal-Mart
By KIM CHIPMAN
Bloomberg News

The two largest U.S. teachers' unions joined a "back to school" boycott against Wal-Mart Stores, targeting one of the year's busiest shopping seasons to protest the retailer's labor practices.

The 2.7 million-member National Education Association, the biggest U.S. union, and the 1.3 million-member American Federation of Teachers is teaming with the United Food and Commercial Workers in urging shoppers to stay away from the world's largest retailer and buy school supplies elsewhere, a release from the food workers' "Wake-Up Wal-Mart" group said.

The back-to-school season is the biggest shopping time for Wal-Mart other than Christmas. The unions held news conferences and rallies across the United States on Wednesday, demanding the company boost its wages, expand health benefits and adhere to child-labor laws. Protests have intensified in the past year and threaten to hurt Wal-Mart's sales and profit, one investor said.

"Even a hit of just 1 to 2 percent could make a big difference in comparable store sales and earnings," said Patricia Edwards, a portfolio manager and analyst at Wentworth, Hauser & Violich in Seattle. Her firm manages $5.7 billion in assets, including 69,000 Wal-Mart shares, down from about 1.2 million a year ago.

Wal-Mart's declining public image, also hurt by recent discrimination lawsuits, played a part in the decision to sell shares, said Edwards, who doesn't own the stock personally.

Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart, which is also the biggest private employer in the U.S., didn't return a call seeking comment.

Shares of Wal-Mart fell 38 cents to $48.84 at the New York Stock Exchange on Wednesday. The stock has fallen about 7 percent in the past year.

Wal-Mart had sales of $285 billion in the year that ended in January, an increase of 11 percent over the previous year. The company said last month that it expects August sales at stores open at least a year to rise 3 to 5 percent.

The teachers' unions may help bolster the food workers union's efforts against Wal-Mart. The food workers union, which represents about 1 million U.S. employees, has failed to make inroads in organizing the company. The union, which recently left the AFL-CIO, now says it will move away from organizing and instead focus on building support against Wal-Mart's practices.

"The only thing Wal-Mart is going to respond to is the pressure that the American people will bear on this company," said Chris Kofinis, a spokesman for the union's Wake-Up Wal-Mart group.

This article is: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/3305409

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 7:14 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Aug. 20, 2005, 7:31PM

POINTING FINGERS

Blame Texas PTA for no school finance bill

School funding reform tanked for good reasons
By CRAIG TOUNGET


AS the Texas Legislature ends its most recent special session in failure over school finance, the blame game has kicked into overdrive.

The speaker of the House blamed the Senate in radio ads across the state. The lieutenant governor blamed the House for its lack of action. The governor blamed both the House and Senate for not sending him a bill to sign.

The comptroller blamed the governor for a lack of leadership on school finance.

Next, the speaker blamed school superintendents.

So, who is really to blame for the Legislature's failure over three years, two regular sessions and three special sessions? Who is to blame for lawmakers' unwillingness to compromise on reforms and finances?

If state leaders must blame some group outside the Capitol, they can blame the Texas PTA and our 650,000 members. Parents who have written tens of thousands of e-mail messages and letters and placed hundreds and hundreds of phone calls to elected officials. You can blame the parents and taxpayers of this state for not allowing the Legislature to push through inadequate funding for our children's education and harmful regulatory changes disguised as "reforms."

You can blame PTA for opposing private school vouchers, a scheme which would strip millions of dollars out of the public education system and put the money into private hands with no accountability.

You can blame PTA for opposing the state mandating when schools will start throughout the state. We still believe in local control, and we believe that locally elected school board members have a better idea of when their schools should start than does the Legislature.

You can blame PTA for opposing state-mandated November school board elections. We do not believe that making school trustee elections partisan will help children learn to read and write.

You can blame PTA for demanding that textbooks be paid for with money the state board of education set aside for that purpose. You can blame us for expecting our children's textbooks to be delivered in a timely manner, not years later.

You can blame PTA for demanding better pay for classroom teachers so the best and the brightest can be attracted to the profession and will stay in our neighborhood schools for many years.

You can blame PTA for demanding that adequate funding for public education come before property tax reduction. We are at a loss as to why the leadership is consumed with lowering a tax rate that is set by an elected body, your local school board.

You can blame PTA for opposing the one-cent tax increase in the sales tax, making it the highest rate in the country.

You can blame PTA for demanding that all 4.4 million students in Texas public schools have a significantly equal opportunity to receive an excellent education. You can blame PTA for saying that "adequate" is not good enough; we expect better.

Why can't the Legislature pass something? You can blame PTA for that because parents told lawmakers that no bill is better than a bad bill and all the leadership proposed were bad school finance bills.

We are the Texas PTA 650,000 parents, teachers and others who care about children. And taxpayers. You can blame PTA if you want. But if you think there have been lots of calls, letters and e-mails in the past three years, just wait. Keep under-funding our children's schools, keep trying to disguise political agendas as "reforms," keep protecting the tax system that favors the business community, keep using textbook money for other purposes, keep squabbling amongst yourselves over your own petty agendas.

If you think you have heard from parents and taxpayers already, just wait. What you have heard before is a gentle spring rain of discontent compared to the ocean of disappointment and frustration that is ready to wash up on your shores.

Tounget is executive director of the Texas PTA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
k
This article is: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/
3318174

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:07 AM 8 comments Links to this post

Saturday, Aug. 20, 2005

Students, Friends, and Colleagues,

What strikes me is the license that any congressman feels he has in order to make the following statement: "If you pick up 50 or 100 of them (illegal immigrants), you can call the National Guard," he said. "Put them in tents." (see article on Tom DeLay’s comments below.) Does this not hearken back to the political rhetoric our darkest hours in this nation? The internment of the Japanese? The forced reservation experience for American Indians? The conquest and colonization of Mexicans and Puerto Ricans? And slavery of West African people?

Just round ‘em up. Contain and quarantine ‘em. Imprison ‘em.

Such language has historically justified enormous atrocities from which our nation is still healing. This is the opportunistic language of division and hatemongering rather than of peace, tolerance, and reconciliation to this shamefully racist and classist legacy. The long arms of the past reach into the present with the vigilantism and threats of violence we are witnessing through the Minutemen along our borders (also see links to several articles below), as well as through attempts to eliminate the supposed “break” that House Bill 1403 (undocumented immigrant) students get from their out-of-state tuition waiver in order for them to go to college. Many, if not most, of these students have lived the bulk of their young lives in the U.S. and see themselves as American.

It is also convenient to not mention how immigrants/immigrant labor, documented and undocumented, keeps the middle class afloat in America without which serious political and economic crises would likely occur. Incalculable are the number of members of both the business community and the middle class who literally rely on this labor in order to either make ends meet or generate profit. Honest and informed dialogue, rather than inflammatory rhetoric, is not only what’s needed, but it would expose the far right’s desperate need to find a boogey man in order to not to have to deal frankly with the fundamental issue of ethnic/racial and class-based inequalities. If we really wanted to get rid of immigrant labor, all of our citizens would get paid a living wage.

Also, mark your calendars for Sat. Sept. 17 as there’s a pro-immigrant rights march at 4 PM that starts out at Riverside and Congress and goes to the capitol. If you don’t want to march, meet at the rally at the capitol between 5:30 and 7:00PM. I intend to do both with my family. I also urge the academic community to find ways to respond lest we unwittingly sanction such extremism through our non-response.

We should all be very concerned....

-Angela

Please join the UT Longhorn League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) Council, #65533; Jovenes Inmigrantes por un Futuro
Mejor de UT Austin, Coaliciion Internacional de los Mexicanos en el Exterior, TexasCriminal JusticeCoalition's University Leadership Initiative, Casa del Inmigrate (Dallas) and grass roots groups from across the Lone Star State for a march to the south steps of the state Capitol.

Date: Saturday, September 17, 2005
March Time: 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm
March Location: Riverside and Congress - Rally Time: 5:30 pm - 7:00 pm
Rally Location: State Capitol building in Austin, Texas

Contacts: Julieta Garibay: 512-879-0576; Rebecca
Acuña 956-206-5853; Ana Yañez: 512-441-8123 x103 or
512-587-7010, Manuel Rodela; 214-330-0970
or 214-282-1475 Miguel Reyes 214 914-6288
Ray Ibarra; 520-440-2976


Aug. 19, 2005, 12:43AM
LULAC members dispute DeLay's immigration stance
They say the House majority leader's words are 'extreme' and run counter to laws
By ERIC HANSON
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

ROSENBERG - At a town-hall meeting hosted by the Houston-area LULAC, several speakers disagreed sharply with comments made recently by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who proposed a tougher stance on U.S. immigration practices.

"Mexicans, Central Americans and South Americans are not bombing anything strategic in America. They are here to work," said League of United Latin American Citizens member Joel Salazar.

Salazar and others at the meeting, held at the Rosenberg Civic and Convention Center, described DeLay's comments as "extreme" and said immigrants make a positive contribution to the U.S. economy.

"The economy is fueled by their presence and performance," Salazar said.

In an Aug. 4 speech to Fort Bend County Republicans, DeLay said he does not support educating illegal immigrants or having their U.S.-born children automatically become citizens.

DeLay encouraged local police to round up illegal immigrants and said federal officials could find places to house them, even if it meant putting them in tents.

Jose Jiminez, LULAC's deputy director, said the organization disagrees with DeLay on three main points.

He said LULAC does not think illegal immigrants should be rounded up and housed in tent cities.

"Here in Harris County we don't even put our criminals who go through our justice system in tents," he said.

Joe Vail, a University of Houston law professor, said gathering up those suspected of illegal immigration poses legal problems, such as racial profiling.

"In our country you can't stop somebody and detain them unless you've got a reasonable suspicion they are doing something wrong," Vail said.

Vail said DeLay's comments about not extending citizenship to American-born children of illegal immigrants runs counter to the 14th Amendment.

LULAC supports the public education of the children of illegal immigrants, and Vail said the U.S. Supreme Court agreed.

One of the speakers was Mary Almendarez, president of LULAC Council 402, who called DeLay's remarks "racist" and "unacceptable."

"What we have here is a congressman gone wild," she said.

DeLay spokeswoman Shannon Flaherty said DeLay believes immigration to be a complex and important issue that must be addressed by Congress.

"Congressman DeLay has made his position on illegal immigration clear. We must secure our borders, enforce current federal law and not reward illegal behavior," she said.

eric.hanson@chron.com
?
DeLay criticizes Houston's policy on illegal immigrants
He favors idea of withholding federal funding from cities that offer 'sanctuary'
By EDWARD HEGSTROM
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

SUGAR LAND - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay criticized the city of
Houston's "sanctuary" policy toward illegal immigrants in a speech
Thursday night.

ADVERTISEMENT

Speaking to a packed house of Fort Bend County Republican faithful,
DeLay said he supported the concept behind legislation introduced by
U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., that would withhold federal funding
from cities such as Houston that refuse to enforce immigration law.

"It greatly concerns me that the police chief in Houston, Texas, has
created a sanctuary in Houston by announcing that he is not going to
enforce our laws," the Sugar Land Republican said, in response to a
question about Tancredo's bill.

"That is unacceptable, and we hope to address it through Tancredo's
legislation or other legislation."

Since 1992, a Houston Police Department policy has officially
forbidden officers from enforcing immigration laws in most cases.

Mayor Bill White has said he supports continuing the policy, because
he believes immigration is a federal matter and he wants to free
police up to protect the city from violent criminals.

Police in Katy also have a court-ordered policy forbidding them from
enforcing immigration laws. The order came as the result of a federal
lawsuit filed after a 1994 police operation to pick up day laborers.

DeLay, who is seen as a key player on upcoming immigration reform
legislation in Congress, said he would support a guest-worker program
that would allow immigrants to come legally to the United States and
then go home. But he said the government needs to step up enforcement
of immigration laws first.

"Before Congress takes any significant legislation, we must secure our
nation's borders," he said.


Two major proposals
Two major pieces of immigration are expected to be considered when
Congress returns in September.

One proposal, sponsored by Senators Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and John
McCain, R-Ariz., would allow some illegal immigrants to work toward
becoming legal residents and then citizens of the United States.

Senators John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Jon Kyle, R-Ariz., propose a
tougher bill that would allow illegal immigrants to become guest
workers, meaning they would have to go home after working here three
years or more.

Cornyn and Kyle also propose tougher enforcement, including increased
patrols at the border and new requirements on employers seeking to
hire workers.

DeLay indicated that he would support legislation even stricter than
Cornyn's. He does not believe illegal immigrants already in the
country should qualify, and he does not believe guest workers should
be allowed to bring their families.

Asked if he would support McCain-Kennedy, he said: "It's not going to
do very well in the House, I'll guarantee that."


Places for detainees
DeLay noted that until now, even the federal government has not
rounded up illegal immigrants in U.S. cities, because federal agents
had no place to detain them. But he said that is changing under the
new leadership at the Department of Homeland Security.

He encouraged local police to round up illegal immigrants, and
promised that the federal government will find places to house them.

"If you pick up 50 or 100 of them, you can call the National Guard,"
he said. "Put them in tents."

He also said he did not support educating illegal immigrants or having
their U.S.-born children become automatically U.S. citizens. But he
said those would be harder to repeal.

DeLay also said he strongly supports legal immigration, which he says
makes this country stronger.

He said immigration is a top issue among his constituents.
?

?
From: Southern Poverty Law Center
Reply-To: Southern Poverty Law Center
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:50:39 -0400 (EDT)
To:
Subject: Immigration Watch for Aug. 16, 2005

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IMMIGRATION WATCH
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
An e-newsletter monitoring extremism and the anti-immigration movement


For the week of August 16, 2005
----------------------------------------------------

[CA] Neo-Nazis join Save Our State
Southern Poverty Law Center / August 16, 2005
Racist skinheads and other white supremacists stood side by side with
"grassroots" anti-immigration activists at a Laguna Beach
demonstration.
http://newsletter.splcenter.org/cgi-bin4/DM/y/epmY0HluRh0L1h0DcOW0E5

[CA] From Minuteman to congressman?
WorldNetDaily / August 10, 2005
Minuteman co-founder Jim Gilchrist is "seriously considering" a run
for Congress in California.
http://newsletter.splcenter.org/cgi-bin4/DM/y/epmY0HluRh0L1h0DcOX0E6

[NH] Anti-immigrant trespass charges thrown out
New Hampshire Union Leader / August 12, 2005
A judge ruled local police arresting Mexicans for trespassing -- by
being in the United States illegally -- unconstitutional.
http://newsletter.splcenter.org/cgi-bin4/DM/y/epmY0HluRh0L1h0DcOY0E7

[CA] Protestors, police, Tancredo converge in Carlsbad
The San Diego Union-Tribune / August 12, 2005
Congressman Tom Tancredo, Minuteman co-founder Jim Gilchrist, and a
host of other high-profile anti-immigration activists addressed a
crowd inside a school auditorium while riot police outside tried to
keep the peace.
http://newsletter.splcenter.org/cgi-bin4/DM/y/epmY0HluRh0L1h0DcOZ0E8

[CT] Officials denounce hate group immigration protests
Connecticut Post / August 15, 2005
Local politicians crossed party lines to jointly condemn White
Revolution's ongoing anti-immigration campaign in Milford.
http://newsletter.splcenter.org/cgi-bin4/DM/y/epmY0HluRh0L1h0DcOa0EG

[CA] Black leaders rescind Save Our State invitation
Los Angeles Times / August 12, 2005
Citing language on the Save Our State website "calling people of color
scum and garbage," the Urban Policy Roundtable withdrew its invitation
to SOS founder Joe Turner.
http://newsletter.splcenter.org/cgi-bin4/DM/y/epmY0HluRh0L1h0DcOb0EH

[CAN] Minutemen gear up for Canada
The Globe and Mail / August 12, 2005
The Minuteman Project is organizing operations in 11 northern states
and eight Canadian provinces for October missions to protect the
United States against invaders from the north.
http://newsletter.splcenter.org/cgi-bin4/DM/y/epmY0HluRh0L1h0DcOc0EI


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LEARN MORE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Want to learn more about the anti-immigration movement? Read these
articles from the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report:

*** Blood on the Border ***
A survey of anti-immigration activity and
groups.
http://newsletter.splcenter.org/cgi-bin4/DM/y/epmY0HluRh0L1h0DcOd0EJ

*** The Puppeteer ***
An investigative profile of America's most
important anti-immigration activist.
http://newsletter.splcenter.org/cgi-bin4/DM/y/epmY0HluRh0L1h0DcOe0EK

*** Open Season ***
A feature on vigilantes in Arizona.
http://newsletter.splcenter.org/cgi-bin4/DM/y/epmY0HluRh0L1h0DcOf0EL

*** The Battle of Georgiafornia ***
A feature on the hate crime
backlash against Hispanic immigrants in Georgia.
http://newsletter.splcenter.org/cgi-bin4/DM/y/epmY0HluRh0L1h0C6ah0Et

*** Arizona Showdown ***
A feature on the Minuteman Project in
Arizona.
http://newsletter.splcenter.org/cgi-bin4/DM/y/epmY0HluRh0L1h0DcOg0EM



----------------------------------------------------
CONTACT US:
Have some feedback on our newsletter?
Email us: immigrationwatch@splcenter.org

Immigration Watch
c/o Intelligence Project
Southern Poverty Law Center
400 Washington Ave.
Montgomery, AL 36104
----------------------------------------------------

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 9:36 AM 0 comments Links to this post

This is a very interesting analysis of what happened at the legislature this year. It was published in educationnews.org

-Angela


by Donna Garner
August 19, 2005

How could the Texas Legislature meet for three sessions at a cost of $5.4 Million and never pass any substantive legislation on school reform and finance? I put the complete responsibility for this debacle and waste of taxpayers' money at the feet of Rep. Kent Grusendorf. It was he who surreptitiously sought to hook the taxpayers into spending over $3 Billion to provide wireless laptop computers for all teachers and students in Texas.

The one thing that Grusendorf really wanted passed was wireless laptop computers for all students and teachers. He wanted to make sure that textbooks vanished and that laptops became the total center of every classroom. His problem: How could he make sure that every school was pushed into laptops? His solution: Require that the TAKS tests for elementary and middle schools be computerized and that the TAKS tests be replaced by computerized End-of-Course tests in high school. In one fell swoop he could completely move schools into laptops because with that many tests to be given on computers, schools could not possibly test all their students in PC computer labs. Laptops would be imminent.

To move his agenda forward, Grusendorf called together a group of computer executives which became the eLearning Initiative. Of course, this group had the same priorities as Grusendorf since their industry would benefit financially from such a change.

Think of the huge profit to be made if every student and teacher in Texas were provided with a wireless laptop at taxpayer expense. Texas has 4,400,644 students and 294,545 teachers for a grand total of 4,695,189 people. At around $700 per wireless laptop, the cost would be $3,286,632,300; and that is just for the initial expense. What about the batteries (over $100 a piece), software, upgrades, maintenance, tech support, wiring, and replacement costs? Even if the laptops were edged into the schools in incremental stages, the expense to the taxpayers would still be astronomical and ongoing.

When Grusendorf began to realize that the total cost of $3 Billion + was prohibitive, he had to figure out a way to pass his bill without raising the ire of taxpayers. His solution: Rob the Permanent School Fund (PSF) which pays for students' textbooks. To do that he created language in his legislation which deleted the term "textbooks" and replaced it with "instructional materials" which, of course, included laptops.

Grusendorf also decided to hold hostage the newly adopted textbooks which were to have been sent to schools by this school year. Among these were the new health and foreign language textbooks which had already passed through the approval process and were stored in warehouses, waiting for the state to pay for them. Grusendorf figured he could use the money saved from these textbooks, combine that with new money from the PSF, and sell his grand laptop scheme to the Legislature.

Besides that, Grusendorf saw no need to provide any further textbooks to Texas students because his plan was for them to have all their curriculum materials delivered on laptops. Never mind that it is an impossibility for a student to develop true oral proficiency in Spanish by computer. Grusendorf's only concern was to take the pot of gold from the textbooks and move it into the laptop account.

Conveniently for Grusendorf, a popular idea began to grow among fiscally responsible organizations: "65% of all school funding should go to the classroom." This idea played right into Grusendorf's hands because wireless laptops would obviously fall under "direct instructional activities." The supporters of this idea, however, did not mean for 60% to go toward laptops and 5% to be left for all other expenses!

Next, Grusendorf had to scatter out among the bill the various laptop provisions because he knew if all the requirements for laptops and the huge expense to provide them were all put in one section, red flags would go up among the Legislators and their constituents. Therefore, he put a sentence here, a requirement there, a change in definition here, another statement there; and he hoped that nobody would connect the dots.

Sure enough, most Legislators probably did not take the time to read the original HB 2 which morphed into HB 4, HB 62, and finally SB 8. The bills were over 400 pages in length; and because the "dots" were scattered throughout those numerous pages, it is certainly possible that most House members and/or their staffs did not take the time to read all 400+ pages. The House members went right along with their fearless leader, thinking to themselves that surely Grusendorf, who had chaired the House Education Committee, knew what he was doing.

Yes, indeed, Grusendorf most certainly knew what he was doing. By this time he had gained the full support of Speaker Craddick and the tacit approval of Sen. Florence Shapiro, the chair of the Senate Education Committee.

Through political maneuvering, SB 8 went into the House Conference Committee on August 9 looking rather harmless and came out the other door on August 12 with Grusendorf's laptop language firmly implanted.

The news media, who had been asleep the whole time regarding the laptop issue, never did wake up; and only a couple of commentaries to counter the laptop requirements ever surfaced in the newspapers. Various talk show hosts tried to alert the public to the impending disaster of SB 8's laptop requirements; but all in all, the public never really knew what the legislation held.

One more thing that Grusendorf did was to set up nefarious wording in his bills which gave the Texas State Board of Education thumb-in-cheek authority over the instructional materials. At the same time, however, Grusendorf made sure to include language which neutered the SBOE's authority by allowing publishers to submit their materials (all grade levels/all subjects) at any time during the year. Students' curriculum materials would have become "open season" because nobody would have had the time and resources to read and scrutinize that many submissions.

When both Craddick and Grusendorf realized their heads might be on the chopping block because of the dismal failure of the House to pass meaningful reform, they both in concert began to blame the Senate and then the school superintendents.

Craddick's and Grusendorf's fears were justified. What if the public were to find out what Grusendorf inserted into the final version of SB 8? What if the public were to put 2 and 2 together and realize that the wireless laptops alone would have cost the taxpayers over $3 Billion? What if parents were to figure out that Grusendorf's laptops would forever destroy the relationship between student and teacher and would instead replace it with a relationship between student and unknown persons in cyberspace? What a comforting thought in a world where Internet child pornography sites have increased 400% in four years and number in the thousands!

Speaker Craddick and Rep. Grusendorf could have crafted a bill that reflected fiscal responsibility and true education reform. Instead they chose to load down their bills with wireless laptop provisions which would have had a negative impact upon Texas' school children. The preliminary results from the Texas Immersion Project where 22 middle schools have been laptop immersed for a full year are not very encouraging. In 57% of these schools, the students did worse on their Spring 2005 TAKS tests in Writing than they did last year.

Yes, I believe Rep. Grusendorf should worry about his bid for re-election; and those Legislators who followed blindly after him probably should worry also.

Donna Garner
wgarner1@hot.rr.com

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 7:47 AM 3 comments Links to this post

Justices to decide if overhaul needed after bills fail in Legislature

11:56 PM CDT on Friday, August 19, 2005

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


AUSTIN – Once again, the future of Texas' nearly 8,000 public schools rests squarely with the state's highest court.

Another special legislative session on school finance ended Friday with a fresh round of finger-pointing among state leaders. But now, Texas Supreme Court justices, not lawmakers, have the next shot at decisions that could yield billions for schools and force higher taxes on consumers and businesses.

Only the seven men and one woman on the high court – one seat is vacant – have a good idea of what they'll do.

But former justices, legal scholars, lawyers and school finance veterans say it's likely the court will again find the education funding system unconstitutional and order an overhaul.
Also Online

Legislature adjourns special session

School finance failure produces lots of blame


Each of its five major rulings since 1989 ratcheted up the pressure on the Legislature to put more money into public schools and reduce funding disparities among school districts.

But lawmakers have not always fully complied.

"You will see language in every one of these opinions that says the system needs more than a Band-Aid, it needs to be totally revamped," said former Supreme Court Justice Deborah Hankinson of Dallas.

"The Legislatures, from the very beginning, have done nothing but put Band-Aids on it."

Past school finance battles have been bitter – a decade ago, the court upheld by a single vote the Legislature's "Robin Hood" plan that requires property-rich school districts to share their property tax revenue. The latest round also has exposed raw nerves.


Betting the bank



"School districts are banking everything on the court ruling," said House Speaker Tom Craddick, who has criticized districts for trying to get "megabucks" from the state with no strings attached. "If they win, that's fine. But if they don't win," Mr. Craddick warned, they won't get much sympathy from lawmakers in the next round of funding.

Last year, Gov. Rick Perry predicted the state would win – meaning lawmakers wouldn't have to do anything – because he had appointed most of the justices and "they don't legislate from the bench." All are Republicans.

Few expect the court to design a detailed system or order lawmakers to pour in a specific amount of money. Still, two of three former Republican justices who were interviewed – Ms. Hankinson, who has filed a brief for school boards in the case, and former Justice Craig Enoch of Austin – expect the court to order the Legislature to make at least some changes, particularly on the issue of taxes that local districts can levy. Former Chief Justice Tom Phillips said he has no idea what the court will do.

More than 300 school districts, including Dallas and Houston, are plaintiffs in the current lawsuit. They won the first round last year when state District Judge John Dietz of Austin ruled that the state was not providing enough money to educate all of its 4.4 million students and that the state had imposed an unconstitutional state property tax – a $1.50 limit per $100 valuation on local property tax rates.

The judge also found that facilities in property-poor school districts were underfunded.

Attorney General Greg Abbott took the case directly to the Texas Supreme Court, bypassing the intermediate appellate court, and a hearing was held by the court on July 6. A ruling is expected this fall.

Despite the confident predictions by Mr. Perry and others, the swift recent turnover on the court – only four are left from the last major judgment on this case in May 2003 – makes it difficult to gauge how sweeping or how minimal their decision will be.

Former Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff, a Republican who wrote the "Robin Hood" school finance law, finds it hard to believe that the state will emerge completely victorious.

"I will be the most shocked person in Texas if the Supreme Court overturns Judge Dietz on all three points," Mr. Ratliff said.

Texas schools are primarily funded through local property taxes and state aid. Mr. Ratliff noted that the state share in the $33 billion-a-year system has slipped dramatically in recent years and now makes up only 37 percent of the total. Conversely, local property taxes have soared and pushed most districts up toward the maximum $1.50 tax rate for operating expenses.

Nearly two-thirds of districts are at or near that limit, so that issue is considered the most likely victory for school districts. But, Mr. Ratliff said, the issue of adequate funding is the most anticipated part of the decision.

"The state constitution says the Legislature must provide for a general diffusion of knowledge," he said, noting that translates into proper funding for education. "If that means something, the court should not be able to duck interpreting what it does mean."


Avoiding 'briar patch'



Former Justice Enoch, though, predicted "the court will just run from any question of adequacy," because justices would have to decide curriculum matters and "get off in the briar patch."

Testimony in a six-week trial last year indicated it would take an additional $1,100 a student per year to comply with state and federal requirements, such as minimum passing rates on standardized tests. That adds up to more than $4.8 billion a year, four times what the Legislature most recently proposed in its failed special sessions on school finance.

It also could require a sizable increase in state taxes, which the House and Senate refused to consider this year – except for proposals to raise some taxes to offset a reduction in school property taxes.

"We're not asking for megabucks. This is the amount that studies have shown is needed," said Clayton Downing, a former superintendent of Lewisville schools whose Texas School Coalition represents high-wealth districts.

The last school finance decision gave mixed signals on how justices may rule on the subject of adequate funding.

Writing for the majority, Justice Nathan Hecht said: "The courts cannot ... attempt to define in detail an adequate education. But once policy choices have been made by the Legislature, it is the judiciary's responsibility in a proper case to determine whether those choices as a whole meet the standard set by the people" in the constitution.

Justice Hecht, the only justice to take part in all the school finance decisions going back to 1989, is expected to play a major role in shaping its next one.

"He has a memory like a steel trap, and he's been there throughout, so obviously he's going to be important," said former Justice Phillips.

In 2003, Justice Hecht emphatically rejected suggestions by then-Justice Steven Smith that the judiciary had overreached and should reconsider its 1995 ruling that upheld "Robin Hood."

"To announce now that we have simply changed our minds on matters that have been crucial to the development of the public education system would not only threaten havoc to the system, but would, far more importantly, undermine the rule of law to which the court is firmly pledged," Justice Hecht wrote.

That could foreshadow the court's response to a chief argument by state attorneys – that the court should butt out and leave school finance to the Legislature.

A court finding against the state would put the ball back in the hands of lawmakers, who have tended to put off dealing with problems in schools, prisons and mental health facilities until state or federal judges forced them to act.

"It's the classic political response to problems they don't want to deal with," said Maurice Dyson, a school finance expert and assistant law professor at Southern Methodist University. "There is no better political cover than to have a court rule that something must be done, which allows politicians to say their hands are tied."

E-mail rtgarrett@dallasnews.com

and tstutz@dallasnews.com
THE ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

Are Texas public schools adequately funded? Districts say they don't receive enough funding to comply with state and federal requirements such as minimum average passing rates on student tests. The state says districts receive ample funding and point to improved student test scores in recent years as evidence.

Does Texas have a state property tax that the state constitution prohibits? Districts argue that the current maximum property tax rate of $1.50 per $100 valuation is the same as a state property tax, which is prohibited under the state constitution. They point out that most districts are at or near the cap and have no way to raise more revenue. The state says that many districts haven't reached the limit and that districts still have discretion in setting rates and could cut expenses to reduce taxes.

Does Texas' method of paying for school facilities violate equity requirements that are supposed to protect low-wealth school districts? One group of districts argues that the state is neglecting the needs of lower-wealth districts while wealthy districts can build and expand schools all they want. The state maintains it has provided financial assistance for facilities in lower-wealth districts and complies with equity standards set by the courts.

Terrence Stutz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/legislature/stories/082005dntexsession.8bd31b4a.html

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

Local discontent with 'No Child Left Behind' grows
Aug. 19, 2005 / Christian Science Monitor

'Hot spot' states could expand to eight, a new report finds. But supporters of the law still say it's effective.

By Alexandra Marks | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Just as students are heading back to school, frustration with the federal No Child Left Behind education law is hitting new heights at the grass-roots level from Maine to California.

Three states are already in open rebellion: Connecticut, Utah, and Colorado, which have either planned lawsuits or passed laws that trump the federal mandates. At least five other states - Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, and Virginia - are deemed "hot spots" that could join the revolt in the coming school year. And a total of 21 states are now considering some kind of legislation critical of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), according to a study released this week by the Civil Society Institute, a nonpartisan advocacy group in Massachusetts.

It rounded up a report of this dissatisfaction to call attention to what it says is a disconnect between the federal government and the educators, students, parents, and local lawmakers that live with NCLB every day.

The law's supporters counter that it is working, with test scores going up. They acknowledge there's frustration, but they contend it has more to do with the level of federal intervention in what used to be a primarily state and local issue. They also praise the federal Department of Education (DOE) for being flexible in dealing with state concerns.

But several independent education experts, as well as state legislators from both the Republican and Democratic sides of the aisle, say that even with this flexibility, frustration is on the rise.

"There is a palpable increase in the level of dissatisfaction that I see, but it's not being translated into legislation in Congress," says Jack Jennings, president and CEO of the nonpartisan Center on Education Policy in Washington. "There's really a disjuncture here between a growing dissatisfaction and the lack of a political response."
The roots of frustration

The frustration on the local level has to do with what educators call the rigidity of the law, which requires high-stakes, standardized testing and penalizes schools deemed as failing to make "adequate yearly progress." They're also concerned about a lack of funding to pay for the testing and the remedial services needed to ensure students make the grade.

For instance, Connecticut estimates it will cost the state $41.6 million more to implement NCLB than the federal government is providing. Local communities will bear additional costs, too.

The White House and the DOE dispute that. They point to two studies done by the Government Accountability Office in New Jersey and Massachusetts that found those states had enough federal resources to implement the law. They also note that since NCLB was passed, federal education spending has increased more than 30 percent.

"It is unfortunate that some appear to think that reform is more trouble than it's worth," says DOE spokeswoman Samara Yudof. "No Child Left Behind is working: Evidence from both the Nation's Report Card and the states' own data prove it."

Although test scores are going up, they were before NCLB was passed, as well. That's because of state education reforms and testing protocols put into place over the past 25 years. Indeed, there's been no research to determine which reforms get credit for the increasing scores. But many teachers and local legislators credit the earlier state improvements, and they're concerned that NCLB mandates are actually undermining their students' long-term success.

They argue that the high-stakes nature of NCLB's test encourages "teaching to the test" and actually undermines learning and critical-thinking skills. At the same time, they contend, NCLB mandates drain resources from key enrichment programs.

"The consequences especially for minority students are more and more tragic, and you see it in the data," says Sylvia Bruni, assistant superintendent of the Laredo, Texas, Independent School District. "We have enormous dropout rates, in my community as many 30 percent of all students.... Statewide there's a marked decline in the number of students who are prepared for higher education."

Ms. Bruni says that one of the biggest indications of NCLB's failure comes from the business community, which has found that students are "graduating as poor communicators, really weak critical thinkers, weak problem solvers."

But other states and school districts maintain that the law is having its intended effect of raising not only test scores, but also students' overall preparedness for the global economy.

For example, every single jurisdiction in the state of Maryland improved in performance in the past year, according to State Superintendent of Schools Nancy Grasmick. She credits NCLB, which she says forces schools to be in a "mode of continual improvement, raising the bar."

"In the past, even in some of our best schools, we've hidden behind the averages, and there were children who were not making substantial progress," she says. "The law ... now requires us to look at every subgroup. I actually think that's an extremely positive thing. We're never going to overcome an achievement gap ... until we do this."

NCLB's advocates also note the DOE has reached out to states to understand their concerns. Of the 40 states that have asked for waivers recently, more than 35 have been granted, according to the DOE.
More dollars

But even strong supporters of the law say that some of the regulations "need adjustment" and more funding would be helpful. Superintendent Grasmick notes that part of Maryland's success was a result of the state legislature approving an additional $1.3 billion in funds to help implement the program over five years.

"I know that's not true in a lot of states," she says. "They've actually experienced cuts in funding."

Several US representatives and senators are reportedly working on bills to amend NCLB in the upcoming legislative session, but few education experts believe it will happen before 2007, when the law comes up for reauthorization. But as the calls for change increase on the local level, that may change.

"I think the dissatisfaction will continue to grow," says Reggie Felton, director of federal relations with the National School Boards Association in Alexandria, Va. "That will result in a stronger sense of urgency in congressional districts, which will then result in members of Congress saying, 'We can't wait. We must act now because I'm up for reelection."

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

from the August 19, 2005 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0819/p03s01-legn.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:47 AM 0 comments Links to this post

EDITORIAL / Houston Chronicle / Aug. 19, 2005, 1:23AM

THE THREE STOOGES

Top Texas leaders flunk their legislative achievement tests as second special session draws to a close.

The only people with reason to smile as the clock runs out on the second special session of the dismal 79th Texas Legislature are lobbyists who fought new business taxes and delivered a tasty telecom bill opening the cable TV market for SBC and Verizon. The Legislature also took care of its own, approving a judicial pay raise that also boosted lawmakers' pensions.

Left in the lurch are the state's students. The House and Senate deadlocked on adopting an adequate system for funding public education and failed to pass tuition revenue bonds to expand facilities at state universities. The first issue awaits a ruling by the Texas Supreme Court, which is hearing the state's appeal of a district judge's ruling that the so-called Robin Hood method of financing public schools is inadequate and unconstitutional.

As former state GOP Chairman Tom Pauken lamented to the Chronicle's R.G. Ratcliffe, the state Capitol is adrift in "a total lack of leadership ... Lobbyists are driving the train rather than having a philosophically driven, policy-driven plan."

So off the track was the legislative train in the final days that many lawmakers scattered across the country before adjournment, some to a conference in Seattle and others for vacations in the closing weeks of summer.

For once, partisanship can't be blamed for this debacle. All members of the state's triad leadership are Republican. Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick come away from this session looking less like statesmen and more like Larry, Curley and Moe. Since taking control of the Legislature in 2002, for the first time in modern Texas politics, the main achievement of the Republican majorities in the House and Senate was the congressional redistricting battle of 2003.

Early this year, it became apparent that Perry lacked the clout to push his education finance plan. As the regular session spilled into two special sessions, the Dewhurst-led Senate and the Craddick-led House failed to compromise. In an unusual display of political finger-pointing, Craddick took to the airwaves with ads blaming Dewhurst and the Senate for scuttling property tax cuts. Craddick failed to mention that the tax reduction plan he championed in the House would have increased the tax burden on everyone except the top 20 percent of income earners in the state.

At least Dewhurst tried to broaden business taxes to spread the burden of paying for public schools. He quickly found that was a no-go with the House majority, which bent to Craddick's will and ignored the needs of education.

In a final display of pettiness, Dewhurst and Craddick refused to be the first to adjourn his chamber, resulting in a continuation of the doomed special session to its mandated end, at a cost to taxpayers of $23,000 a day. Had they planned to dramatize the triumph of personal politics over public service in this lost legislative season, the state's top three leaders couldn't have come up with a more fitting ending.

Next year Texas voters will have the opportunity to grade the performance of their leaders at the polls. After leaving their major legislative assignment unfinished, officials from the governor on down have a lot of explaining to do as to why they deserve re-election.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/3316845

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:34 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Aug. 19, 2005, 12:05PM

THE LEGISLATURE

Session's end finds lawmakers — and $1.8 billion — idle

Taxpayer money may go unspent till school funding issue is resolved
By R.G. RATCLIFFE
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau

AUSTIN - When Texas lawmakers ended their second special session of the summer today, they left $1.8 billion of the taxpayers' money sitting in the state treasury.

That's enough to cover the money legislators withheld from accounts dedicated to funding trauma care and subsidizing electric bills for the poor, as well as to give a nominal pay raise to public school teachers who are on the state's minimum salary schedule.

Or it's enough to pay for a 9-cent cut in property taxes — a cut that would save a homeowner $135 a year on a house valued at $150,000.

The Legislature ended its final unproductive day today with the House adjourning at 10:47 a.m. and the Senate at 11:40 a.m. On Thursday, the Senate did not meet at all and the House met only briefly.

 Gov. Rick Perry had called the second 30-day session to handle school finance legislation, but there had been little action since the House voted down a tax bill July 26.

Since last year, the Legislature has failed to resolve the school funding issue or cut local property taxes after trying during three special, 30-day sessions and one regular, five-month session.

Lawmakers had wanted to spend the leftover $1.8 billion on public schools. But when the school finance and tax cut legislation fell apart, the money became destined to sit in the treasury until the Legislature meets again.

Unlike money Perry vetoed from the state budget, this money cannot be spent by budget execution authority because it never was appropriated.

House Speaker Tom Craddick said lawmakers had tried to spend the $1.8 billion during the first special session on public education, but the bill was killed by a filibuster staged by Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston.

Craddick said lawmakers then became more interested in knowing how the Texas Supreme Court will rule in a challenge to the school finance system that has been brought by property-rich and property-poor school districts.

"It gets tougher the closer we get to the hearing date," he said.

Craddick said he has thought for some time that the Legislature should not act until the court rules. "I'm totally against the court drawing the plan, but I think we need to see where we are," he said.


Collecting money
Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, said he thinks the Republican leadership is hanging onto the $1.8 billion to use in connection with the court's ruling.



"The reason they're holding back on all this stuff is to use it as political leverage instead of financial leverage," he said.

"All of those interests that want to lay claim to that money would be more interested in agreeing to something later if they hadn't already gotten what they want to get out of the package."

Hochberg noted the Republicans in 2003 withheld spending of $1 billion because they knew the state budget would be "in the ditch" again in 2005. He said Democrats had wanted to spend the money to fully fund the Children's Health Insurance Program and the Texas Grants higher education scholarships.

"I don't like the idea of us collecting money and having it sit in the treasury," he said.

Hochberg said there are numerous public school funding items that House and Senate lawmakers have agreed on, such as technology funding for schools. He said it would be simple to spend part or all of the $1.8 billion on those items now.

House Appropriations Chairman Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, said the legislative leadership decided to reserve the money until after the court rules.


'We're going to fix it'
"If we spend that money now without knowing what direction the court is going to give us, it might be foolish spending," Pitts said. "Hopefully, we'll be back here, not next week, but in a couple of months and be able to do the right thing for our teachers."



Pitts said that because lawmakers spent the state's "rainy day fund" to balance the $139 billion, two-year budget, the $1.8 billion became the state's "savings account."

"We know the roof is leaking and we're going to have to fix it," he said. "We can't fix it today ... but we're going to fix it before the next biennium, before we come back here in the next regular session."

r.g.ratcliffe@chron.com
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3317023

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:16 AM 0 comments Links to this post

San Antonio Express-News / 08/18/2005 12:00 AM CDT

With school finance reform as elusive as ever, House Speaker Tom Craddick has expended more energy rationalizing the failure than he did trying to prevent it.

And make no mistake, the failure is colossal, a lack of legislative will and authority that affects every school-age child in the state.

But if you think Craddick, as the most powerful individual in the House, accepts some of the responsibility for that mess, forget it.

First, he blamed his colleagues, launching attack ads on the radio in which he accused the Senate of watering down an early House version of a school finance reform bill.

Now, he is going after school superintendents, saying they are more interested in funding than they are in reform.

"All they want is money," Craddick told the Express-News. "They are not interested in any reforms, any changes. ... They just want money, and they don't want any changes in the system."

With his accusatory finger pointing in all directions, one has to wonder who his next target will be. Why not blame the kids? After all, they are not even interested in the legislative process; all they want to do is go home every day feeling as if they learned something.

As for the rest of us, we are learning plenty. We are learning that petty politics trumps the future of our children. After one special session and another one nearing its close, the Legislature is no closer to resolving an issue that lawmakers identified, at the start of the regular session, as the most important on their agenda.

"Those people — and the speaker especially — see public education as a liability, not as an asset," North East Superintendent Richard Middleton told the Express-News. "They don't see it as something that's worth keeping and nurturing and developing."

With lawmakers whimpering and pointing fingers, the only option is to await guidance from the Texas Supreme Court, which is reviewing a lower court ruling that the public education system violated the state constitution.

After expressing his frustration over the issue recently, Craddick said he might "go fishing."

If he fails to catch any fish, don't worry; he'll find someone to blame.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/editorials/stories/MYSA081805.01O.craddick.16def809.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 12:28 PM 0 comments Links to this post

ACT scores hold steady for high school class of 2005

By Justin Pope, AP Education Writer  |  August 17, 2005

Average scores on the ACT college entrance exam held steady across all subjects for the high school class of 2005 compared with last year's seniors, an indication that schools are treading water in their efforts to prepare students for college-level work.

Administrators noted that the average national composite score of 20.9, unchanged from 2004, represents slight progress in the sense that scores kept up even though more students -- particularly Hispanics -- are taking the ACT. Yet the test scores also suggest that many students remain severely under-prepared for college work, they said.

ACT scores range from 1 to 36.

Nearly three in four test-takers failed to reach a benchmark indicating they are likely to succeed in a college biology course, and only 41 percent hit a similar benchmark in math. Barely one in five hit the benchmark in all four measured subject areas: math, science, English and social science.

"Hundreds of thousands are going to have a hard time because of the disconnect between their plans for college and the cold reality of their readiness for college," said Richard Ferguson, CEO of the independent, not-for-profit ACT, based in Iowa City, Iowa.

Nearly 1.2 million members of the class of 2005 took the ACT, or 40 percent of all graduates. The number rose slightly from last year to an all-time high. In Illinois and Colorado, the exam is taken by almost all 11th-graders under a state-mandated program.

The ACT exam is the predominant college entrance exam in about half the states, mostly in the middle part of the country, while the SAT is more popular on the East and West Coasts. Most colleges accept either exam.

In Connecticut, only 10 percent of students take the exam. The average composite score on the exam was 22.8, about the same as last year.

The results come amid some renewed focus, including from the National Governors Association, on getting more students to take a core curriculum. In February, a coalition of 13 states agreed on a plan to toughen high school courses and graduation requirements. A survey out last week found nine in 10 students said they would work harder if their high school expected more of them.

But for now, only 56 percent of last year's seniors who took the ACT said they were taking the recommended core curriculum for college prep: four years of English, and three each of math, science, and social studies. That figure has changed little over the last decade despite research indicating students who take the core do better in college, the ACT said.

"Somehow the message doesn't seem to be getting through to students -- they will have to work in high school and take some of these core courses," Ferguson said.

Other tests the ACT administers to 10th- and eighth-graders indicate the high school classes of 2007 and 2009 are on track to fare no better in college preparation. But Ferguson said there is some hope down the line. The latest National Assessment of Educational Progress, released last month, gave 9-year-olds their highest ever scores in math and science since tests were first given in the early 1970s.

Results will not be released until next year for the new optional essay section the ACT began offering this year.

Among other ACT results for the class of 2005:

--The number of Hispanic test-takers is up 40 percent since 2001, to 83,447, and minorities comprise 27 percent of all ACT test-takers, up from 24 percent in 2001.

--Average scores for Asian-Americans rose 0.2 points to 22.1, while white students' scores rose 0.1 to 21.9. Hispanics' scores rose 0.1 to 18.7, while blacks' fell 0.1 to 17.0.

--Girls accounted for 56 percent of test-takers, unchanged for four years. Average boys' scores rose 0.1 from last year to 21.1; girls' scores were unchanged at 20.9.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:38 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Aug. 18, 2005, 6:30AM

Hispanic students taking ACT exam in record numbers
Associated Press


AUSTIN - Hispanic students taking the ACT college entrance exam reached an all-time high this year, making up 25 percent of the students tested in the state, the Texas Education Agency said Wednesday.

"We're encouraged by this rise in participation among minority students," said Shirley Neeley, Texas education commissioner. "We need to do all we can to help all students, regardless of race or family income, prepare themselves for college, trade school, the military or other post-high school options."

This year, 17,969 Hispanic students took the ACT, up from 15,695 in 2001.

The state also saw a jump in black students who took the test, from 7,788 in 2001 to 9,527 this year.

While the participation rate increased, the state's score remained unchanged at 20.2 out of a possible 36. The national average is 20.9.

The ACT includes four test sections covering, English, reading, math and science. Texas students lagged the national average in science, English and reading.

"It's disappointing to see the English and reading scores drop slightly," Neeley said. "We've got to do a better job preparing our high school students."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3315577

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:03 AM 0 comments Links to this post

I gave this talk at the national press club last year and wanted to make it available to folks here in the Austin community who listened to my interview on KAZI 88.7 on Thursday morning at 9 a.m. I also make mention of a recent report by the Civil Society Institute titled, NCLB Left Behind: Understanding the Growing Grassroots Rebellion Against a Controversial Law.

What motivated the national press club event, by the way, was the presidential election and the lack of attention that was being given to education at the time. Robert Borosage and the Campaign for America's Future hosted me on this day to talk to the press about my newly published book, Leaving Children Behind: How “Texas-style” Accountability Fails Latino Youth.

Locally, there is a group that has organized to address high-stakes testing AND the military recruitment of youth in the schools. It's called Educators For Change (E4C). They're encouraging folks to join.

E4C is an organization open to teachers, parents, and activists working with schools of all levels and their respective communities. We use research, analysis, and action for reform and alternatives in public education. We also collaborate with school communities in promoting awareness of issues, rights, and actions to ensure the best education for Austin students. E4C also provides a space for those willing to support each other in continuing this work.

The next E4C meeting is Thursday night, September 8, 6-8 at the Carver - we can discuss this school year's scheduling at that meeting if there are scheduling conflicts - lets discuss and rearrange this meeting time.)

-Angela .

National Press Club Event
September 24, 2004
Presentation by Angela Valenzuela

My purpose today is to share with you some key findings from my forthcoming book, Leaving Children Behind: How “Texas-style” Accountability Fails Latino Youth (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press). Since the federal policy is patterned after Texas, it is important to have a research-based perspective on Texas schools.

1) The Texas accountability system, based on mandated state tests, is a hyper-standardized system that has driven down the quality and quantity of education. It crowds out other forms of learning and it is divorced from children's experience and culture (Alamillo et al. 2004; Bustos Flores and Riojas Clark 2004; Hampton 2004; McNeil 2004; Sloan 2004; Valencia and Villarreal 2004).

The accountability system creates the impression of improvement by substituting real teaching for weeks and weeks of test preparation. (Hampton 2004; McNeil 2000; 2004; McNeil and Valenzuela 2001; Sloan 2004).

The most perverse thing it does is reward principals for losing kids-- that is, principals are rewarded for getting their school scores up, even if they do it by pushing children out of school who jeopardize school ratings (McNeil 2000; 2004; McNeil and Valenzuela 2001).

This shouldn't come as a surprise to you-while test scores in Houston were rising, HISD was losing fully half of its children. (Schemo 2003)

3) There is now a growing body of evidence that shows that the test gains by Texas children on the Texas tests are false gains -- Texas kids do not do well on such national tests as the SAT and the ACT, the very tests they need to get into college. (Amrein & Berliner 2003; McNeil 2004).

4) These losses are across the board but clearly Latino and African American and rural white children have lost the most out of this system. In fact, Texas is losing nearly 25% of our Anglo children, 40% of African American students, and at least half of Latino children from our public school system. Likewise, thirteen-plus years of Texas-style accountability has done nothing-nada-to ameliorate this astounding hemorrhaging of our children from the public school system. (Balfanz & Letgers 2001; Haney 2004; McNeil 2004; U.S. Census Bureau 2004). There is recent evidence that the graduation rate in Texas is lower now than it was previously. During the 1980s, the overall rate was 65% compared to our current rate of 60% (Haney 2004; U.S. Census Bureau 2004) . Regardless of what our president says, for this to be acceptable is to participate in the soft bigotry of low expectations.

In order to understand the Texas model of accountability, one only need consider Enron. Enron, like the Texas accountability model had an on the books and an off the books accounting. On the books was the value of their stock; similarly, on the books are children's test scores which keep on going up. Off the books, were all the debts and phony businesses; similarly, off the books is our horrible dropout rate and the curriculum that we are losing-the enrichment, the field trips, all the kinds of things that make schools fun. I'm a parent as well and so I know all of this first hand.

5) “Since No Child Left Behind is modeled on the mess in Texas, Mr. President, please don't mess with America and leave millions of children across the country behind. As a nation, we must provide a high-quality public education to every child in America. Thank you.

References

Alamillo, L. Palmer, D. Viramontes, C. and Garcia, E. E. 2004. California's English Only Policies: An Analysis of Initial Effects. In A. Valenzuela eds., Leaving Children Behind: How “Texas-Style” Accountability Fails Latino Youth. NY: State University of New York Press.
Amrein, A. L. & Berliner, D. (2003). The Impact of High-Stakes Tests on Student Academic Performance: An Analysis of NAEP Results in States With High-Stakes Tests and ACT, SAT, and AP Test Results in States With High School Graduation Exams. Education Policy Studies Laboratory, Education Policy Research Unit, EPSL-0211-126-EPRU http://edpolicylab.org
Balfanz, R., & Letgers, N. 2001. How many central city high schools have a severe dropout problem, where are they located, and who attends them? Initial estimates using the Common Core of Data. Paper presented at the 2001 Achieve and the Harvard Civil Rights Project Conference on Dropout Research: Accurate Counts and Positive Interventions. Retrieved July 19, 2002 from http://www.law.harvard.edu/groups/civil rights/publications/dropouts/dropout/balfanz.html
Bustos Flores, B. and Clark, E. R. 2004. The Centurion: Standards and High-Stakes Testing as Gatekeepers for Bilingual Teacher Candidates in the New Century. In A. Valenzuela eds., Leaving Children Behind: How “Texas-Style” Accountability Fails Latino Youth. NY: State University of New York Press.
Hampton, E. (2004). Standardized or Sterilized? Differing Perspectives on the Effects of High Stakes Testing in West Texas. In A. Valenzuela eds., Leaving Children Behind: How “Texas-Style” Accountability Fails Latino Youth. NY: State University of New York Press.
Haney, W. 2004. Analyses of Texas Public School Enrollments and Other Data: Expert Report concerning the case of West Orange-Cove v. Alanis (version 5). Prepared at the request of Randall B. Wood and Doug Ray, Ray, Wood and Bonilla LLP.
McNeil, L. (2004). Faking Equity: High-Stakes Testing and the Education of Latino Youth. In A. Valenzuela eds., Leaving Children Behind: How “Texas-Style” Accountability Fails Latino Youth. NY: State University of New York Press.
McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of Reform: Educational Costs of Standardized Testing. New York: Routledge.

McNeil, L. and A. Valenzuela. (2001). The Harmful Impact of the TAAS System of Testing in Texas: Beneath the Accountability Rhetoric. In M. Kornhaber and G. Orfield, (Eds.) Raising Standards or Raising Barriers? Inequality and High Stakes Testing in Public Education. New York: Century Foundation, 127-150.
Schemo, D. J. (2003, July 11). Questions on data cloud luster of Houston schools. New York Times, p. A1.
Sloan, K. (2004.) Playing to the Logic of the Texas Accountability System: How a Focus on “Ratings”-Not Children-Undermines Quality and Equity. In A. Valenzuela eds., Leaving Children Behind: How “Texas-Style” Accountability Fails Latino Youth. NY: State University of New York Press.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2004, June). Educational Attainment in the United States: 2003.
Valencia, R. R. & Villarreal, B. J. 2004. Texas' Second Wave of High-Stakes Testing: Anti-Social Promotion Legislation, Grade Retention, and Adverse Impact on Minorities. In A. Valenzuela eds., Leaving Children Behind: How “Texas-Style” Accountability Fails Latino Youth. NY: State University of New York Press.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 7:47 AM 2 comments Links to this post

This story by Wesley F. Sander is scary. This low income, rural school in California has among the highest test scores in the state but at a cost.

This piece really makes you ask, What are the aims of education? Surely not this.

-Angela

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 12:04 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Here is a comparison between NCLB and Accountability in Texas that I thought readers might find helpful. I want to thank Monty Neill of FairTest for helping me to construct this. -Angela

o NCLB requires testing in grades 3-8 and again at the exit level (mostly at grade 10 but also at 11th grade [as in Texas]). In terms of school and district reputation as well as the possibility of a change in the school/district governance structure, NCLB makes all schools and districts high stakes in the nation. The latitude exists with high stakes at the student level. (Note: NCLB mandates that science will be added at a later point-once in elementary; once in jr. high.)

o TEXAS Beginning in the 2002-2003 school year, TAKS is administered in grades 3-9.
o TAKS reading, grades 3-9;
o TAKS writing at Grades 4 and 7;
o TAKS English Language Arts at Grades 10 and 11;
o TAKS mathematics at Grades 3-11;
o TAKS science at Grades 5,10, and 11;
o TAKS social studies at Grades 8, 10, and 11.
o Spanish TAKS is administered at Grades 3 through 6 (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/assessment.html)

o NCLB doesn't demand high stakes for the students (i.e., in terms of grade retention/promotion or graduation from HS) but leaves this up to the states to demand this if they so desire. States that do this may have either no stakes attached to social promotion or graduation or they may have them attached to either or both.

o TEXAS attaches high stakes to both social promotion (i.e., retention or promotion) and graduation (see the specifics of the law below in the section titled “Texas Administrative Code.”)

Incidentally, there are about 20 or 21 states like Texas that attach high stakes to graduation. This number will go up by at least two or three more states in the next couple of years to include California, Utah, and Arizona. With California in the mix, this total will result in close to 70% of the country's students being faced with high-stakes assessment. States that do not do this include Midwestern and Rocky Mountain States, as well as smaller or sparsely populated ones.

Re: high stakes attached to promotion/retention, there are 7 (maybe 8 states if you count Wisconsin where it's at district option). These states are Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Delaware, Georgia, North Carolina, and Missouri).

o NCLB allows the high-stakes test (at the school & district level) to be a norm-referenced test (NRT like Stanford or the Iowa Test of Basic Skills) provided that the test adequately covers the state standards and also that levels of achievement are used-i.e., “lacks proficiency,” “proficient,” “advanced.”

o TEXAS the high-stakes test in Texas is NOT a NRT, but criterion referenced test which theoretically means that 1) the items on the test match state standards and 2) that conceivably, every child could pass the test if they've mastered the curriculum. It dicey from here though because inappropriate test use sets in again. Specifically, Texas' criterion reference test is used like an NRT whenever Texas sets a norm, or passing standard or cutoff score (at 70 currently). This is an arbitrary cutoff point that reflects politics more than sound testing. Although all districts in Texas are required by law to administer an NRT (most typically Stanford), the high-stakes are based not on this but on the TAKS test for both state and federal reporting.

o NCLB testing is high stakes for schools & districts in the most general sense of school & district reputation, as well as in the sense of giving students the chances of going to another school of their choice if the school is low performing. This child may transfer IF the school is a public school; IF the school is in the same dist; IF the receiving schools is making “adequate yearly progress” (AYP); and IF there's space in the receiving school. All of this is at district expense with the district covering transportation costs.

This last issue of space for transfers is murky. The law says that if there is an issue of space, low-achieving students get 1st priority followed by their higher-achieving counterparts and so on. (None of this is monitored.) There are various published reports about higher-achieving students from more educated families being the prime beneficiaries, of this law. Anecdotally, there are also reports of schools creaming higher-scoring students. The overwhelming reality of all of this, however, is that not many students transfer schools to begin with.

TEXAS abides by federal law.

o NCLB allows for the use of multiple measures for evaluating students.

o TEXAS does not allow multiple measures at the exit (11th grade) level; it allows multiple measures at the levels affected by social promotion (grades 3, 5, and soon 8), but only after the student has failed the test 3 times (so this means a decision would be rendered mid summer in July but only after the kid has been labeled a failure three times).

Some of you are aware that State Rep. Dora Olivo has tried to change this with bills that say that multiple criteria should kick in after the FIRST failure for students in grades 3, 5, and 8.

o NCLB requires that if a school or district is low performing for four years (I believe), the governance structure of the school or district must change. What happens to the district sounds draconian and is unclear in the law. What will the feds do? Reconstitute school boards and hire CEOs to run districts? I need to inquire further about this aspect. Consequences to schools are more clear. The law gives states the choice to do this in the following ways:

o States may choose one or more options-
o state will replace principal and relevant staff (school reconstitution);
o state will take over and operate the schools;
o state will turn school over to a private management company (like Edison);
o state will turn over to a public charter school; OR
o something else (which could be anything)

o TEXAS law currently lists all of these possibilities EXCEPT turning schools over to a for-profit management firm (like the Edison Project, or some other firm [see “Profiles of For-Profit Education Management,” Sixth Annual Report (2003-2004) by Alex Molnar, Glen Wilson & Daniel Allen at CSHB 2 added this possibility, a necessary move for the privatizers since NCLB didn't mandate this as an option but rather provided it to the states as an option, thus requiring state approval.

Texas Administration Code

§101.7. Testing Requirements for Graduation.
(a) To be eligible to receive a high school diploma, a student must demonstrate satisfactory performance as determined by the State Board of Education (SBOE) on the assessments
required for graduation as specified in the Texas Education Code (TEC), Chapter 39,
Subchapter B.

(1) To fulfill the testing requirements for graduation, a student must be tested by either a
Texas school district, Texas education service center, open-enrollment charter school,
the Texas Education Agency (TEA), or other individual or organization designated by the
commissioner of education.

(2) On the tests required for graduation, a student shall not be required to demonstrate performance at a standard higher than the one in effect when he or she was first eligible to
take the test.

(3) A foreign exchange student who has waived in writing his or her intention to receive a
Texas high school diploma may be excused from the exit level testing requirement as
specified in the TEC, Chapter 39, Subchapter B.

(b) Beginning with the 2003-2004 school year, students who were enrolled in Grade 8 or a
lower grade on January 1, 2001, must fulfill testing requirements for graduation with the
Grade 11 exit level tests, as specified in the TEC, §39.023(c).

(c) A student receiving special education services under the TEC, Chapter 29,
Subchapter A, who successfully completes the requirements of his or her individualized
education program (IEP) shall receive a high school diploma.

(d) According to procedures specified in the applicable test administration materials, an eligible student or out-of-school individual who has not met graduation requirements may retest on a schedule determined by the commissioner of education.

§101.9. Grade Advancement (or Social Promotion) Requirements.
Each school district and charter school shall test eligible students in accordance to the grade advancement requirements as specified in the Texas Education Code (TEC), §28.0211(a).
These requirements pertain to the reading test at Grade 3, beginning in the 2002-2003
school year; the reading and mathematics tests at Grade 5, beginning in the 2004-2005
school year; and the reading and mathematics tests at Grade 8, beginning in the 2007-2008
school year.

(1) The Texas Education Agency (TEA) shall provide three opportunities for the tests
required for grade advancement as specified in the TEC, §28.0211(a). The commissioner
of education shall specify the dates of these administrations in the assessment
calendar.

(2) A school district or charter school shall provide accelerated instruction for students who fail to demonstrate satisfactory performance as specified in the TEC, §28.0211(a).

(3) The commissioner of education shall approve the assessments for local use by school
districts or charter schools as provided under the TEC, §28.0211(b).

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 7:28 PM 1 comments Links to this post

Folks should check out this poll by TIME Magazine titled "U.S. Hispanics: Inside America's Largest Minority." -Angela

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 8:37 AM 0 comments Links to this post

This is an interesting piece. Among other things, it notes that "social and emotional learning programs significantly improve students' academic performance." Not that such programs shouldn't be pursued in their own right, in my view, but rather this is today's formula for any reform with legs, so to speak (not just "touchy-feely" or "soft" but essential in furthering our societal goals). I disagree with them on their only criticism with NCLB is that it's not well funded. In my view, funding well a problematic policy further entrenches and unjustifiably legitimates it. I also have trouble with the idea of adding social and emotional indicators to accountability systems. Illinois seems to think it's worth a try. This sounds jarring to me but without more info, I'll hesitate to judge this more. -Angela

By TIMOTHY P. SHRIVER and ROGER P. WEISSBERG
THE debate over education reform has tended to divide children's learning along two axes, the emotional and the academic. Either we can address children's academic performance, the conventional thinking holds, or we can address their emotional and social needs. Before No Child Left Behind comes up for reauthorization in 2007, we'd like to deliver some important news: The two kinds of learning are intimately connected. That means that promoting students' social and emotional skills plays a critical role in improving their academic performance.

Social and emotional learning is the process through which children learn to recognize and manage emotions. It allows them to understand and interact with others, to make good decisions and to behave ethically and responsibly. The best social and emotional learning programs engage not only children, but also their teachers, administrators and parents in providing children with the information and skills that help them make ethical and sensible decisions - to avoid bullying, for instance, or to resist pressures to engage in destructive or risky behavior, such as substance abuse. When they are well designed and executed, such programs have consistently achieved these goals, turning out students who are good citizens committed to serving their communities and cooperating with others.

Recent studies, however, have revealed something even more exciting about these programs. Along with Joseph Durlak, a Loyola University psychologist, one of us (Roger Weissberg) recently conducted the largest-ever quantitative analysis, encompassing more than 300 research studies on this subject. The results, which will be presented later this week for the first time, show that social and emotional learning programs significantly improve students' academic performance. The review shows, for example, that an average student enrolled in a social and emotional learning program ranks at least 10 percentile points higher on achievement tests than students who do not participate in such programs. Moreover, compared with their counterparts outside of these programs, social and emotional learning students have significantly better attendance records; their classroom behavior is more constructive and less often disruptive; they like school more; and they have better grade point averages. They are also less likely to be suspended or otherwise disciplined.

The numbers vindicate what has long been common sense among many teachers and parents: that children who are given clear behavioral standards and social skills, allowing them to feel safe, valued, confident and challenged, will exhibit better school behavior and learn more to boot.

This simple observation is of monumental importance as we attempt to improve our country's public schools. We don't have to choose between academic achievement and the development of character. Rather, we should concentrate on both. No Child Left Behind has created greater accountability in American education, but it is inadequately financed, it fails to effectively address the needs of special education students, and its assessment standards for all children are far too narrow. A truly effective new law should include benchmarks for social and civic learning.

One state, Illinois, has blazed a path in this regard. There is a social and emotional learning component to the Illinois State Learning Standards, and the state's school districts now incorporate such programs into their curriculums. Federal legislation should follow that lead. The new law should also include provisions for conducting systematic classroom assessments of children's social and emotional growth.

What we now understand about the role of social and emotional learning in academic learning should lead us to dramatic action, but it builds on common wisdom. Good teachers know that they can't sacrifice one part of a child for another. Now they have the figures to prove it. The time has come for policy makers to help restore balance to our nation's classrooms and, in so doing, to help American children achieve their fullest potential.

Timothy P. Shriver is the chairman of the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning and of the Special Olympics. Roger P. Weissberg is a professor of psychology and education at the University of Illinois at Chicago and president of the collaborative.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 7:46 AM 1 comments Links to this post

79th LEGISLATURE: SPECIAL SESSION II
With no House vote on tax plan, Senate can't fully consider changes.
By Jason Embry
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, August 16, 2005

A decision by House leaders Monday not to vote today on a shift in state taxes appeared to dash the last hopes that the Legislature would change the way Texas pays for public schools.

Barring a near-miraculous turn of events, lawmakers will not have time to pass a major overhaul in state education funding before the their special session ends Friday. That means lawmakers, in their third attempt of the year, will fail to lower school property taxes, give all Texas teachers a pay raise and change the way the state doles out money to school districts.

Schools will have enough money to operate as usual this year, but most of the financial and academic reforms that legislative leaders wanted will stay on hold.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said Monday that the House would have to sign off on a tax proposal and send it to the Senate today, and then a Senate committee would have to approve it before midnight for the full Senate to consider it before the session ends. Senate rules require committees to approve legislation at least 72 hours before the end of a session.

But Alexis DeLee, a spokeswoman for House Speaker Tom Craddick, said the House will not vote on any bills today.

Even if the House approves a tax bill later this week, Senate rules require four-fifths of the Senate to vote to forgo normal procedure and vote on it before Friday.

"I would think that getting a four-fifths vote on a tax bill is going to be pretty hard to do," Dewhurst said.

Craddick said more than a week ago that the special session was a waste of time and money because lawmakers could not agree on a school finance solution. One of his House allies then offered one more tax proposal late last week, but Craddick said it would not reach the floor unless it had the votes to pass.

The Senate passed a school finance proposal, but tax plans must start in the House.

"There's nothing more we can do unless the House is able to send us a tax bill and a school finance bill," Dewhurst said.

Gov. Rick Perry, who earlier this year vowed to keep lawmakers in Austin until they approve a school finance plan, declined to say Monday whether he would call lawmakers back for a third special session.

"We'll make that decision at the appropriate time," he said.

The state Supreme Court is reviewing a district judge's ruling that the school finance system is unconstitutional, largely because of a shortage of state funding, and the Legislature might not come back until the high court offers direction.

Some of the sticking points between the House and Senate have been how much money to spend on student laptops versus textbooks, how much tax money the wealthiest school districts in the state should have to share with other schools, and which taxes to raise to replace the dollars that schools would lose from property-tax cuts.

http://www.statesman.com/hp/content/shared/tx/legislature/stories/08/16lege.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 4:57 AM 2 comments Links to this post

This is a very thoughtful piece. It re-frames the so-called "dropout problem" in terms of what we are doing/not doing for teachers. Great job, Rachel! This piece produces an estimate of "teacher attrition costs between $329 million and $2.1 billion a year in recruitment, training, and human resources costs," with nearly half of AISD teachers gone within 5 years. Professionalizing or re-professionalizing teachers is key if we are to raise the status of teaching. This includes higher pay but also the elimination of policies like high-stakes, standardized testing that shrink their capacities to impart their craft in an honorable manner. -Angela

Not students, but teachers – AISD struggles to retain qualified educators
BY RACHEL PROCTOR MAY

AISD teacher Jennifer Graham had been a lawyer, but gave it up when she decided that "some things were more important than money."
photo by John Anderson

Two weeks before the first day of school in the Austin Independent School District, the halls of Akins High School are clean-feeling, almost sterile, yet with an aura of expectation for the new year. Early Tuesday morning, as the marching band practiced maneuvers in tidy rows outside, 350 adults filled a dozen classrooms inside to learn about classroom management, cultural sensitivity, AISD regulations, and other subjects the new crop of AISD middle and high school teachers will need this year.

The new teachers were of all ages and races; they came from all over, for all sorts of reasons. Jennifer Graham, an elegant African-American woman of about 30, had been a lawyer, but gave it up when she decided that "some things were more important than money." Cathy Franke, a red-haired grandmother, had run a family-owned feed store before finally going to college to teach. Donald Peacock, an exuberant North Carolinian, joined because he wanted to coach football – his goal is to have a state championship ring for every finger – but thinks teaching is a fine way to give back to his community. And gray-haired Mike Owen, who spent the last 30 years programming computers, wants to inspire more young people to pursue technology careers.

In describing what brought them to the field, several of the excited new teachers used the word "calling." They described teaching as a lifelong dream, or a way to help make society a better place. By the end of this year, however, one in five of AISD's new teachers will have quit the field. After five years, nearly half will be gone.

AISD's annual turnover rate is 16%, which just about mirrors the state average. This churning has financial implications – various sources estimate that statewide, teacher attrition costs between $329 million and $2.1 billion a year in recruitment, training, and human resources costs. But just as important are its educational implications, especially because the schools with the most turnover are those with high proportions of poor and minority students. AISD's turnover rate at high-needs high schools, for example, is 32%, compared to 12% at low-needs schools. According to Ed Fuller, a professor of educational administration at the University of Texas, this creates a vicious cycle that is hard for schools to escape.

"Very inexperienced teachers are at a high risk for leaving the system, so it becomes a revolving door," he said. "That causes more problems in school, which leads to more turnover."

Teachers come for personal reasons, and they go for personal reasons. The big three, though, are pay, administrative (or administrator) hassles, and classroom management issues. In a 2003 State Board for Educator Certification study of why teachers leave the profession, 61% cited salaries, 32% mentioned poor administrative support, and 24% referred to problems with student discipline. Obviously, the three are related: For example, teachers in low-needs schools are on the same pay scale as those in the more troubled schools, but their lower turnover rate suggests they consider their wages fair compensation for the work they're being expected to do.

This year, AISD's proposed budget includes no raises for teachers. Not a cent. In its defense, the district is covering increases in health and other benefits. Still, that proposal has teachers howling, and the teacher's union accusing AISD of hiding money. The district howls back that most of its new revenue is going straight into the redistributive school finance system that the Lege has sworn to replace as soon as lawmakers figure out how. (No one is exactly holding his breath.)

The hundreds of excited new recruits at Akins show that plenty of people are still willing to brave the administrative slings and budgetary arrows of public schools for the chance to inspire young minds. Even those teachers who are leaving profess deep love for their students and their schools and for the art of teaching itself. Nevertheless, they leave. While proposals abound for little ways to address the problem, from mentoring to retention bonuses, some fear that in the absence of major reform, the age of the career teacher may simply be at an end.

'No One Teaches for the Pay'

This year, Dusty Burcham taught his last math class, a summer workshop designed to prepare students for their Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills tests. This fall would have been his seventh year teaching; instead, he's going into real estate. And, he's well aware that he beat the average. "That five-year mark is really true," he said.

Burcham isn't one of those people who always dreamed of teaching – he simply didn't know what else to do with his math and philosophy degrees – but once he hit the classroom, he fell in love. As the years went by, though, he found that the rewards of teaching came with costs that finally seemed too steep to bear.

For one thing, there's the pay. AISD, like many districts, has addressed the issue of teacher shortage by recruiting new teachers through relatively high starting salaries. A beginning AISD teacher earns about $35,000 – not too shabby, especially if half your friends are still working in coffee shops. But in yet another vicious cycle – the phrase comes up a lot in retention discussions – the front-loading that convinces people to give teaching a try doesn't do much to convince them to stay. As teachers age, they find their salaries simply don't keep up with those of other professions. An AISD teacher with 20 years experience earns only $45,000. The pay scale caps out at $55,000. Those numbers can look particularly paltry to math and science teachers, whose skills often demand far more on the open market. Teachers in those fields are in particularly short supply; those are also the areas where AISD students (like students nationwide) struggle most.

It's a truism that no one gets into teaching for the money. But to Burcham, that's not the real question. Instead, it's how many potentially great teachers aren't teaching because of the money, and what a real change in teacher pay scales would do to the profession. "If you increase the pay, you increase the professionalism of the people you're bringing in," he said. "You could fire bad teachers easier, and actually enforce the kind of accountability they want to impose. Right now you can be almost a scoundrel, a real lazy teacher, and still schools will want to hire you." (Burcham added that bad teachers usually don't last long in a single district, but instead bounce around among districts. And lest it be thought that AISD will hire any old scoundrel off the street, the district did choose its 700 new hires from a pool of nearly 2,000 applicants. The district also has begun searching for new teachers earlier in the spring so as to snatch up the best candidates quickly.)

Burcham isn't thinking of the kind of single-digit pay raises fought about in the AISD board auditorium, but a revolution to move teacher salaries to a scale comparable to other educated professions. The Texas Federation of Teachers has long argued that teaching lags between $10,000 and $15,000 behind comparable professions; Burcham agrees. "If I was getting paid in the 40s or 50s, I wouldn't even think about leaving the profession," he said.

Others argue that once you factor in teachers' shorter work year, their per-day rate is comparable to higher-paid professions. The lifestyle perk of summers off, however, doesn't help when it's time to pay mortgages or children's college tuition. Still, the extent to which pay really matters is an issue of perennial dispute. Emily Smith, who coordinates the teacher mentoring program at Reagan High, says the pay isn't the main reason teachers come or go. "I complain to my friends that they make twice my salary. But my friends say, 'You like your job twice as much,'" she said. Nevertheless, even Smith is moving on to get a Ph.D. in curriculum.

No one teaches for the pay – if you say it enough, it starts to be true, and teaching starts to seem like something you do for a few years as sort of a domestic Peace Corps experience. Julio Thomas, who is leaving AISD after five years, says he never intended to teach forever. "I wanted to teach for five years, give back to the community, save some money, and pay off some debt," he said. The long-term plan was always to go to grad school, which he will do this fall. He thinks he's the norm, not the exception. "Very rarely do I meet a new teacher who intends on doing it their entire life," he said.

Of course, teachers have always jumped from teaching to, say, administration in order to earn more money. And one of the features of the 21st-century job market is that people switch careers more often. Still, Paula Tyler, who began teaching in 1967, believes hers will be "the last generation to stick it out." She sees this as reflecting some positive changes – in her day, teaching was one of the few jobs open to women. But for the most part, she thinks it reflects the fact that teaching has simply become a much harder profession, while the salaries haven't kept up with its increasing requirements.

"Teaching probably compensates as well as it ever has, but the commitment level is now so high that people don't consider it a safety career," she said.

The Vicious Cycle

Teaching is inherently hard. Think about it: You're on your feet performing all day. The harder you make it – through onerous administrative requirements, or through a particularly tough crowd in the audience – the less people are inclined to stay. A recent Texas Federation of Teachers survey found that 45% of teachers were considering quitting. Of those, 58% cited classroom management issues and 34% cited paperwork as influencing their decisions.

After 18 years of teaching, Charlie Gutierrez has just moved into a new position, running the mentor program at Reagan High.
photo by John Anderson

The discipline issue is a favorite of conservatives, who complain that fear of litigation and administrative over-regulation limit teachers' ability to punish problem behavior. "We've almost gotten to the point that for [a] teacher to discipline a child, that teacher has to take an hour from class to fill out the paperwork," said Texas Rep. Carter Casteel, a New Braunfels Republican and former teacher who earned bipartisan praise this session as a champion of public schools.

Chris Patterson, of the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, agrees, but adds that the micromanagement of classroom discipline is part of a larger problem, in which schools are expected to provide a host of social services that, she believes, have little to do with education. "Schools have just grown out of their charge and have taken on a lot of responsibilities other than academic," she said.

Many who aren't particularly conservative would agree that teachers grow weary of being counselors and test administrators and of struggling with classroom discipline. (The AISD task force on teacher retention included the development of better discipline policies on its list of recommendations for improvement.) But while some would argue that school districts should just scale back from all that expensive counseling and social work, some would point out that accountability requirements – which liberals in particular tend to criticize for driving away good teachers – leave schools little choice.

In AISD, 56% of students are poor. Those students simply have more needs for things like counseling or social services, or even basics like food and clothing. When those needs interfere with students' ability to learn, schools have no choice but to try to meet them, or face consequences in the high-stakes accountability system.

That system – the TAKS tests and the complex rigmarole of benchmark testing, data-analyzing, and paperwork that it begets – is a huge source of irritation for many teachers. AISD has chosen to meet the TAKS challenge through standardized curricula called "Instructional Planning Guides" that provide detailed instructions of what is to be taught and when.

There are advantages to standardized curricula. They are a lifeline for students who frequently bounce from school to school to live with different relatives, or as their parents chase jobs or cheap rent. And in a high-turnover environment, carefully planned curricula give struggling new teachers something to work with. But as teachers get the hang of their profession, and have ideas for innovative lessons of their own, the IPGs can become a sore spot.

"At some point you're turning into a robot," Burcham said. "You go to all these planning meetings and you know exactly what you're going to teach. AISD says they want a rich curriculum and don't want to teach to the TAKS, but unfortunately that's exactly what they're doing."

Burcham isn't alone. Thomas agreed that TAKS requirements were a source of frustration, and it's a common complaint of parents as well. And AISD isn't alone – in one New Teacher Academy seminar for teachers joining AISD from other districts, an off-topic discussion of standardized curricula elicited complaints and eye-rolling galore.

Once again, it's a vicious cycle: Because so many teachers are new, AISD feels the need to provide tools and support in the form of detailed curricula and planning meetings. Experienced teachers balk at what they see as micromanagement, and eventually bolt. The revolving school door spins yet again, and AISD has another several hundred openings the following fall.

Easy Come, Easy Go

Julio Thomas distinctly remembers his first day of teaching. He had been certified through the Texas Education Agency's Region 13 alternative program, which bestowed upon him vast stacks of books and binders of theory and lesson ideas. He had two whopping weeks of classroom observation. Then, in August, he faced a room full of second-graders and realized he had no idea what to do.

"My mind went blank," he said. Stage fright wasn't the only problem. Two of his students got into a fight he had to break up, and at lunch he found himself being pummeled by a child who refused to descend from the tree he had climbed. By the end of the day, Thomas was ready to bail.

He stuck it out – Thomas credits the teacher next door with giving him the hand-holding he needed – and he's glad he did. Once he got the hang of it, Thomas found teaching had plenty of rewards, such as when he taught a boy whose mother would leave him alone for weeks at a time how to read. That child, now in middle school, still drops by Thomas' house. Still, while he praises the Region 13 program overall, he thinks beginning teachers really need more in-classroom training than he got – both to prepare them to stick it out, and for the good of their students.

"The first year you're in survival mode," he said. "I know that by my second year I was a much better teacher than in my first year, just from having the experience of being around the kids, and implementing the strategies I learned in school to see what works and what doesn't."

Would-be teachers who didn't study education in college have two basic options for making it a second career. They can re-enroll in a university certification program, or they can enroll in one of the alternative certification programs that now supply about half the teachers in Texas. The different options fit different candidates' varying needs. Mike Owen knew that after a 30-year career with computers, he'd be pretty clueless in front of a classroom. He spent a couple of years in a traditional certification program at Texas State University, which including lengthy observation and student-teaching experiences. On the other hand, Julie Taylor, who has worked as a counselor, a sports teacher, and a church youth group leader, opted for the I Teach Texas all-online certification program, which like most alternative certification programs includes only minimal observation.

Alternative certification programs have been controversial, in part because they provide even less in the way of student teaching than traditional programs – which some say is already not enough. That may be one reason why alternative-certified teachers have a higher attrition rate than teachers who go through traditional programs. After five years, 38% of alternative-certified teachers have quit, compared to 28% of teachers certified through traditional programs and 34% of those certified through post-baccalaureate work. (Another explanation may be that because alternative programs are cheaper, they appeal to candidates who never intend to stick around in the first place.)

Emily Smith at Reagan says certification programs with minimal classroom exposure are definitely not for everyone. "Some of them really struggle," she said. "They've had zero classroom experience, zero teaching experience, and their first day in the classroom is almost the first time they have encountered students."

Still, easy certification has lately been the darling of the right, including a proposal that passed through the State Board of Education last year to allow anyone with a bachelor's degree to teach in their field of expertise. Supporters of such proposals say it's the only way to fix the so-called recruitment problem. When the recruitment problem is really a retention problem, however, finding warm bodies to stand in front of blackboards looks more like a Band-Aid on a symptom, rather than a serious effort to address the cause. Teachers say that expecting anyone to be able to walk in off the street and master pedagogical skills like classroom management is both unrealistic and undermines the professionalism of their craft. It also gets them wondering about motives. Brock Gregg, of the Association of Texas Professional Educators, says that quick 'n' easy certification appeals to those whose priority is keeping public school finance costs down, because high turnover depresses overall payroll costs. "It's cheaper to have baby teachers, and that's why lots of folks want to lower certification standards," he said.

The AISD schools with the highest needs also have the highest proportion of novice teachers. And the discrepancy gets worse as kids progress through the system.
For a larger image click here

Still, alternative certification programs are here to stay. They help AISD fill its hundreds of annual vacancies, often with candidates who bring valuable maturity to their classrooms. AISD human resources director Michael Houser said he was skeptical of the programs at first, but has come to see their advantages. Instead of focusing on where teachers come from, he says, the district's priority is helping those coming from programs with less practical training – not to mention new teachers as a whole – survive long enough to learn how to thrive.

For Love or Money

Charlie Gutierrez thought he was going to be a doctor. After two years in medical school, though, he realized he didn't like hospitals and didn't like being around sick people all the time and dropped out. After "bumming around" for a couple years, he gave teaching a try and found his calling. This year he finished 18 years with AISD, and has just moved into a new position running the mentor program at Reagan High. Sure, all the TAKS prep makes teaching a lot less fun than it used to be, and he has no idea how he'll afford college for his two boys, and his doctor brother just bought an amazing beach house on the Pacific. But it also has its rewards.

"I like being around the kids," he said. "It gives me gray hair, but it keeps me young. I love seeing when kids come back and tell me what they're doing. It really makes me feel I'm doing something worthwhile."

AISD can't double teacher salaries or cut class sizes in half to make classroom management easier. In the short term, as everyone eyes the Lege for a better school finance system, the district's main tool to increase retention is professional development and support for new teachers. Gutierrez's new position at Reagan is part of this effort, as is the New Teacher Academy. As of this year, the district provides all first- and second-year teachers with a mentor, who receives a stipend for helping them out. Reagan's Smith says efforts like mentoring may sound small, but they make a big difference. "New teachers need someone who can be on call to answer their questions, pat them on the back, tell them to come back the next day," she said.

Everyone agrees the district could do more, however. Last year the district formed a task force on teacher recruitment and compensation, which this spring reported its suggestions to the Board of Trustees. Because the issue of turnover is, for all intents and purposes, an issue of turnover in high-needs schools, the committee suggested signing bonuses in the $3,000 to $5,000 range for teachers who teach in high-needs schools for their first three years, and extending those bonuses to $5,000 a year thereafter. It also suggested a variety of nonpay initiatives, such as the attention to discipline policies mentioned above.

The issue of the raise-less budget, however, remains. Education Austin, the teachers union, argues that no matter how tight the money, the district should find money to give teachers at least a cost-of-living pay increase. At the very least, that could keep AISD teachers from moving to better-paying districts. According to the compensation task force, AISD pays better than average when compared to other central Texas districts, but not as well as other Texas cities. Just as important, though, teachers say that even a small raise signals the kind of respect they crave. The AISD Board of Trustees will decide this month whether to tweak the administration's budget proposals to offer a raise. Last year, at the administration's urging, the board approved pulling money out of the AISD savings account to cover a 5% raise. This year, citing its dwindling reserves and uncertain school finance future, the district is discouraging that option.

Instead, AISD administrators point their fingers at the Lege. Republican-led school finance bills did not put significantly more money into schools, and included market-style reforms such as allowing the hiring of administrators with no educational experience, paying teachers for performance (understood to mean their students' performance on standardized tests), and allowing private corporations to take over struggling schools. Those furthest to the right promote private school vouchers as a way to force all schools to improve through competition, which they believe will improve working conditions for all teachers.

Most Democrats and teachers groups, and a significant minority of Republicans, consider such reforms counterproductive. "It often appears that when we start reforming, particularly in education, we start to make people feel small and less professional than someone else," said Rep. Casteel, referring specifically to a proposal to strip the State Board for Educator Certification of its power. "It's important to treat teachers as professionals."

The main focus for Democrats and pro-public-education Republicans is finding ways to put more money in the system. "It's obvious that if teachers had a competitive salary that many of them would be less likely to change professions," said Bob Griggs, R-North Richland Hills, who himself was a teacher before moving into administration because it paid better. Despite competing plans being kicked around during a special legislative session that feels anything but special, most consider school finance reform dead until the Texas Supreme Court weighs in this fall on a lower court ruling in favor of the hundreds of school districts that sued the state for failing to adequately fund schools.

In the meantime, districts will have to make do with the system they have, and all of its contradictions. On the one hand, they have the long-term need to groom an experienced workforce that can inspire kids to learn, one that is highly qualified in both subject matter and teaching methods. But in the short term, money is tight and the kids have to pass the tests. That reality necessitates that more money go toward tutors, curriculum, and continued emphasis on TAKS preparation that helps drive away educators like Burcham, the soon-to-be former AISD math teacher.

Even as he leaves the district, griping about the pay and the paperwork, Burcham says he'll hold fond memories of his classroom and his students and those days when teaching felt like the greatest thing in the world. He might go back some day, he says. However, he hopes that for the good of everyone, society will find ways to address the things that made him turn his back on a profession he loved. "I love teaching," he says. "I don't want to say anything bad about teaching. I just think that from top down, society says it values education but is completely unwilling to put its money where its mouth is."

Copyright © 2005 Austin Chronicle Corporation. All rights reserved.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2005-08-12/pols_feature.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 3:50 PM 5 comments Links to this post

Wow, this commentary on the politics of textbooks in Texas is eye-opening. A need for public control over textbook purchases is demonstrably needed. -Angela

by Cliff Avery, TEXTBOOK COORDINATORS' ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS
Monday, August 15, 2005

In another of the many ironies of the Texas Legislature, it now appears that after years of haggling, the only "reform" that the House could pass was one that purports to fix one of the few parts of school financing that wasn't broken.

And by "fixing" it, they actually broke it.

In all the wrangling over school equity in the courts, textbook funding was never an issue, because Texas had perfected a system that assured that sufficient instructional materials were delivered to all schoolchildren — whether they were in a rich district or a poor one — free of charge.

The state Board of Education oversaw investments of the state's Permanent School Fund, established more than a 150 years ago. The proceeds from those investments were enough to purchase books that were updated on an orderly basis.

As the reforms of the 1980s initiated statewide testing to measure schools' performance, the textbook system was poised to help: the Board of Education could take a statewide approach to make sure the instructional materials stayed up with statewide standards.

The first assault on this proven system came in 2003, when the new leaders in the Legislature raided the textbook fund to pay for other parts of the cash-strapped budget. As a result, more than $300 million in textbook purchases were delayed, starting a domino effect that fell into the lap of this year's Legislature.

Then, as lawmakers fumbled with the court-ordered reform, leaders in the House — particularly Public Education Committee Chairman Kent Grusendorf, R-Arlington — decided to take advantage of the upheaval and dismantle the textbook system.

And when the House couldn't pass any other education reform or any meaningful property tax relief, its leadership tied its distorted vision for instructional materials to the funding for $295 million in books ordered by the Board of Education three years ago. The result is Grusendorf's House Bill 62, which, in a matter of hours this week, sailed through a hastily called rump committee meeting and a voice vote on the House floor.

Once again, it's a raid on the textbook fund, this time by big computer-makers who want to sell computers to schools.

HB 62 was based on a report from a blue-ribbon task force of computer manufacturers that Grusendorf convened . An Apple Computer executive wrote the report, and a host of the corporate giants signed an appeal to lawmakers — which Grusendorf endorsed — in support of HB62.

Among the bill's many problems:

•It dilutes statewide oversight of the textbook selection process. Publishers, not the state Board of Education or the Texas Education Agency, would be responsible for saying their works comply with state requirements, and the TEA would get only a few months to analyze the product.

•It diminishes educators' control. Instructional material contracts would be transferred to the state's Information-Technology arm, the Department of Information Resources, which may not have the same fire in its belly to get textbooks into classrooms as the Texas Education Agency.

•It disconnects the textbook selection from the budget process. Even though the Board of Education is required to approve books more quickly, there is no guarantee that money will be there to purchase the approved books.

•It's premature. The Texas Education Agency has been conducting a pilot program to study total immersion of campuses into electronic learning, but that report won't be delivered to the Legislature until 2007.

•It invites the very inequity that landed the state in the courts in the first place. With little guidance on how to spend the textbook-turned-technology money, some school districts might buy math books, others might buy PlayStations.

•It is unnecessary. The bill's most urgent portion — allowing school districts to order delayed textbooks — is being accomplished through the governor's executive order and a budget execution to be performed after the last gasp of the special session.

With sober reflection and a steady commitment to funding new technologies in the context of meaningful education reform, the Legislature could, someday, pass good laws to bring Texas instructional materials into the 21st century.

Unfortunately, the Texas House, bleary-eyed after months of failed leadership, chose instead to pass House Bill 62. Hopefully, the Senate won't repeat the mistake.

Avery is executive director of the Textbook Coordinators' Association of Texas.

Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/08/15textbooks_edit.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 3:44 PM 1 comments Links to this post

State GOP in a rut over schools; pundits blame no-new-taxes pledge

09:41 PM CDT on Saturday, August 13, 2005

By CHRISTY HOPPE / The Dallas Morning News


AUSTIN – For three years, the pledge to lower property taxes and fix schools has splintered the Legislature, shredded its leaders and, for the $5 million cost of three special sessions, produced exactly nothing for taxpayers or schoolchildren.

But it has prompted state leaders to produce competing radio ads, denunciations of one another and enough posturing to turn a schoolyard squabble into a statewide embarrassment for Republicans – and that assessment comes from GOP stalwarts.

In its biggest test of governing since winning all state offices in 2002, the GOP has been spinning its wheels and testing the patience of voters.

Former state GOP Chairman Fred Meyer, who spent decades building the party to its present dominance, called the situation "ridiculous."

"I'm sure not a happy camper that we have been unable to pass meaningful, constructive education legislation. ... I'm embarrassed about it," Mr. Meyer said. "I don't think it bodes well for our political future."

Said Republican consultant Bill Miller: "It's a car stuck on high center, and it's in gear and the wheels are going, but there is no traction. You wonder what the driver's thinking. Either stop the car or move it so you can get somewhere."

Legislators will take one last long shot this week, but after that, they're likely to wait until the Texas Supreme Court forces them to change the school funding system. And until then, Republican lawmakers will be back in their districts, awaiting political fallout as well.


Read their lips



Many pollsters, politicians, consultants and civic leaders say that one central issue has caused the quagmire: the Republican no-new-taxes pledge. Funding schools, always a difficult task, and even the politically desirable effort to slash property taxes have been rendered all but impossible.

Dallas lawyer Michael Boone, an adviser to Republican leaders on school finance for 14 years, said that his party's leaders boxed themselves into a corner.
Also Online

Excuses don't fly with constituents

More School Finance


"The biggest problem was the governor said he would veto anything that raised taxes," Mr. Boone said.

"You cannot eliminate Robin Hood, keep equity, reduce property taxes substantially and adequately fund the schools back to the level where they need to be, and say there will be zero – neutral taxes – at the end. That's the fundamental problem," he said.

Thirty-five House members, including Speaker Tom Craddick, and four senators, all Republican, have signed a no-new-taxes pledge advanced by national anti-tax guru Grover Norquist. The governor has visited with Mr. Norquist on numerous occasions, even taking him on a retreat to the Bahamas.

Mr. Perry said there is a way to reduce property taxes and put new money into schools without raising the overall tax burden. The plan, which would increase sales taxes, would put $2.25 billion more into schools and $7 billion into property tax reduction. School officials have complained that the money they get is barely enough to cover inflation.

"If the critics say that's not enough money, I can't address that in an appropriate fashion," Mr. Perry told The Dallas Morning News in an interview Friday. "Those who say, 'We have to have $8 billion new dollars into the system before we're satisfied,' well, I can't make them satisfied."

Mr. Craddick and others have noted that when Democrats ran the state, they, too, needed a push from judges before changing school funding. Mr. Boone said Democrats deserve some of the blame for the current mess for refusing to adequately fund education when they were in charge of the Legislature, causing the costs to continually be shoved onto property owners. But now, he said, the bills are due.

"You've got to pay the piper," he said. "It's got to begin and end with leadership. Our schools are dying. It's a fact. They're suffocating them to death."


'Norquist-ed'



Republican chiefs will not tackle the antiquated state tax system because it would require a new, broad-based business tax, which Mr. Boone favors, or an income tax, which he knows is political kryptonite.

"They cannot lead and cannot be led. They've all been Norquist-ed," Mr. Boone said.

University of Texas political science professor Bruce Buchanan said the first session of all-Republican rule in 2003 was easier because lawmakers dealt primarily with ideological issues – redistricting, abortion restrictions and lawsuit limits.

"Nobody had to sacrifice anything, pay anything or raise any taxes," he said

If anything, Republicans relished a chance to demonstrate fiscal toughness by closing a $10 billion budget shortfall without new taxes. But the no-new-tax doctrine is in conflict with improving schools, limiting the share-the-wealth education funding system, cutting property taxes and paying for more accountability in education, Dr. Buchanan said.

"They're up against a painful reality here, and that is that you can't have a decent – let alone quality – education system without paying for it," he said.

But any political damage could be slight. PTAs, parents and primary opponents are gaining steam, which has to worry sitting legislators. But top GOP leaders show little concern because, Dr. Buchanan said, "even if they get different Republicans in, they're still Republicans, and the party is in pretty good shape regardless of what they do."

With November general elections more than a year away, and with the Texas Supreme Court expected to rule on the adequacy of state spending for schools in the next few months, legislators will have ample time to rise to the occasion. Voters mostly will have forgotten the flailing of the recent sessions, said Mike Baselice, a Republican pollster whose clients include Mr. Perry.

For the March primaries, Mr. Baselice said, he expects that incumbents will stress what they have attempted to accomplish.

"None of this is lost or wasted. It's all valuable in that it helps us turn and look under every stone for the nugget we're looking for," he said.

He said the governor's leadership has been unfairly challenged.

"He should be given credit for bringing the chambers back on several occasions," Mr. Baselice said, referring to the three special sessions Mr. Perry has ordered on school finance. "Not getting something done shouldn't be looked at as a failure. It should be looked upon as, we tried to improve the system, and we're still working on it. It's not done."

But the conspicuous failures, said Democratic pollster Jeff Montgomery, have given Republican challenger Carole Keeton Strayhorn something to talk about in the governor's race.

"It's clear to me that this is Perry's race to lose," Mr. Montgomery said. "But he's allowing her a little crack in the door to walk through."

It's given the Democrats something to bandy about, too.

"Rick Perry is an inspiring leader," said former U.S. Rep. Chris Bell in announcing his political intentions. "In fact, he's inspired me to run for governor."

E-mail choppe@dallasnews.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/legislature/stories/081405dntexquag.2e6bcf1.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 9:50 PM 5 comments Links to this post

79th LEGISLATURE: SPECIAL SESSION II
Craddick radio spots attack Senate school finance plan

House speaker's direct message to Texans displeases lieutenant governor.
By Jason Embry
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Friday, August 12, 2005

House Speaker Tom Craddick is running radio advertisements across Texas attacking the Senate's position on school finance reform, an unusual move for a man who says he considers himself a representative of his Midland-based district and not a statewide officeholder.

The ads were unveiled Thursday as one part of the school finance logjam finally appeared to shift: Textbook publishers agreed to begin shipping overdue books to Texas classrooms as soon as school districts start putting in their orders.

"We will ship these textbooks based on public assurances by the governor, lieutenant governor and the speaker that the textbooks will be funded by the state," said Collin Earnst, a spokesman for Houghton Mifflin.

State leaders have said they will find a way to pay for the books, even if they have to go outside the normal legislative process.

The lack of progress on the larger pieces of the school finance puzzle, however, was illustrated by Craddick's radio spot.

A spokesman for Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, the head of the Senate and Craddick's fellow Republican, called the commercial misleading.

The two leaders have traded barbs throughout the Legislature's eight-month debate over changing the way the state pays for public schools. And if their chambers do not agree in the next week on major school and tax proposals, the third legislative session of 2005 will end without changes to the school finance system.

The Craddick ad criticizes the school plan that the Senate approved earlier this week because it does not include measures important to some House Republicans, such as a cap on the percentage of property-tax dollars that an extremely wealthy school district must share with the rest of the state.

"I don't believe the House should be a party to passing legislation that doesn't contain proper education reforms," Craddick says in his ad.

Last week, Craddick called the current session a waste of time and money because lawmakers would not be able to agree on school and tax proposals.

As the Legislature struggles, the Texas Supreme Court is reviewing a ruling that the current funding system is unconstitutional.

"In the event that the Texas Supreme Court issues an opinion requiring some action, the Legislature will make the necessary adjustments," Craddick says. "However, we will not continue to put more money into a system without the reforms to fix it."

Craddick spokeswoman Alexis DeLee said the speaker decided to run the spots, paid for with his campaign funds, because people throughout Texas have expressed confusion about the status of the school finance debate.

Gov. Rick Perry has run ads this summer urging Texans to press lawmakers to come up with a new plan and has suggested that lawmakers could face problems in next year's elections if they don't reduce property taxes.

Dewhurst spokesman Mark Miner defended the Senate proposal, saying it contains reforms and additional school spending tied to account- ability.

"Speaker Craddick's time and energy would be better spent on solving the state's educational needs than on unprecedented and misleading advertisements," Miner said.

Also Thursday, Craddick sent a House committee a new plan to trade lower property taxes for higher sales and business taxes. He described it as similar to a plan pushed by Perry, as well as a plan that was soundly defeated on the House floor last month.

Craddick said he was unsure whether he could gather enough support for the plan to bring it up for a vote.


Additional material from The Associated Press.

Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/hp/content/shared/tx/legislature/stories/08/
12craddick.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:48 AM 2 comments Links to this post

EDITORIAL BOARD / Austin Am-Statesman
Thursday, August 11, 2005

One of the more hypocritical promises tossed out by many legislative political candidates and state lawmakers is one to run state government more like a business. The idea is that if we'll just elect people with good "bidness" sense, we'll get straightforward, efficient financial administration of state government. No waste, no games.

Baloney.

Just take a look at the current Legislature. During its regular session this spring, it approved and the governor signed a $139 billion state budget for the next two years. It's balanced, but lawmakers get no credit for that — the state Constitution requires it.

But to balance the budget, lawmakers had to resort to some accounting footwork in which they continue to take in various taxes or fees earmarked for certain ends — better 911 service, trauma hospital support to name two — but not actually spend the money. Instead, the money is left idling in a bank account. Why? To offset over-spending elsewhere in the budget. Why? So the budget will balance.

In fact, the 911 service fee paid on all telephone bills will collect $96 million over the next two years that could be spent on emergency services, but the Legislature appropriated only $87 million of it. According to the state comptroller, there's already $75 million in the fund from the 911 fees that hasn't been spent.

A similar situation is developing with a new fee assessed against traffic violators; that money is supposed to be used for hospital emergency rooms, and it could bring up to $77 million over the next two years — but only $62 million was appropriated. The "shortage" could cost Austin's Brackenridge Hospital, the principal trauma hospital for Central Texas, as much as $2.5 million.

State Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, a stout fiscal conservative and a businessman. He said this budget trickery was necessary for the state to generate enough money to meet its share of growing Medicaid costs and still balance the budget.

His explanation exposes the real problem: The state's tax and fee structure is out of whack with economic and budget reality and overdue for a major overhaul. Ogden knows it, and he has favored an expansion of the state's business taxes.

But few state leaders, including Gov. Rick Perry, are willing to offend established business interests or to slice into the biggest baloney of all, their assurance that the state can meet all its essential needs without raising any taxes.

Meanwhile, if you find yourself waiting for help in an overcrowded emergency room or having a problem getting a 911 call through, snack on some legislative budget baloney.

Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/08/11cookedbooks_edit.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 2:07 PM 0 comments Links to this post

EDITORIAL

A leader's take on Texas' big test
EDITORIAL BOARD / Austin Am Statesman
Thursday, August 11, 2005

When schools and districts received their report cards from the Texas Education Agency last week, fewer earned the state's top marks — exemplary and recognized — and considerably more earned the lowest grades — acceptable and unacceptable.

Those ratings were based largely on how well Texas students in grades 3 to 11 performed on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. This is the second report in an occasional series in which we ask Texans about their opinions regarding the state's high-stakes testing program. This time, we talk to Texas Education Commissioner Shirley Neeley.

You get the feeling that Neeley is about to turn cartwheels when she starts talking about the TAKS. Her enthusiasm comes from the significant academic progress that Texas public schools have shown since the state began its high-stakes testing program more than a decade ago. There's no argument there.

Under the testing system, children in South Texas barrios must meet the same passing standards on the TAKS as students in Eanes' upscale neighborhoods. Kids in sparsely populated rural West Texas school districts are learning and being tested on the same academic skills as those who live in Austin or Round Rock.

"Regardless of what your stand is on high-stakes testing, whether you are for it or against it, the one positive outcome I believe all people can agree on is that we have done a better job closing the achievement gap for all children," Neeley said.

Texas still might be in the dark ages — when football ruled — if schools weren't required to test all children in grades 3 through 11, including those who don't speak English, come from poor families or who are in special education. But the testing system goes further, requiring schools to look at student performance as a group and by individual subgroups. So if students as a whole meet passing standards, but any subgroup within that total does not, then the entire school flunks. That means a school is graded on the performance of individual student groups — such as African American, Hispanic, Anglo, special education and economically disadvantaged students — as well as the whole. No more cloaking.

That kind of accountability has made schools pay attention to the performance of their weaker students, and that's a plus.

Neeley points out that the TAKS is more rigorous than its predecessor, the TAAS (Texas Assessment of Academic Skills). TAKS includes math, social studies, reading, writing, language arts and science. Students in grades 3 through 11 are required to take exams, which are given in English and Spanish. We're all for measuring performance, tracking progress and raising the academic bar.

But the TAKS is not without critics, including teachers and parents. Where we disagree with Neeley is the way in which the TAKS is being used in some grades. Third- and fifth-graders who flunk it can't be promoted unless a special committee waives the requirement. That means a single test carries more weight in determining a student's academic progress than a student's grades or his or her teacher.

All of those factors should count, and no single test should be cause for retention.

We're also concerned that the state is not providing public schools enough money to meet tougher academic standards on the TAKS.

To those who criticize Texas schools for putting too much emphasis on testing, Neeley gives this answer:

"When students aren't doing well, it shows up on (the TAKS). It gives us time to reteach, have tutorials and remediate, because our goal is for all our children to graduate on time with their peers ready to enter higher education either through a community college or four-year college or university or a technical institute or the military. It's our goal to make sure all Texas high school graduates will be ready."

Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/08/11taks_edit.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 2:04 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Ok, so now this goes to the House. -Angela
79th LEGISLATURE: SPECIAL SESSION II

But spending proposal remains a long shot.
By Jason Embry
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Wednesday, August 10, 2005

The Senate kept the special legislative session alive Tuesday by approving a $2.8 billion school finance plan.

Senators also approved a plan late Tuesday that would allow voters to change the Texas Constitution to reduce school property taxes.

The odds remain stacked against the school spending proposal's winning final passage because it has been coolly received by House Speaker Tom Craddick. But Tuesday's votes, if nothing else, will allow senators and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst to say on the campaign trail that they did their part by sending plans for school finance reform to the House, which has struggled to approve school and tax measures.

The Senate vote on the school plan also prolonged a session that has teetered on the brink of collapse for two weeks.

The plan would boost teacher pay, toughen penalties for low-performing schools and require that the school year start after Labor Day. It does not include some controversial reforms preferred by House leaders, such as a limit on the percentage of local tax dollars that property wealthy school districts must share with property poor districts.

Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, described her plan as "an honest and a good attempt at what we consider to be reasonable and meaningful education reform and property tax reduction."

But it also has been widely criticized by school officials who say it provides too little money to keep up with the state's changing population while meeting growing demands from the state and federal governments.

The Senate tax proposal, which would require approval by voters, would put language in the Constitution capping the maximum tax rate for school operations at $1.25 per $100 of assessed value, down from the current $1.50. The tax cut would not take effect for two years, forcing the 2007 Legislature to raise other taxes to replace the reduced property tax revenue.

Also Tuesday, the House tentatively passed a plan to spend $291 million this year to pay for textbooks in foreign languages, health and fine arts. The new books, which have been ordered and are sitting in warehouses unused, would replace books that could be as much as 14 years old.

There is an apparent consensus that the Legislature needs to pay for the textbooks that have been held up, but state leaders have different ideas about how to do that. The Senate included money for the textbooks in the larger school finance plan that it passed Tuesday.

The House measure would allocate $35 million in federal money to expand a pilot program that brings technology such as laptop computers and educational software into the classroom.

"It is 2005, a full two sessions later, six special sessions later and we're talking about things we should have paid for (two) years ago," said Rep. Jim Dunnam, D-Waco.

"That's the best we can do? No wonder the people of Texas are saying the Legislature is a disgrace and not able to solve this problem."

Also Tuesday, Gov. Rick Perry approved more than $30 billion in education spending, replacing the Texas Education Agency budget that he vetoed when he called the first special session on school finance in June. His move guarantees that public schools can open this month.

He also added for consideration in the session a measure to limit government's ability to seize property for private development. The session will end next week. The Senate approved the measure, which has yet to be considered by the House.

Additional material from The Associated Press

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/shared/tx/legislature/stories/08/10lege.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 8:14 AM 0 comments Links to this post

From Texas LULAC. Also, see related story in today's Austin Am-Statesman titled, Senate Drives Education Plan Forward-Angela

Senate MAY BE MOVING AHEAD with Senate Bill 8 - Contact your Senator and urge "NO" vote on SB 8!

The Senate will convene this afternoon. In a press conference this afternoon, the Lt. Governor announced that he will seek the two-thirds vote to suspend the rules and hear SB 8, the latest Senate version of the school reform bill, tomorrow – Tuesday, August 9,2005.

If the Senate takes up SB 8 tomorrow, two-thirds of the members will be needed to suspend the necessary rules for the Senate to debate and pass the bill over to the House. Therefore, it is important that you call your State Senator now.

The price of passing the legislation outweighs the benefits. NO BILL IS STILL BETTER THAN A BAD BILL. Contact your Senator and express your opposition/concern about SB 8 and urge them to vote “NO” on any motion to suspend the rules to debate the bill on the floor.

SB 8 certainly is a better bill than SB 2 and HB 2 however, in addition to inadequate funding, we are concerned about an amendment added to the bill. An amendment by Senator Ogden was quickly and quietly added after public testimony closed last week. There was no opportunity to offer concerns about the amendment, and it has major consequences for funding equity. One observer, a former legislator, described the amendment as “potentially the most destructive re-write of school funding to be voted out of a legislative committee in thirty years.”

The amendment permits the school finance equity to vary from the 96th percentile standard that the bill supposedly guarantees. The bill will give three senators and three representatives (a majority of each session’s appropriations conference committee) the ability to re-write or individually fund, or not fund, several of the key school funding provisions. By careful manipulation, they could reward their own districts or punish the districts of other members. They could do this by using formulas that are intended to reflect cost differences that districts must pay or that partially equalize the ability of school districts to fund their programs. The only defense for changes like this would be to vote down an entire general appropriations bill, an action many legislators would be reluctant to take.

Based on the Ogden amendment alone, SB 8 has now become a real danger to the future of Texas public schools. Even if the Ogden amendment is removed on the Senate floor, the likelihood of it staying out of the bill is uncertain.

Thus, the threat remains the same:
A. The Senate passes SB 8 today and SB 8 moves and is eventually passed by the full House... the House sends back SB 8 and it's like HB 2 - a bad bill - that will only need a motion to concur or agree to the House amendments by Senator Shapiro, SB8's author and the Senate passes SB 8 by only a majority vote.
B. In the alternative, the House makes no changes to SB 8 and SB 8 - a bad bill - is sent to the Governor.

Following are the negative provisions that we understand are in this 438 page bill:
Among SB 8’s:
• Mandates that 65 percent of a district’s budget must be spent on direct instructional activity.
• Substantially complicates the accountability system.
• Provides only $0.02 local capacity for M&O local enrichment tax increases by the board without voter approval and requires voter approval for each additional increase for up to $0.15 which can be accessed at a rate of $0.05 per biennium upon approval by a majority vote.
• Includes wholesale private management company takeover of low performing public schools with little time allowed for the public schools to adequately address underlying factors resulting in performance problems.

Ogden Amendment:
Under the Ogden amendment, SB8 would abandon the statutory protections that guaranty a level of equity within our current system.

OGDEN'S AMENDMENT:
1. Gives three senators and three representatives (a majority of each session’s appropriations conference committee), the ability to re-write or individually fund, or not fund, several of the key school funding provisions.
2. By careful manipulation, this group could: Reward their own districts or punish the districts of other members... by using formulas that are intended to reflect cost differences that districts must pay or that partially equalize the ability of school districts to fund their programs.
3. One likely defense for future legislators would be to vote down the entire general appropriations bill.
4. Since appropriation bills invariably pass at the last moment, such a move would force a special session. And voting no on the appropriations bill would face loud objection from supporters of all of the other worthwhile programs the state budget bill must fund.
5. For school finance, the various formulas that recognize student and district cost differences and that equalize the ability of districts to raise funds produce a single sum that is the total cost of the education program.
6. Since you cannot bind future legislatures, a given legislature may under-fund that amount.
7. If they do so, however, the CURRENT law also provides that funding for all districts will be reduced equitably, so that it would cost each taxpayer in each district the same rate increase to replace those funds if they chose.
8. Furthermore, the law requires that the reduced funds be made up to the districts at the start of the next fiscal year. In essence, full formula funding is guaranteed, but a part of it can be temporarily transformed into a no-interest loan to the state.

Ogden's amendment language makes SB 8 a radical change from the current system and represents a giant step backwards in assuring necessary support for our public schools.

Among SB 8’s Provisions that are supported:
• Increases funding for the New Instructional Facilities Allotment (NIFA) and specifically targets fast-growth districts.
• Funding for Proclamation 2002 textbooks.
• Provides state funding for any student who chooses to take college entrance exams such as the ACT or SAT.
• Institutes an end-of-course exam pilot for Algebra I and requires a study of the end-of-course exam issue over the next year.
• Guarantees a high yield in the local enrichment tier -- starting at or above the 90th percentile in 06-07, and increasing each biennium.

ACTION NEEDED: Contact your State Senator and ask them to vote no on suspension of the rules to hear SB 8. If you have concerns, it is important to express them immediately to your Senator. Please don’t wait.
1. If you DON'T KNOW who represents you in the Senate, look it up in the online at Texas Legislative Directory

2. If YOU KNOW who represents you in the Senate, take a moment to find their office phone numbers.
3. For Senators click on Senator's name in the Senate Members 79th Legislature homepage

Please call the Capitol office of your Senator, not the district office(s).

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:01 AM 0 comments Links to this post

What a disaster these past 3 legislative sessions have been. The title speaks for itself. -Angela

79TH LEGISLATURE: SPECIAL SESSION II

Lawmakers' deadlock means some students may wait weeks for texts.
By Bob Banta
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Monday, August 08, 2005

With the start of school about a week away, some Central Texas teachers are scrambling for instructional materials because of legislative delays in paying for $295 million worth of updated textbooks for Texas schoolchildren.

"We want textbooks fully funded, so we can place them in your students' hands when they walk through the door on the first day of class," said Bill Britcher, a spokesman for the Leander school district.

But for thousands of Central Texas students, that won't happen. The situation is a byproduct of two legislative special sessions that have failed to produce a successful plan for school finance. The delayed texts cover foreign language, physical education, health, fine arts and other subjects.

Officials in several districts said they would use older texts until the new ones arrive.

Even if Texas lawmakers, who spent all summer bogged down in negotiations over school funding, cast a last-minute vote to pay for the books, some texts will not be delivered until weeks after doors open. Classes start Aug. 16 in the Austin school district and many others, including Round Rock and Leander.

Officials in many area districts, including Austin, Eanes, Round Rock, Lago Vista, Georgetown, Hays and Leander, said they are expecting a lag in receiving some textbooks.

"If everything goes splendidly, there could be a three-week delay, and that's being optimistic," said Mark Rogers, who oversees the distribution of about $30 million worth of textbooks for Austin schools. In almost all of Texas' 1,034 school districts, most of the money for books is provided by the state. The legislative logjam has resulted in the postponement of a vote on a measure that would pay for new books.

"We have some (textbooks) that we're ready to order, but we can't until the state tells us what they're going to provide for textbook money," Eanes spokeswoman Dale Whitaker said.

Dottie Hall, textbook coordinator for the Round Rock district, said some books might not be available until late September or early October.

At least 1,000 students in Round Rock's four high schools will be affected by the shortages, she said.

Hall handles the distribution of about $13 million worth of textbooks in the Round Rock district.

Hall said the delays will produce less than ideal learning situations in some classes. Health textbooks, for instance, are more than a decade old and are outdated, given recent concerns such as childhood obesity.

"We haven't gotten updated books on business and computers," she said. "You can easily understand how important it is for our kids to have the very latest information on a rapidly changing field like that." Teachers, however, will deal with the shortages, said Nelson Coulter, principal of McNeil High School in the Round Rock district.

"Courses like health are taught in units," Coulter said. "Teachers in fields that are studied in units or modules of information can generate lesson plans that are not textbook dependent."

Betty Harrison, executive director of secondary curriculum for the Hays school district, agreed.

"We ended school last May with the hope that we would have the new books, but we also realized we might not," Harrison said. "So our teachers are prepared to deal with it."

But some courses, such as foreign language, will pose problems, Coulter said.

"These are sequential in nature, which means you have to master one step before you can proceed to another," he said. "These courses depend upon textbooks to create that sequential structure."

Leander's Britcher said processing the new texts when they arrive will also pose a problem for districts. Typically, college and high school students process new books, and they probably will not be available after school starts, he said.

"We will probably have to take full-time district employees off the job to work on them," Britcher said. "That means more overtime."

And then there's the frustration.

"Parents want their children to have the latest textbooks now," Britcher said. "Teachers and principals are going to spend the next few weeks explaining why they don't."

bbanta@statesman.com; 246-0005

Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/shared/tx/legislature/stories/08/8textbooks.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:29 PM 0 comments Links to this post

The Texas Education Agency Division of Accountability Research is
pleased to announce the publication of a new report, Secondary School
Completion and Dropouts in Texas Public Schools, 2003-04 (Publication
No. GE05 601 07). Published on an annual basis, the report presents
state summaries of the annual dropout rate, longitudinal secondary
school completion rates, and state attrition rates. Completion rates
have been used for Texas public school accountability since 2004.
Secondary school completion and dropout data at the county, district,
and campus levels are presented in three supplements to the report:
Secondary School Completion and Dropouts in Texas Public Schools,
2003-04: County Supplement (Publication No. GE05 601 08); Secondary
School Completion and Dropouts in Texas Public Schools, 2003-04:
District and Campus Supplement (Publication No. GE05 601 09); and
Secondary School Completion and Dropouts in Texas Public Schools,
2003-04: District Supplement (Publication No. GE05 601 10).

The report and supplements are available electronically on the agency's
website at Secondary School
Completion and Dropouts in Texas Public Schools, 2003-04. Additional information
about the reports may be obtained by contacting the Division of
Accountability Research at (512) 475-3523.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 9:25 PM 1 comments Links to this post

Since this is a high-profile commentary on our schools/colleges of education, this rather unflattering portrayal merits a response from those of us who teach in such schools to the NYTimes.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/education/edlife/hartocollis31.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=b4d362e2c71864d2&ex=1123646400

July 31, 2005

Who Needs Education Schools?
BY ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS

"With the ambition of producing educators rather than technicians, in the words of Hunter's acting dean, Shirley Cohen, schools have embraced a theoretical approach. But critics say that ill prepares teachers to function effectively in the classroom."

This is a long piece so I won't reproduce it all here.

-Angela

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 9:17 PM 2 comments Links to this post

This is a post on the characteristics of teachers. Among other things, it notes the following: "84 percent of all teachers are white, 8 percent black, 6 percent Hispanic and 1.6 percent Asian. At the same time, 40 percent of public school students are minorities." -Angela



July 31, 2005

Those Who Can, and Can't
BY CECILIA CAPUZZI SIMON

IN the last five years, 500,000 new teachers have taken jobs in the nation's elementary and secondary school classrooms. In the next five, a half million more will be needed as the student population swells and aging boomers accelerate their march to retirement. In some ways - by gender, race, idealism - today's new teachers resemble their graying counterparts. In others, they are quite different.

NEW TEACHERS ARE ...

FEMALE Teachers are still primarily women - 75 percent in all. But many talented women now look elsewhere for careers. A new study by the University of Maryland shows that the likelihood that a high-performing female student will become a teacher fell to 11 percent in 2000 from 21 percent in 1964. Today's women and minorities have career options that pay better (average public school salary: $46,752), treat them better and are held in higher social esteem. In 1968, 26 percent of college freshmen indicated an intention to go into teaching. Today, that number is 10 percent.

WHITE Despite a slight uptick, the number of minority teachers is still disproportionately low: 84 percent of all teachers are white, 8 percent black, 6 percent Hispanic and 1.6 percent Asian. At the same time, 40 percent of public school students are minorities.

ALTRUISTIC Like the retiring population, which was trained during the civil rights and Vietnam War years, teachers with five years' experience or less are motivated by a desire to make a difference in society and to influence children positively, according to a 2000 survey by Public Agenda. Only one in 10 fell into teaching by chance; 96 percent say teaching is something they love to do.

NOT STICKING WITH THE JOB Fourteen percent of teachers leave the profession in their first year and 46 percent by the fifth year, a 2003 study by the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future found.

The problem is partly generational, says Kate Walsh, president of the National Council on Teacher Quality: "Twenty-somethings are not staying in any profession." But also, new teachers often find themselves in the most demanding work environments, ones that teachers with more seniority leave. Unprepared and unrewarded, even highly motivated teachers look elsewhere, says Caroline Hoxby, a professor of economics at Harvard.

BELOW-AVERAGE STUDENTS Teaching attracts a "disproportionately high number of candidates from the lower end of the distribution of academic ability," says a report last year from the National Council on Teacher Quality. In 2004, the average combined SAT score for college-bound seniors was 1,026; the average for those who intended to major in education was 965. (Only home economics, public affairs and technical and vocational scores were lower.)

That measure is controversial: Jane Leibbrand of the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education says it does not take into account students who want to teach secondary education but who major in an academic subject. Those students have among the highest SAT scores. While college-bound seniors going into elementary education - more than half the teaching force - typically come from the bottom quartile of their class and have the lowest scores, those who intend to teach and major in language or literature, for example, had an average score of 1,150 last year. And those who have passed licensing tests like the Praxis II, used in 80 percent of states to measure knowledge of the subject area they intend to teach, also scored higher on the SAT - 1,029 in 1997.

CAREER CHANGERS Post-baccalaureate and midcareer changers are teaching's biggest trend. Some 200,000 of these teachers have entered the profession since 1985 - about 70,000 of them in the last two years, according to the National Center for Education Information. Their number is expected to grow, especially to fill shortages in math, science, foreign language and special education. Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia have created 122 alternative routes to teacher certification in recent years.

With an average age of 35 and seven to eight years' experience in another profession, this new breed brings marketplace attitudes to teaching and presents a challenge to the status quo, says Susan Moore Johnson, a professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education. Their expectations include a collaborative approach to change, differentiated workplace roles (classroom teacher, curriculum development, outreach duties) and performance-based pay. "Schools are not organized for this type of individual or for the things they are seeking," Ms. Johnson says.

C. Emily Feistritzer, president of the National Center for Education Information, calls the shift to an older teaching population historic - and an antidote to teaching's "youth problem." "These teachers are mature, see the value of education, intend to stay longer in the job and think all kids can learn," she says.

Cecilia Capuzzi Simon is a former managing editor of Teacher Magazine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/education/simons31.html?ex=1123646400&en=
6b82422211b87cbd&ei=5070

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 8:41 PM 1 comments Links to this post

By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY
The U.S. Department of Education's internal watchdog has opened a preliminary investigation into possible mismanagement of President Bush's $1 billion reading program amid complaints of conflict of interest.

Education Department officials would not confirm that the department's inspector general is investigating Reading First, but a spokesman for Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., confirmed that an audit was taking place.

Lugar, a Reading First supporter, wrote to Education Secretary Margaret Spellings in June with "considerable concern" about the program, which a few opponents say pressures schools to adopt unproven, textbook-based reading programs.

One of Bush's signature education initiatives, Reading First provides more than $1 billion annually to public schools to help teach reading to disadvantaged children through third grade. Unprecedented in size, it is one of the few federal programs that isn't shrinking in this time of budget cuts. Congress is expected to distribute about $6 billion to schools by 2007.

Advocates say Reading First has helped students in thousands of schools by training teachers and paying for new materials. But opponents say it has all but forced schools to buy textbooks and related materials from a handful of large publishers, several of which have retained top federal advisers as authors, editors or consultants.

Robert Slavin of the Success for All Foundation, a non-profit research group that has developed its own reading materials, requested the investigation in May, saying Reading First officials have discouraged schools from using his materials despite evidence they are effective. He says Reading First relies on the work of "consultants with major conflicts of interest."

Since Reading First's inception in 2002, several well-known reading experts have both advised states on federal grant applications and worked for major publishers. Publisher Scott Foresman touts two former Reading First officials on its Web site.

"We think that it is far outside of the ordinary bounds of what is considered ethical in government to have people playing such a central role in handing out a billion dollars to schools, districts and states, and then profiting personally from a particular set of choices that they're in a position to advocate," Slavin says.

Education Department spokeswoman Susan Aspey says the allegations "have absolutely no merit."

Slavin's is one of several complaints. On June 10, Lugar wrote to Spellings that "at best, it seems that there has been a lack of clarity" about what programs qualify for funding. "At worst, one or more officials contracted to work for the Department of Education may be working to further their own interests."

Longtime University of Oregon researcher Edward Kame'enui, who has advised states on their Reading First proposals and authored an upcoming Scott Foresman reading textbook, says he disclosed his authorship "when it was appropriate" but noted that the textbook won't be released for months. He says most educators know that many researchers are also authors or advisers to publishers, and that promoting his own materials would be "a shameful representation of your product, of you and ... of Reading First."

Reading First Director Chris Doherty says, "We take that stuff as seriously as it can possibly be taken, because we feel that would be like a death blow to the program." He says schools in 28 states receive federal funding for Success for All.

But Slavin says many schools have been forced to drop it.

Bush has demanded that reading — indeed, all instruction — be "scientifically based."

Slavin says more than 50 studies, including one released in May, show that his reading program produces results. Indeed, it stands nearly alone, with dozens of experimental studies. Yet he says he has had to lay off about a third of his workforce and close regional offices since 2002.

Owen Engelmann of the National Institute for Direct Instruction, which advocates for another top-rated program, also says Reading First "hasn't helped us out much at all." Both he and Slavin say implementation problems threaten to turn a worthy program into ineffective instruction for poor kids at taxpayer expense.

Susan Neuman, who until 2003 oversaw Reading First as Bush's assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education, says she has seen no mismanagement but noted a "preponderance" of the same textbooks in many states.

Though a few experts say reading textbooks have improved over time, Engelmann says, money would be better spent on programs targeted to individual needs.


Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-08-07-reading-first_x.htm

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 8:34 PM 0 comments Links to this post

It's refreshing to read a candid statement such as this one provided by Roddy Stinson of the San Antonio Express-News (8/7/05). I wanted to post a critical commentary as well on the selective reporting by the press (see earlier posts) but have been overwhelmed with personal stuff these days. I concur with Stinson that there is a lot of obfuscation in the reports and reporting and this is unfortunate since it is the children and their parents who are the real losers in this Texas-sized shell game. I remain hopeful somehow. -Angela

education ... the process of training and developing the
knowledge, skill, mind, character etc., esp. by formal
schooling

shell game ... any scheme for tricking and cheating people

—Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition

Tens of thousands of parents of schoolchildren and
hundreds of thousands of other taxpayers learned from
media reports last week that "the majority of Texas school
districts and campuses in 2005 earned the rating
of 'Academically Acceptable.'"
Most of the moms, dads and school-tax payers breathed a
sigh of relief and shrugged off the "bad" news that a
small percentage of districts and campuses "received the
lowest rating of 'Academically Unacceptable.'"

Their peace of mind has doubtless lasted to this day,
particularly if the reports they read or heard were
incomplete and didn't provide details of the Texas
Education Agency's ratings.

If you're a member of that blissfully uninformed group, be
glad you picked up an Express-News today and turned to
Page 3A.

(You might want to take a deep breath before continuing.)

To "earn" a rating of "Academically Acceptable" on the
2005 Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills test, the
students in a school district or at an individual campus
had to achieve ...

In reading and English language arts, a passing rate of 50
percent .

In writing ... 50 percent.

In social studies ... 50 percent.

In math ... 35 percent.
In science ... 25 percent.

In case the educational horror of those numbers didn't
sink in ...
If half of the youngsters in a district or on a campus
failed tests in reading, writing and social studies ...
and 65 percent failed arithmetic ... and 75 percent failed
science — the Texas education establishment deemed that
district/campus "Academically Acceptable"!

And that is the sad state of Texas public education after
21 years of "reform" and the expenditure of tens of
billions of dollars on every curricular stratagem,
instructional gimmick and pedagogical pie-in-the-sky
jugglery known to the high-dollar, multidegreed
consultants, specialists and excogitative elitists who
feed at the public-education trough.

While you're grinding your teeth, read this paragraph from
a report on the school ratings in the Austin American-
Statesman and see if you can come up with a name for the
parallel universe in which Texas Commissioner of Education
Shirley Neeley resides:

"'One of the great benefits of the Texas accountability
system bottom line is that it shines a light on areas in
which districts and schools need to work harder,' Neeley
said. 'Every superintendent, teacher and principal strives
for that prestigious exemplary rating. I guarantee you,
given time and resources, they can get there.'"

Thank you, commissioner.
All together now ...

"On the goo-oo-ood ship Lollypop,

"It's a swee-ee-eet trip to a candy shop,

"Where bon-bons play,

"On the sunny beach of Texas-Ed Bay!"

No matter how much "time" Texans give the education
establishment to become "exemplary" ... no matter how many
dollars Texas taxpayers throw at the school system ... and
regardless of how well Commissioner Neeley and her
successors do Shirley Temple impressions ... the process
of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and
character of young people through formal schooling will be
doomed to failure as long as public "accountability" is
reduced to a shell game. (You think you see it, but you
don't.)
A 25 percent passing rate in science ... a 35 percent
passing rate in arithmetic ... and a 50 percent passing
rate in reading and writing are not "academically
acceptable" by any rule, measure or standard outside the
world of educational bunko.

The point is so obvious that it hardly seems necessary to
make it. Yet in the days following Monday's release of the
2005 accountability data, not a single elected official or
unelected editorialist decried the scam or even made
mention of it.

Whether that's because the political and media
establishments are passive participants in the educational
establishment's accountability dodge or because the
politicians and pundits are so inured to the chicanery
that they don't see it anymore — I can't say.

Pick your Laodicean poison.
rstinson@express-news.net

Online at:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/columnists/rstinson/stories/MYSA080705.3A.stinson.3052524.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:14 PM 0 comments Links to this post

This is a more modest proposal that will help legislators save face in light of the current impasse across the two chambers on school finance. -Angela

COMMENTARY
Rodney Ellis and Kevin Eltife, TEXAS SENATE
Saturday, August 06, 2005 / Austin Am-Statesman

As the Texas Legislature moves through its third special session on school finance reform, we are working on a bipartisan effort to put more money where it counts the most for public education — directly into the classroom.

Education reform and lower property taxes are important goals that deserve continued work toward a consensus. They should not be abandoned simply because they pose a challenge. However, these challenges should not stand in the way of meaningful action that will help our children learn and make ours schools more successful.

That is why we are working with members of both political parties to build a consensus on an agenda that will yield real results. We have spoken with numerous constituents and education experts who agree that our teachers are underpaid, that our textbooks are out of date and that we must get more of our education money into the classroom.

We can talk all day about computers in classrooms or school start dates or school construction. But we all should agree that the most important thing we can do for our children's education is to recruit and retain great teachers. Education begins not with four walls, but with a teacher who cares, inspires and guides. We can all look back to a teacher who made a difference to us. Our children deserve no less.

So we want to pay our teachers more money and help them buy health insurance. We are proposing a $2,000 pay raise to increase teacher salaries and a $1,000 stipend to help purchase health insurance. We wish we could do more, because we believe our teachers deserve more, but we hope this will be a meaningful demonstration of our appreciation and commitment to them.

Every great teacher can only do so much with a ruler and a pencil. So we also are proposing $295 million for new textbooks. When students are forced to share a limited number of books, or must ignore out-of-date or obsolete information in those books, we only add to their burden. To help our students excel, they need the proper tools.

The people of our districts, and this state, want to see more money in the classroom, and our proposal does just that. No one can argue that spending money on teachers and textbooks does not put money in the classroom. And by focusing our limited resources this way, we can move toward increasing the overall percentage of education spending being directed toward classroom instruction.

We can do better for our teachers, parents, schools and, most importantly, for our students.

Ellis, a Democrat, represents District 13 in Houston. Eltife, a Republican, represents District 1 in Tyler.

Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/08/6ellis_edit.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 7:03 PM 5 comments Links to this post

Parents offered tips to help fifth-graders who repeat grade

07:59 AM CDT on Friday, August 5, 2005

By HERB BOOTH / The Dallas Morning News


When the bell rings for the first day of school, about 10 percent of the state's 280,000-plus sixth-graders won't be there.

They'll still be in fifth grade.

The 2004-05 fifth-graders were the first students to be held back at that grade level because they didn't pass the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills after three tries. A similar hurdle was placed before these students when they were in third grade, and they'll be in the vanguard again when they're in eighth grade.

Parents need not fear this process, educators say. There are resources available to those whose children have fallen behind or been held back. In addition, educators say, retention actually can help students.

Such high-stakes testing is not unique to Texas. About half the states have instituted some type of must-pass testing, according to the Education Commission of the States. President Bush's No Child Left Behind education law requires standardized tests in reading and math for third through eighth grades.

In Texas, tying the TAKS test to grade promotion grew out of the belief that social promotion – advancing students, regardless of academic progress, to keep them with their peers – is harmful.

Texas Education Agency spokeswoman Suzanne Marchman agrees with that theory.

"Of course, we're concerned about the psychological well-being of students who are retained," she said.

"But research has shown that students who are promoted not having the appropriate skills for that grade level are harmed more than those who aren't. They are more likely to drop out."

Ms. Marchman said the agency put out information through its Web site about the requirements and implications if third- or fifth-graders don't pass the TAKS. She said TAKS study guides are available to give students a boost.

In addition, she said, the TEA offered $39 million in competitive grants for the Texas Reading First Initiative in 2004-05 to implement scientifically based reading programs.

Many districts offer parents advice through Web sites, which include tips on how to help their children learn. The National Education Association Web site also is replete with information to help parents.
DallasNews.com/extra

Navigating Your School: Tips for parents, students, teachers


While reading to younger children is a common suggestion, Jan Bolinsky, a fifth-grade teacher at Brandenburg Intermediate School in Duncanville, said simply reading isn't enough anymore. She said TAKS requires more thinking than that.

"You need to interact with a child when reading," Ms. Bolinsky said. "Ask why the character is doing that in the book. Ask if that's strange or what do you think about that. Teach them to think. They'll have to figure out the answer. You're making them think, and they get a feeling of knowing how to find out."

In an effort to help students who are held back, teachers and administrators are developing systems and using new programs to address their needs. Some use small groups, mentoring or tutoring.

But teachers admit they can't do it all.

"That's changed," Ms. Bolinsky said. "There are so many ways and places to find the answers."

Ms. Bolinsky said her method would make the subject matter "more real" for students.

"I'm going to strive to make learning more practical for these students. Make it something they can relate to, something they can see. You can't just put it out there because the students didn't understand the first time," said Ms. Bolinsky, who was Duncanville's elementary teacher of the year in 2004. "You have to individualize plans to reach these students. You have to be positive, make them feel like they're leaders."

Linda Polk, a fifth-grade teacher at Dallas' J.W. Ray Elementary