Vouchers: Will the legislature say yes to the kids?
by Bud Schauerte / LSR

When, in 1955, the future Nobel laureate-economist Milton Friedman and his wife Rose conceived the idea of tax-funded school vouchers and wrote a now famous treatise on the subject (“The Role of Government in Education”), virtually no one believed that such vouchers someday would play a significant role in funding primary and secondary schooling through private and religious schools.
Correct, they haven’t.
The number of U.S. tax-funded students attending private and religious schools today is so low that totals are pure speculation. Add up the limited number of voucher-eligible K-12 students in the seven states (Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Utah, Iowa), plus the District of Columbia, where legislation authorizes limited tax funded vouchers, and the number barely exceeds 130,000 students.
Home schooling growth is helpful as a comparison with tax-funded voucher education. Brian D. Ray, founder of the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI) estimates that U.S. home schoolers now total more than 2 million, with the number increasing by seven percent annually.
About 400,000 Texas students are home-schooled, according to a group known as Texas Home Educators.
Among the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB) is that parents have the option of transferring their children from failing schools to better-performing public schools. Regrettably for supporters of vouchers, the NCLB law does not provide for private school transfer options, a shortcoming which supporters intend to correct before the NCLB law comes up for renewal next year. There is a huge political fight being waged about it.
“What led to increased interest in vouchers was the deterioration of schooling dating from 1965 when the National Educational Association (NEA) converted itself from a professional association to a trade union,” Friedman states from his website.
The NEA, now the largest labor union in the nation, is confident that the nation again will reject vouchers on both Federal and state levels. “U.S. voters, for the last 30 years, have rejected vouchers every time they’ve been proposed;” the NEA claims on its website.
If that was the case at one time, it isn’t any more. Arizona in June passed new and expanded school-choice programs for the state, while the state of Wisconsin expanded Milwaukee’s long-standing school choice program by 50 percent.
What the NEA fails to take into account is that the fast pace of school failures has trapped large numbers of children in failing schools with little or no hope of getting out.
In Texas, a huge concern is the high school dropout rate. According to the San Antonio-based Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA), Texas high school students drop out at the rate of 36 percent annually. The percentages are greater for Hispanic (48 percent) and African American (43 percent) students.
The U.S. Department of Education in June noted that 3 million children currently are attending chronically failing schools. Such schools are defined by the NCLB Act as those which have failed to satisfy minimal state standards for at least six consecutive years.
On the left/right political spectrum, Republicans and conservatives have been more likely to support school vouchers than Democrats.
But Michael Q. Sullivan, vice president of the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), claims that school choice is not a partisan issue. “Some 80% to 90% of both African American and Hispanic parents, most of which support Democrat candidates for public offices, are demanding school choice,” he says.
The Republican-controlled Texas Legislature is further evidence that those who favor or oppose tax-funded school voucher cannot be stereotyped by political party.
During last year’s regular legislative session, a pilot school-voucher program for certain Texas school districts might have become law had it not been for a lethal Republican amendment to a bill reauthorizing the Texas Education Agency (TEA).
Rep. Carter Casteel (R-New Braunfels), authored the amendment to SB 422 which stripped the pilot voucher program from the reauthorizing bill. The vote total that erased hopes of a school voucher program in Texas was a slim 74-70.
A switch of two or three votes—Democrat or Republican—in the House of Representatives would have given Texas its first tax-funded school voucher program.
But the setback in the Texas House last year has not discouraged newly organized school voucher supporters. The most recent (June 7, 2006) lobbying group to organize is one called “Texans for School Choice,” headed by Jason Johnson as executive director.
“Our goal is to support legislation which will set up pilot tax-funded voucher programs in Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin and San Antonio,” Johnson says. “We intend to organize parents and keep them informed on school choice issue.”
So what will happen if the Texas Legislature again rejects tax-funded school vouchers? That’s exactly what happened last month in Newark, N. J., when the Legislature rejected vouchers for New Jersey students.
A caboodle of parents, acting on behalf of 60,000 students, got together and filed a class action law suit against the whole state. Could this occur in Texas? Not likely because members of the Texas Legislature (especially Republicans) would need to have a political death wish. Come to think of it, a class action lawsuit against the state of Texas is entirely possible.
Distributed by www.lonestarreport.org

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:16 PM 1 comments Links to this post

New York Times Editorial
July 21, 2006

Young Latinas and a Cry for Help

A recent series in the Spanish-language New York newspaper El Diario/La Prensa sheds some light on a mostly overlooked national phenomenon, the misunderstood and endangered young Latina, who represents one of the fastest-growing segments of the American population. Hispanic teenage girls attempt suicide more often than any other group. They become mothers at younger ages. They tend not to complete their education. They are plagued by rising drug use and other social problems.

A federal study found that a startling one in six young Hispanic women had attempted suicide, a rate roughly one and a half times as high as that among non-Hispanic black and white teenage girls. If there was any good news, it was that these young women usually survived. A five-year study now in its second year in New York is being led by Dr. Luis Zayas, a professor of social work and psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis, who says the self-destructive behavior seems to affect Latinas of every origin and every region of the country.

El Diario tracked several young women and found that they faced particularly acute social pressures, especially if their parents were foreign-born. Dr. Zayas and other experts note that the suicide attempts trend higher for Latinas who are the first generation born in the United States.

Adolescent and teenage girls with families recently rooted in Latin America are expected to adhere to old culture traditions, including tending to other family members and putting themselves last. Self-esteem issues are common among teens generally, but they appear magnified for young women who cannot seem to fit in at home or away from it.

About one-quarter of Latina teens drop out, a figure surpassed only by Hispanic young men, one-third of whom do not complete high school. Latinas, especially those in recently arrived families, often live in poverty and without health insurance.

Another piece of the puzzle is how to address the complication of very early, usually unmarried motherhood. Religious beliefs in Hispanic families often limit sex education and rule out abortion. Federal statistics show that about 24 percent of Latinas are mothers by the age of 20 - three times the rate of non-Hispanic white teens.
Solving these problems will require more than research. What is needed is a larger effort that includes educators, policymakers, families and communities. Here's one more statistic: One in four women in the United States will be Hispanic by the middle of the century. The time to help is now.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:12 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Language Barriers to Health Care in the United States
Glenn Flores, M.D.

A 12-year-old Latino boy arrived at a Boston emergency department with dizziness anda headache. The patient, whom I'll call Raul, had limited proficiency in English; his mother spoke no English, and the attending physician spoke little Spanish. No medical interpreter was available, so Raul acted as his own interpreter. His mother described his symptoms:

"La semana pasada a el le dio mucho mareo y no tenía fiebre ni nada, y la familia por parte de papá todos padecen de diabetes." (Last week, he had a lot of dizziness, and he didn't have fever or anything, and his dad's family all suffer from diabetes.)

"Uh hum," replied the physician.

The mother went on. "A mí me da miedo porque el lo que estaba mareado, mareado, mareado y no tenía fiebre ni nada." (I'm scared because he's dizzy, dizzy, dizzy, and he didn't have fever or anything.)

Turning to Raul, the physician asked, "OK, so she's saying you look kind of yellow, is that what she's saying?"

Raul interpreted for his mother: "Es que si me vi amarillo?" (Is it that I looked yellow?)

"Estaba como mareado, como pálido" (You were like dizzy, like pale), his mother replied.

Raul turned back to the doctor. "Like I was like paralyzed, something like that," he said.

If Raul received inappropriate care owing to his misinterpretation, he would not be alone. One interpreter, mistranslating for a nurse practitioner, told the mother of a seven-year-old girl with otitis media to put (oral) amoxicillin "in the ears."1 In another case, a Spanish-speaking woman told a resident that her two-year-old had "hit herself" when she fell off her tricycle; the resident misinterpreted two words, understood the fracture to have resulted from abuse, and contacted the Department of Social Services (DSS). DSS sent a worker who, without an interpreter present, had the mother sign over custody of her two children.2 Clearly, catastrophes can and do result from such miscommunication.
Some 49.6 million Americans (18.7 percent of U.S. residents) speak a language other than English at home; 22.3 million (8.4 percent) have limited English proficiency, speaking English less than "very well," according to self-ratings. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of Americans who spoke a language other than English at home grew by 15.1 million (a 47 percent increase), and the number with limited English proficiency grew by 7.3 million (a 53 percent increase, see graph). The numbers are particularly high in some places: in 2000, 40 percent of Californians and 75 percent of Miami residents spoke a language other than English at home, and 20 percent of Californians and 47 percent of Miami residents had limited English proficiency.
Percentages of Americans Who Speak a Language Other Than English at Home or Who Have Limited English Proficiency.

Data are from the U.S. Census Bureau, which examines language proficiency in school-age children but not in those under five years of age. Data on the proportion of children with limited English proficiency were not collected in the 1980 Census.


Yet many patients who need medical interpreters have no access to them. According to one study, no interpreter was used in 46 percent of emergency department cases involving patients with limited English proficiency.3 Few clinicians receive training in working with interpreters; only 23 percent of U.S. teaching hospitals provide any such training, and most of these make it optional.1 Data collection on patients' primary language and English proficiency is frequently inadequate or nonexistent. Although no federal statutes require the collection of such information, no statute prohibits it, either.4

Language barriers can have deleterious effects.1,5 Patients who face such barriers are less likely than others to have a usual source of medical care; they receive preventive services at reduced rates; and they have an increased risk of nonadherence to medication. Among patients with psychiatric conditions, those who encounter language barriers are more likely than others to receive a diagnosis of severe psychopathology - but are also more likely to leave the hospital against medical advice. Among children with asthma, those who confront language barriers have an increased risk of intubation. Such patients are less likely than others to return for follow-up appointments after visits to the emergency room, and they have higher rates of hospitalization and drug complications. Greater resources are used in their care, but they have lower levels of patient satisfaction.

Inadequate communication can have tragic consequences: in one case, the misinterpretation of a single word led to a patient's delayed care and preventable quadriplegia.1 A Spanish-speaking 18-year-old had stumbled into his girlfriend's home, told her he was "intoxicado," and collapsed. When the girlfriend and her mother repeated the term, the non-Spanish-speaking paramedics took it to mean "intoxicated"; the intended meaning was "nauseated." After more than 36 hours in the hospital being worked up for a drug overdose, the comatose patient was reevaluated and given a diagnosis of intracerebellar hematoma with brain-stem compression and a subdural hematoma secondary to a ruptured artery. (The hospital ended up paying a $71 million malpractice settlement.)

In 1998, the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services issued a memorandum regarding the prohibition, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, against discrimination on the basis of national origin - which affects persons with limited English proficiency. This memorandum states that the denial or delay of medical care because of language barriers constitutes discrimination and requires that recipients of Medicaid or Medicare funds provide adequate language assistance to patients with limited English proficiency. In 2000, a presidential executive order was issued on improving such persons' access to services. Thirteen states currently provide third-party reimbursement (through Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program) for interpreter services. Unfortunately, most of the states containing the largest numbers of patients with limited English proficiency have not followed suit, sometimes citing concerns about costs. Although the Office for Civil Rights issued guidelines in 2003 that seem to allow health care facilities to opt out of providing language services if their costs are too burdensome, Title VI provides no such exemption.

Ad hoc interpreters, including family members, friends, untrained members of the support staff, and strangers found in waiting rooms or on the street, are commonly used in clinical encounters. But such interpreters are considerably more likely than professional interpreters to commit errors that may have adverse clinical consequences.1,5 Ad hoc interpreters are also unlikely to have had training in medical terminology and confidentiality; their priorities sometimes conflict with those of patients; and their presence may inhibit discussions regarding sensitive issues such as domestic violence, substance abuse, psychiatric illness, and sexually transmitted diseases.5 It is especially risky to have children interpret, since they are unlikely to have a full command of two languages or of medical terminology; they frequently make errors of clinical consequence; and they are particularly likely to avoid sensitive issues.1,5 Given the documented risks associated with the use of ad hoc interpreters, it is of concern that the 2003 guidance from the Office for Civil Rights states that such use "may be appropriate."

Later this year, the California legislature will consider a bill prohibiting state-funded organizations from using children younger than 15 years of age as medical interpreters. Leland Yee, the California speaker pro tempore, proposed the bill, prompted by his experiences interpreting for his mother and, later, as a child psychologist. The bill requires organizations receiving state funding to establish a procedure for "providing competent interpretation services that does not involve the use of children."

Although this legislation may emerge as a state model, as an unfunded mandate, it will have limited power to improve care. Perhaps the time has come for payers to be required to reimburse providers for interpreter services. The provision of adequate language services results in optimal communication, patient satisfaction, outcomes, resource use, and patient safety.1,5 A 2002 report from the Office of Management and Budget estimated that it would cost, on average, only $4.04 (0.5 percent) more per physician visit to provide all U.S. patients who have limited English proficiency with appropriate language services for emergency-department, inpatient, outpatient, and dental visits. This seems like a small price to pay to ensure safe, high-quality health care for 49.6 million Americans.



Source Information

Dr. Flores is director of the Center for the Advancement of Underserved Children and a professor of pediatrics, epidemiology, and health policy at the Medical College of Wisconsin and the Children's Research Institute of the Children's Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

An interview with Dr. Flores can be heard at www.nejm.org.

References


1. Flores G, Laws MB, Mayo SJ, et al. Errors in medical interpretation and their potential clinical consequences in pediatric encounters. Pediatrics 2003;111:6-14. [Abstract/Full Text]
2. Flores G, Abreu M, Schwartz I, Hill M. The importance of language and culture in pediatric care: case studies from the Latino community. J Pediatr 2000;137:842-848. [CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
3. Baker DW, Parker RM, Williams MV, Coates WC, Pitkin K. Use and effectiveness of interpreters in an emergency department. JAMA 1996;275:783-788. [Abstract]
4. Youdelman M, Hitov S. Racial, ethnic and primary language data collection: an assessment of federal policies, practices and perceptions. Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.: National Health Law Program, October 2001.
5. Flores G. The impact of medical interpreter services on the quality of health care: a systematic review. Med Care Res Rev 2005;62:255-299. [Abstract]

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 9:59 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Here is info on HB1 which passed during the last special legislative session and which you can access on the TEA website. There's lots of pieces to it so it merits a close read.

Another thing. I just found this pdf file from the TEA website of a presentation that by the looks of it was made at a State Board of Education meeting. If you scroll down, you'll see some pretty good recommendations in it for how to address the lack of preparedness (or conversely, making college ready), our youth.

Also, scroll down in this article in order to fast forward to the college readiness portion of the bill that is going to certainly gain more steam come September.

-Angela

TEA's House Bill 1 Information Site

Contact TEA Governmental Relations Division: (512) 463-9682
Contact us by email at HB1@tea.state.tx.us
Texas Education Agency · 1701 North Congress Avenue · Austin, Texas, 78701 · (512) 463-9734
July 30, 2006
HB1 Programs

Here TEA will publish various information regarding its plans for implementation of House Bill 1, specific to the programs listed below.

Three documents will be created for each program: Rulemaking Information, RFP Status, Stakeholder Meeting Information, and the RFP document itself. These documents will be published as information becomes available, so check back often for the Program titles below to become enabled links.

As of July 26, there are new documents available in the High School Allotment section and the Agency Review of ISD Accounting Systems section!

Please review the information accessible through the menu at left, and sign up for the HB1 Listserv!

High School Allotment
Provides $275 per high school student to districts to prepare students to go on to higher education, encourage students to take advanced academic course work, increase the rigor of academic course work, align secondary and postsecondary curriculum and support promising high school completion and success initiatives in grades 6 though 12. The commissioner shall adopt rules relating to the permissible uses of these funds.

Agency Review of ISD Accounting Systems
Presently, there is no standard requirement for such systems other than a system that enables adherence to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and the general statutory language of Texas Education Code section 44.007 (set out in agency rule under the Financial Accountability System Resource Guide). Under the terms of the proposed RFP, the proposer must conduct a comprehensive review of the accounting systems used by school districts and charter schools.

Establishment of education research centers
Texas colleges and universities are eligible to submit a Request for Proposal for the establishment of an Education Research Center. Up to three centers may be established. The centers shall conduct research for the benefit of education in Texas, including research relating to the impact of state and federal education programs, the performance of educator preparation programs, public school finance, and the best practices of school districts with regard to classroom instruction, bilingual education programs, special language programs, and business practices..

Public access to PEIMS data and agency web site re-design
The redesign of the Texas Education Agency website will significantly improve user awareness of and access to various data reports available on the TEA web site. The goal is for consumers of these reports to more easily navigate, find and retrieve the appropriate reports, including the ability to download data as appropriate. This project will take into consideration recommendations made by the Commissioner’s Advisory Panel on Public Access to PEIMS (as directed by TEC 7.008(b)), before developing a request for proposal.

Establishment of education and finance “Best Practices Clearinghouse"
The Best Practices Clearinghouse is an online resource with accessible information describing the best practices of high-performing and high efficient campuses and school districts. The Clearinghouse will include best practices in the areas of instruction, public school finance, resource allocation and business practices.

Agency evaluation of standardized accounting software for school districts
Any software application used by a district must support the standards for accounting systems defined by Texas Education Code section 44.007 and must be able to accommodate the standard forms required by the agency under Texas Education Code section 44.009. However, a software application implemented by a school district or charter school is not subject to approval by the agency and no official standards exist for such applications. Under the terms of the proposed RFP, the proposer must conduct a feasibility study for providing standardized accounting software to school districts and charter schools.

Agency shared services arrangements study
School districts and charter schools use a wide variety of shared service arrangements to accomplish organizational goals. Usually these arrangements pool the resources of numerous school districts under a single fiscal agent, most often a Regional Education Service Center (ESC). Under the terms of the proposed RFP, the proposer must conduct a study of the use of shared service arrangements and purchase of service contracts among school districts and charter schools.

Development of systems for calculating spending targets for ISDs
School district expenditure targets will be selected and defined based on best practices information and the unique characteristics of school districts. Expenditure targets will include costs in the areas of instruction, central administration, and district operations. Once these expenditure targets have been defined and selected they will be published for annual review on the agency website. School boards for school districts not meeting the published expenditure targets will be required to adopt and pass a resolution to substantiate the reason(s) for not meeting the published targets.

Electronic Student Records Exchange System
Proposers are eligible to submit a Request for Offer for the development of an electronic student records system that permits the transfer of student records between Texas school districts and the transfer of records from Texas school districts to Texas colleges and universities. The electronic student records system is to be implemented no later than the 2007-08 school year.

Principal Leadership Program
This program is designed to instruct principals in improvement of leadership skills, student achievement, graduation rates and teacher retention. The program is for anyone interested in becoming a principal or for principals interested in further professional development. The program is mandatory for principals of academically unacceptable campuses.

College Readiness: vertical teams and curriculum development
Vertical teams composed of public school and higher education faculty will be established by the commissioners of education and higher education to: 1) recommend college readiness standards and expectations; 2) evaluate the effectiveness of the TEKS in preparing students for college; 3) recommend strategies for aligning curricula; and 4) develop instructional strategies; professional development and online support materials.

Texas Governor's Schools
A summer residential program, approved by the commissioner of education, which offers curriculum focused on mathematics, science, humanities, or leadership and public policy for high-achieving high school students. The commissioner of education may offer grants up to $750,000 each year to public higher education institutions to administer a Governor’s School program.

Optional Flexible School Day
A program approved by the commissioner of education to provide flexible hours and days of attendance for students in grades 9-12, who are at risk of not graduating or are participating in an approved early college high school plan or are attending a campus implementing an innovative redesign under a plan approved by the commissioner of education.

Teacher Mentoring
The mentoring program allows a school district to assign a mentor teacher to each classroom teacher with less than 2 years teaching experience. Mentor teachers must complete a mentoring and induction training program that meets qualifications determined by the Commissioner. School districts can apply for grants to fund mentor teacher stipends, additional meeting time for mentors and teachers and mentor training.

Contact TEA's Governmental Relations Division at (512) 463-9682 or by email at HB1@tea.state.tx.us with any questions you may have.
This page last updated July 26, 2006

TEA's Home Page | Texas Online
By using this site and its products, you agree to TEA's Copyright and terms of service.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 9:55 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Here's a link to a January 2006 THECBstatement on what needs to happen for the gap to close. Here are some more reports folks may find useful:

CLOSING THE GAPS: T H E T E X A S H I G H E R
E D U C A T I O N P L A N
History of Closing the Gaps
Closing the Gaps Goals and Targets Summary
Closing the Gaps Revision


-Angela

Despite all the public hand-wringing, Texas colleges and universities are failing to meet the state's goal of substantially increasing the enrollment of Latino students. A report by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board shows the number of Latino students in higher education grew by just more than 11,000 from 2004 to 2005 – the smallest increase in five years. The THECB had set a target to enroll 340,000 Latino students by 2005, as part of its "Closing The Gaps" initiative, but Texas schools fell short by more than 20,000. Some local institutions are working to do their part. Austin Community College is aggressively targeting first-generation college students as part of its "College Connection" program in local high schools.

– Michael May, AUSTIN CHRONICLE, July 28, 2006

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 9:40 PM 0 comments Links to this post

U.S. to Help States With Testing of English-Learners
By Lynn Olson / July 27, 2006 / Education Week

The U.S. Department of Education today announced a pilot program designed to help states better test the reading and mathematics skills of students with limited English proficiency under the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

The LEP Partnership, launched in collaboration with the National Council of La Raza and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, will immediately target some 20 states whose assessment systems have yet to receive full approval under the federal law, in part because they lack evidence that they are appropriately testing the content knowledge of students still learning English.

Many of those states have been threatened with federal fines for their failure to appropriately test such students. But federal officials said during a July 27 conference call that those fines would be held in abeyance in exchange for states working with the department to develop better tests and accommodations for English-language learners in time for the 2006-07 state test administration.

“For those states that enter into this partnership, we will waive the fines for this year, if they stay on the plan to improve the assessment systems for their LEP learners,” Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings said in a conference call with reporters.

The No Child Left Behind law requires states to include English-language learners in regular standardized tests in reading and math and use those scores in calculating whether schools and districts have met annual achievement targets. But many states have struggled to meet that mandate, a problem that became clear during the Education Department’s peer review of state standards-and-assessment systems this spring. ("Department Raps States on Testing," July 12, 2006.)

“The peer-review process has shown us that the construction of valid, reliable LEP assessments is a real problem,” said Deputy Secretary of Education Ray Simon. “That was a reason why we believe it’s so important to get this LEP partnership off the ground quickly.”

Raul Gonzalez, the legislative director for the National Council of La Raza, said Hispanic advocacy groups have been asking for the kind of technical assistance to states from the federal government that the partnership is expected to provide.

He said special help for assessing English-language learners is needed because states “ignored the needs of these children for far too long and hadn’t put in place any infrastructure, including the assessments they needed to measure if they were effective in instruction.”

A report released this month by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the audit arm of Congress, recommends that the Education Department explore ways to provide additional flexibility to states in how they assess English-language learners. The report lists several possible steps, including extending the period of time that some or all English-learners could attend U.S. schools and not have their test scores used for NCLB accountability purposes. In a written response included in the GAO’s July 26 report, Education Department officials didn't agree or disagree with the recommendation, but noted that they had already provided some flexibility to states in counting the scores of such students.

Federal officials did agree with the other three recommendations of the report, which are to support additional research on testing accommodations for English-learners; determine what additional help states need to ensure their assessments are valid and reliable for such students; and provide more guidance on how states should assess how well students with limited proficiency in English are learning the language.

The GAO's report is “exactly why we’re doing this,” Ms. Spellings. “What we have found in our discussions with states is there’s a willingness. There is a lack of capacity and understanding about how best to meet the needs of these students in a timely manner.”

Negotiated Agreements
To participate in the partnership, states must negotiate a plan with the Education Department that spells out how they will fully meet the federal law’s requirements for testing English-learners by the time they administer their state reading and math tests in 2006-07. The department is inviting teams from each of the 20 states to a meeting in Washington August 28-29, during which they can work with top researchers and practitioners and meet with department officials to develop state-specific plans and a timeline for improving their testing of ELL students. Six states—California, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, and Tennessee—are participating even though they don’t have problems with their tests.

LEP Partnership
To take part in its new LEP Partnership to address the testing of students with limited English proficiency, the U.S. Department of Education has invited participation from Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education
Ms. Spellings said four models for testing English-learners students will be explored by groups of states: using content tests in a language other than English; using tests of English proficiency to also assess students’ content knowledge; using simpler, less complex English on state exams; and providing appropriate accommodations to ELL students that permit them to participate in state tests without compromising the accuracy of the results.

On Oct. 28 and 29, the department will sponsor a meeting in which all states are invited to participate in the LEP Partnership.

The No Child Left Behind law requires that all students, including the nation’s approximately 5.4 million limited-English-proficient students, be proficient in reading and math by the 2013-14 school year. The GAO report about English-learners notes that in nearly two-thirds of the 48 states for which the researchers obtained data, such students didn’t meet their state’s goals for adequate yearly progress.

Assistant Editor Mary Ann Zehr contributed to this report.

Web Only
Vol. 25, Issue 44
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/07/27/44lep_web.h25.html?levelId=1000

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 9:29 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Also included below is a strongly-worded letter dated July 18 from Doug Christensen, Commissioner of Education, to all Nebraskans regarding compliance with the requirements of NCLB. My next post is Maine's response. -Angela


July 25, 2006
Most States Fail Demands in Education Law

By SAM DILLON
Most states failed to meet federal requirements that all teachers be “highly qualified” in core teaching fields and that state programs for testing students be up to standards by the end of the past school year, according to the federal government.

The deadline was set by the No Child Left Behind Act, President Bush’s effort to make all American students proficient in reading and math by 2014. But the Education Department found that no state had met the deadline for qualified teachers, and it gave only 10 states full approval of their testing systems.

Faced with such findings, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, who took office promising flexible enforcement of the law, has toughened her stance, leaving several states in danger of losing parts of their federal aid.

In the past few weeks, Ms. Spellings has flatly rejected as inadequate the testing systems in Maine and Nebraska. She has also said that nine states are so far behind in providing highly qualified teachers that they may face sanctions, and she has accused California of failing to provide federally required alternatives to troubled schools. California could be fined as much as $4.25 million.

The potential fines are far higher than any the Education Department has levied over the law, and officials in several states, already upset with many of the law’s provisions, have privately expressed further anger over the threat of fines. But Ms. Spellings faces pressure for firm enforcement of the law from a broad array of groups, including corporations and civil rights organizations.

“In the early part of her tenure, Secretary Spellings seemed more interested in finding reasons to waive the law’s requirements than to enforce them,” said Clint Bolick, president of the Alliance for School Choice, a group based in Phoenix that supports vigorous enforcement of provisions that give students the right to transfer from failing schools. “More recently, she seems intent on holding states’ feet to the fire.”

In an interview, Ms. Spellings acknowledged her shift in emphasis.

“I want states to know that Congress and the president mean business on the law,” she said. She has stressed that message in part, she said, because the deadlines, which expired this month, were not met, and because lawmakers have been asking her whether states are meeting the law’s requirements.

“I’m enforcing the law — does that make me tough?” she said. “Last year it was, ‘We’re marching together toward the deadline,’ but now it’s time for, ‘Your homework is due.’ ”

Douglas D. Christensen, the Nebraska education commissioner, has accused Ms. Spellings and her subordinates of treating Nebraska in a “mean-spirited, arbitrary and heavy-handed way” after their announcement on June 30 that the state’s testing system was “nonapproved” and that they intended to withhold $127,000 in federal money.

In an interview in Lincoln, Neb., Mr. Christensen said he first realized the administration’s attitude had changed in April, when Raymond Simon, deputy education secretary, addressed most of the 50 state school superintendents at a gathering in Washington.

“Ray went on a 12-minute diatribe of ‘You folks just ain’t getting it done’ and said the department would be strictly interpreting the law from here on,” Mr. Christensen said.

Mr. Simon disputed that account — “I’m not a diatribe type of guy,” he said — but acknowledged that he had spoken bluntly.

“I tried to emphasize that we continue to be partners,” Mr. Simon said, “but that there are some things we cannot be flexible on.”

Mr. Bush signed the act into law in January 2002. Under his first education secretary, Rod Paige, legislators, educators and teachers unions criticized the law’s many rules and what they said was its overemphasis on standardized testing.

After Ms. Spellings took office in January 2005, she allowed some states to renegotiate the ways they enforced the law, and on major issues she offered ways to comply that prevented thousands of schools from being designated as failing.

Her efforts softened the outcry from states. But they brought criticism from corporate executives who hoped the law would shake up schools to protect American competitiveness. Criticism also came from civil rights groups that wanted the law to eliminate educational disparities between whites and minorities, and from groups angry that although the law required districts to help students in failing schools transfer out, only 1 percent of eligible students had done so.

Some experts say most parents do not want to remove children from neighborhood schools. But others say districts have subverted the program, partly by informing parents about their options too late.

Mr. Bolick’s group, the Alliance for School Choice, used a similar argument in a complaint filed this year against the Los Angeles Unified School District, where 250,000 students were eligible for transfers in 2005-6, but only about 500 successfully transferred. That complaint generated considerable news coverage and moved Ms. Spellings to action.

On May 15, she wrote every state, linking the “unacceptably low” participation in transfer programs to the “poor and uneven quality” of many districts’ implementation. “We are prepared to take significant enforcement action,” she said.

At the California Department of Education, Diane Levin, the state’s No Child Left Behind administrator, said she had assumed that California was on solid ground because a federal review of its enforcement of the law was ending positively.

But then California received a letter from Ms. Spellings’s office demanding extensive new documentation by Aug. 15 on the transfer programs in the state’s 20 largest districts. Officials warned California that if the documentation proved inadequate, the government would withhold part of the $700 million the state was to receive this fall for high-poverty schools, said Ms. Spellings’s spokesman, Kevin Sullivan.

Ms. Levin said California felt whipsawed. “We’re doing everything the law asks us to do,” she said, “which in a state this size is a huge amount of work, and we’re treated like we’re doing nothing.”

Dozens of other states have also felt the tougher enforcement.

In May, federal officials ruled that nine states were so far from meeting the teacher qualification provision that they could lose federal money. Ms. Spellings said she would decide on the penalties after August, when states must outline plans for getting 100 percent of teachers qualified.

At the end of June, Henry L. Johnson, an assistant secretary of education, wrote to 34 states, including New York and New Jersey, saying that their tests had major problems and that they must provide new documentation during a period of mandatory oversight.

Dr. Johnson warned some states that federal money might be withheld. And he rejected the testing programs in Maine and Nebraska. His letter to Maine said $114,000 would be withheld unless the state could change Washington’s mind.

Nebraska is the only state allowed to meet the testing requirements with separate exams written by teachers in its 250 districts rather than with one statewide test.

Dr. Johnson’s letter to Nebraska said that although locally written tests were permissible, the state had not shown it was holding all districts to a high standard.

Before announcing that decision, Dr. Johnson visited the Papillion-La Vista School District, south of Omaha.

Harlan H. Metschke, Papillion’s superintendent, said he had told Mr. Johnson that Nebraska’s tests helped teachers focus on students’ learning needs, unlike standardized tests, which compared students from one school with another.

“But federal officials have the mentality that there has to be one state test,” Mr. Metschke said.


Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Memorandum to All Nebraskans from Doug Christensen, Commissioner of Education
Tuesday Jul 18, 2006
Memorandum

TO: All Nebraskans

FROM: Doug Christensen, Ph.D.
Commissioner of Education

RE: Statement of The Commissioner of Education Regarding State's Assessment System And Its Compliance With The Requirements Of NCLB

DATE: July 5, 2006

Today, we received word that our state assessment system, STARS, does not, at this time, meet the federal requirements for compliance with No Child Left Behind. According to the United States Department of Education (USDE), there are numerous criteria which Nebraska will have to meet in order to be approved. The USDE letter is posted on the Nebraska website or on the USDE website.

We have 20 days in which to challenge the findings, request a formal review of our concerns and submit additional data. We will challenge the findings. We have invested too much time, energy, expertise and resources to back away now. This decision by USDE is not labeling our system "rejected" or "failed." It is a statement of the work to be done to provide evidence that our system is valid, reliable and fair and that our system is in compliance with NCLB.

I am disappointed by the federal decision and disappointed by the way we have been treated by them. In fact, I cannot recall a professional issue in my over 40 years as an educator over which I have been so disappointed. This is not the way a partnership is run and not a way for anyone to be treated. If we treated our schools in a one-sided and mean-spirited way, we would be out of business. We would not even consider being so arbitrary and/or heavy-handed.

We feel blind-sided by the decision of the U. S. Department of Education. First, the decision is a blatant violation of the "partnership" around which this work was to be created and documented. Second, it is a violation of the process that was to be fair, open, and evidence-based. Third, it is a violation of past agreements reached. And fourth, it is a violation of the law itself.

First, the partnership, as claimed by USDE, was to provide the basis on which each state would be treated individually so that each state could "negotiate a way to yes." Each state was to be reviewed separately to reflect each state's unique context and policy environment.

The current partnership has flat-out rejected our request to fulfill an earlier agreement to produce a list of the concerns and issues and meet face-to-face before a decision was made. This partnership is about one partner that contributes less than 9% of the funding but leverages 100% of the accountability.

Second, the process of reviewing each state's plan was to use "peer reviews" which in our case were neither "peer-based" nor "reviews." The teams sent to our state did not reflect local knowledge of our policy or eductional context of the state. Further, the team did not represent individuals with expertise in local assessments. And, in the words of a peer reviewer, the teams were advised in their training to be as "nit picky" as possible.

The peer review process required the teams to review all of the documentation of each state. Nebrasks provided 6 large boxes of data and documentation. The documentation could not have been reviewed in its entirety. In fact, it appears that it was searched by the peer team for reasons to reject rather than reviewed for evidence to approve our model.

Third, past agreements have been ignored constituting changing the rules in the middle of the game. In 2003, then Secretary of Education Rod Paige visited Nebraska at the request of our congressional delegation adn Governor, Mike Johanns. Before the day concluded, the Governor asked the Secretary, "How much flexibility do you really have?" Secretary Paige replied, "I am not sure, but I want Nebraska's system to succeed and whatever flexibility is there, I will find it."

In addition, all states had to have plans approved by July 1, 2004. Our plan which included clear outlines of our local assessment model was approved by USDE. We have proceeded on the basis that our model would be approved if we could document its technical quality. I would challenge USDE that no state has done as much to document technical quality as Nebraska. Through our national panel and portfolio reviews, our annual independent evaluations, our independent studies of the data quality, and our independent assessment benchmarks, there is little more we could do. All of these studies and data acknowledge the high levels of technical quality and power of the STARS model.

Fourth, this decision is also a violation of the law itslef. In 1994, the forerunner to NCLB, the Improving America Schools ACT (IASA) was re-authorized and included "carve out" language for Nebraska and Iowa. This provision carries forward into NCLB but is now being ignored. Also, included in Section 1111 of NCLB is a provision for local assessments that is also being ignored.

The use of Peer Review guidance as a condition of compliance/regulation is also a clear violation of NCLB. Peer Review findings are to be guidance only, not regulation.

There is no explicit authority for USDE to withhold funds as a condition of forcing copliance. If an agency, such as Nebraska, is to get the work done to be in compliance, how is it to do that work when the resources to do it are being withheld? Withholding funds appears to be a clear violation of the NCLB provision that requires the federal government to fund the requirements of this Act.

In summary, it is time for USDE to be held accountable, too. USDE must be accountable for the consequences of the law which is a far stretch from the law's laudable intentions. THe intentions of the law are meaningless unless htey are matched by outcomes. How can a law be "good for kids" that demoralizes educators, devalues their work and is punative to schools?

This law has yet to demonstrate its good intentions. This law requires tremendous energy to be spent trying to make misaligned policy and practice work. This law ransoms assessment as an accountability policy when accountability policy should be defined as the amount of improveent realized.

I want assessment returned to the toolbox of teachers so they can use assessments to improve practice in the classroom.

We have tried to be partners. We acted in good faith in negotiating our way through the compliance requirements. We have been open, transparent and forthright.

It is time for USDE to be the partner it professes to be. It is time for USDE to stop trumping good and promising practices in schools by hiding behind the phrase "it's the law." It is time for USDE to come to the table in good faith. It is time for them to recognize the leadership role of states--state legislators, state boards of education, Governors and Chief State School Officers. It is time for them to play fair. It is time for them to accept the same accountability for evidence of good practice tha they demand of states. It is time to stop misrepresenting actions of states to the public and the media. It is time for USDE to stop changing the rules as they go.

While this is not the way we had hoped this would go, it is not a defeat or a step backwards. At best, it is place from which we move foward. At worst, it is a side step.

— Doug Christensen, Nebraska Commissioner of Education
Memorandum to All Nebraskans RE: Compliance with the Requirements of NCLB
2006-07-05

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/education/25child.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 9:07 PM 0 comments Links to this post

If you link to this article, there's interesting commentary on this by Maine locals. -Angela
Monday, July 24, 2006
Maine's use of SAT is expected to pass federal test

By BETH QUIMBY, Portland Press Herald Writer

With a deadline looming, Maine Department of Education officials say they are confident the federal government will raise the failing grades it gave the state for using the SAT to test high school student achievement.

State officials have until July 31 to demonstrate that the SAT adequately measures whether Maine high school students have mastered the Maine Learning Results, the state's learning standards.

If not, the department stands to lose up to $500,000 in annual federal administration funds that would be sent directly to Maine's school districts instead.

State Education Commissioner Susan Gendron doesn't expect that to happen. "I feel we are in very good shape," she said.

For the past month, education officials have been compiling evidence to prove their case. The process was set in motion when federal officials told Maine, after repeated warnings, it was one of only two states to flunk a federal review of the student performance tests used by all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

The finding put the state out of compliance with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, a sweeping education reform law aimed at holding schools accountable for student performance. Thirty-four assessment systems were cited for inadequacies but received temporary approval. Ten were approved and another four were expected to be approved. Maine and Nebraska flunked.

While the federal department found shortcomings in the achievement tests given to non-English-speaking and special-education students in Maine, it was the SAT that was the major focus of concern.

The federal review determined that the questions on the SAT, a college entrance examination, did not match up with the state's learning standards. It also found that Maine education officials had failed to put the SAT through an independent review to determine whether it would work as a state achievement test.

Federal officials chastised Maine officials for failing to meet basic federal requirements and, in doing so, treating Maine students unfairly.

Maine started administering the SAT to high school juniors for the first time this year instead of the Maine Educational Assessment, a test tailored to Maine's Learning Results and now given to students only in grades three through eight.

Gendron pushed for the change, claiming the SAT would motivate more students to apply to college, a major goal of the department, and free more time for instruction. The SAT is a one-day test. MEAs are administered over several days.

The switch was criticized by some educators, including the Maine Counseling Association and the American Counseling Association, which argued that the SAT was designed to predict college success, not Maine students' mastery of the state's learning standards.

They also said it was unproven that using the SAT would encourage more students to apply to college.

Before the switch occurred, a committee was set up to look at a number of tests, such as the ACT, a competing college entrance test not widely used in New England, before settling on the SAT. It is one of several college entrance examinations managed by the College Board, a nonprofit group of about 4,500 higher education institutions.

Gendron said the ACT was rejected because it did not appear to align as well with Maine's learning standards. Moreover, Maine's public universities use the SAT for admission and 75 percent of Maine's roughly 71,000 high school students were already taking the SAT annually, compared to fewer than 5 percent who take the ACT.

Maine education officials approached the College Board, which launched its own study to determine whether the SAT would measure Maine's learning standards adequately. The College Board's study concluded that more questions would have to be added to achieve an adequate alignment with the state's learning standards.

Maine officials then signed a $1 million contract with the College Board to administer the test without putting the SAT through an independent review, a move criticized by federal reviewers.

Jacqueline Soychak, who oversees federal programs at Maine's education department, said her department didn't conduct an independent review because No Child Left Behind didn't require such a step.

Michael Sentance, regional representative for the U.S. Department of Education, said an independent review just makes good sense.

"To think that there wouldn't be an independent review is a little bit curious. One would think Maine would want it for its own purposes, rather than take the word of the vendor," Sentance said.

The Maine education department later hired Norman Webb, a researcher with the Wisconsin Center for Education Research and an authority on matching standards to assessment tests, to do an independent study.

His preliminary findings delivered in April showed more than 40 areas in which the SAT did not align with the state's learning standards.

After Maine was threatened with federal sanctions last month, Webb was asked to fast-track his study. Valerie Seaberg, a state education department spokeswoman, said Webb's latest findings determined that Maine would have to add one new question on the reading section of the SAT and at least 11 more questions to the mathematics section.

Seaberg said the education department has not determined how it will add questions but probably would hire a company such as Measured Progress of Dover, N.H., which designs the MEAs, to do the work. The cost has not been determined.

She said the additional questions would be given on the same day as the SAT. The state already was notified that it would have to come up with a science test for high school students, which it probably will administer on the same day as well. Maine probably will use a science test that is being designed by other New England states, Seaberg said.

Meanwhile, Gendron is so confident that the state will satisfy federal officials, she is forging ahead with next month's meeting of state educators, mostly high school teachers, to translate SAT scores into achievement levels that indicate whether a student is failing, meeting or exceeding the state's learning standards.

She has already set next year's SAT administration dates and last week announced a deal with the College Board to provide SAT preparation courses to all Maine high school students.

Gendron also emphasized her confidence in a letter to school administrators she sent out a week ago.

"I want to be very clear that the SAT will be used as our state's grade 11 assessment for the foreseeable future," she wrote.

Once Maine provides the additional evidence, the federal department will conduct another review to determine whether Maine proved its case.

If Maine fails again, the federal government will start withholding some funds from the state education department until it can satisfy requirements. State officials said they didn't know how long the new review would take.


TESTING GLOSSARY

SAT: A college entrance examination that measures reasoning skills, widely used by higher education institutions to predict a student's likelihood of success in college. More information on Maine's switch to the SAT is available online at www.state.me.us

COLLEGE BOARD: The nonprofit group of about 4,500 colleges and universities that manages the SAT and its other college entrance examinations, such as advanced placement examinations.

MAINE LEARNING RESULTS: A set of standards Maine high school graduates are expected to meet in various subjects, adopted by the Legislature in 1997 and now under revision. More information is available online at www.maine.gov

MAINE EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT: The name of the achievement test given to all students in grades three through eight to determine student performance of Maine Learning Results. More information is available online at www.state.me.us
______

Staff Writer Beth Quimby can be contacted at 791-6363 or at:

bquimby@pressherald.com

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/060724sat.shtml

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 8:57 PM 0 comments Links to this post

91% of seniors pass state exam
Exit test keeps estimated 5% from graduating
- Nanette Asimov, Jill Tucker, Chronicle Staff Writers
Saturday, July 22, 2006

The final tally of high school seniors who failed the statewide exit exam is in: 40,173 students -- more than half of whom would have otherwise graduated this year -- did not pass the test, the state Department of Education announced Friday.

Passing the exit exam was a graduation requirement for the first time this spring, causing anguish for students who had satisfied all other graduation requirements except the test of basic math and English skills.

Based on a poll of the state's largest districts, an estimated 5 percent of all 2006 seniors ultimately did not graduate solely because they couldn't pass the exam, state officials said.

Those students -- who would have qualified for graduation in prior years but leave high school empty-handed this year -- are at the center of a lawsuit that seeks to nullify the exit exam on constitutional grounds. The case goes to a state appeals court for a hearing on Tuesday.

Many of those students tried to pass the test in May, when it was given for the last time before graduation in June. The new results show that only 1,759 seniors managed to pass at that time, compared with 4,542 who succeeded in the March administration of the test.

Statewide, 9 percent of the Class of 2006 failed the exit exam, while seniors at the Bay Area's largest school districts fared worse. In San Francisco, 12 percent of seniors failed, while 13 percent did not pass in the West Contra Costa Unified School District and 43 percent failed in the Oakland Unified School District.

Hispanic and African American students were more likely to fail than their white and Asian counterparts. Through May, 97 percent of white students and 95 percent of Asian students had passed, compared with 85 percent of Hispanic students and 83 percent of African Americans.

Because it takes two months to score the tests, students who passed in May and were otherwise qualified to graduate will now receive their diplomas, many of them in special summer ceremonies organized by their districts. San Francisco Unified, for example, will hand out diplomas to all eligible students in a ceremony later this month.

The law gives students six chances to pass the exit exam between 10th and 12th grade. But state schools Superintendent Jack O'Connell, who wrote the exit exam legislation when he was a state senator in 1999, has said there is no statute of limitations for students who want to continue trying to pass the exam and earn a diploma.

For now, in addition to the regularly scheduled test dates, the state Legislature approved funding in the recently signed budget for two additional administrations of the exam for the class of 2006. The first is next week, and the second is on two Saturdays in December -- English and math on separate days -- to accommodate adult school or independent study students who work.

"I urge these students to continue to work in summer school, take a fifth year of high school, or study in adult school or community college to acquire those important skills in English and math," O'Connell said.

Many students are doing just that.

Iris Padilla, 17, who did not pass the exam despite having satisfied all other graduation requirements at Richmond High, studies English twice a week at Contra Costa Community College. She plans to take the English portion of the test on Tuesday and the math portion on Wednesday.

"I know I'm not going to pass," Iris said.

Like 41 percent of those who haven't passed, Iris speaks little English. She was born in Los Angeles but grew up in Mexico. Now, living with her Spanish-speaking mother in Richmond, she is torn between her need to learn English and her fear of speaking the unfamiliar words.

"It's embarrassing," she said.

The Oakland school district, which chose to give the test in March instead of May, gave all failing students the opportunity to take two free courses at Laney College, one for exit exam preparation and the other any class of their choosing that would count as college credit. Those students are eligible to take the exam next week.

In San Francisco, 199 of the 4,400 seniors in county and district schools didn't graduate because they couldn't pass the test. About 30 took a summer school course, and a total of 80 students have signed up to take the July administration. As with the rest of the state, many who failed were English learners.

"I think (the state) could have done a better job giving us more support for the English language learners," said interim San Francisco Unified Superintendent Gwen Chan.

After all the confusion and legal tussles over whether the exit exam would be enforced this year, Chan said she hopes the class of 2007 will have a "more positive and hopeful experience."

"This is the first year it's played out," she said. "It's been a learning experience. But the saga goes on."

Many class of 2006 students who didn't pass the exam are pinning their hopes for a diploma on a class-action lawsuit that claims the exam violates the state constitution. The case will be heard Tuesday before the state Court of Appeal in San Francisco.

In May, an Alameda County Superior Court judge shot down the exit exam, but the state Supreme Court overturned the ruling at O'Connell's request. Students who are suing the state say they were not taught the material on the test, nor did they have qualified teachers, textbooks and other materials needed to learn.

What's in the exam
The California High School Exit Exam consists of two sections. Students begin taking the test as sophomores and are allowed to take it as many as six times before graduation day. There is no time limit during the administration of the test. The exam includes:

-- Math content to eighth or ninth grade, including statistics, probability, data analysis, algebra, geometry and number sense including knowledge of fractions, decimals, and rational and irrational numbers.

-- English/language arts content to the 10th grade, including vocabulary, word origin and reading comprehension. Students are also required to write an essay.


Source: California Department of Education

E-mail Nanette Asimov at nasimov@sfchronicle.com and Jill Tucker at jtucker@sfchronicle.com.





Exit exam results

The final pass rates
are in for the class of 2006:
Number
All who Percent
seniors* passed passed

California 436,374 396,201 91%

San Francisco United 4,404 3,863 88%

Oakland Unified 2,350 1,350 57%

West Contra Costa Unified 1,756 1,524 87%

*Note: Special education students, included in the total number of seniors,
were
exempted from having to pass the exam this year and did not necessarily
participate in
all administrations of the exam.
.
Source: California Department of Education, school districts
The Chronicle


Page B - 1
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/07/22/BAGN1K3K0P1.DTL
©2006 San Francisco Chronicle

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 8:53 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Not all suspect schools on TAKS list
Exclusive: Firm flagged 167 more, but state not looking into it

12:16 AM CDT on Sunday, July 23, 2006


By JOSHUA BENTON and HOLLY K. HACKER / The Dallas Morning News


The list of schools suspected of cheating is longer than Texas education officials have reported – and those officials say they aren't interested in tracking down the latest suspects.

A Dallas Morning News analysis has found that at least 167 unidentified schools were flagged as potential cheaters by Caveon, the company Texas hired to hunt for TAKS cheaters. That's in addition to the 442 schools named by state officials. None of the other schools have been notified that they are on the list.

Texas Education Agency officials say they don't know which schools they are – and they have no plans to find out.

Also Online
Graphic: Tracking down cheaters

State seems to have had right to see cheat data

"The only list of schools we have is the list that has been made public," said TEA spokeswoman Suzanne Marchman. "That's the list we plan to work with."

Superintendents with schools that have been named have complained that the TEA hasn't given them all the information they need to investigate Caveon's findings. But at least they know their scores are suspicious.

"That is so grossly unfair," said Gayle Fallon, president of the Houston Federation of Teachers. "If you're going to accuse someone of cheating, look them in the eye and do it."

Caveon, a Utah-based data-analysis company, was hired by Texas officials last year to examine the students' 2005 scores on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills.

That followed a series of stories by The News that found evidence of cheating on the TAKS in schools throughout the state.

The News discovered the missing schools when analyzing data in one of the appendixes of Caveon's May report to the TEA. Caveon withholds many of the details of how it performs its analysis, citing proprietary reasons. But in the appendix, the company outlines what it found in one high school where it suspects cheating on the math TAKS.

The report doesn't identify the school by name and lists its students only as anonymous ID numbers. But The News was able to determine that the school is Westbury High School in Houston by matching the student scores to state data. Westbury is the only school in Texas that had student scores matching the data in the appendix.

Houston school officials declined to comment, as did a Caveon spokesman.

Westbury had 1,431 students take the math TAKS in 2005. Of those, 185 had answer sheets Caveon considered suspiciously similar to at least one other student's. Caveon said the chance of that happening at random was less than 1 in 4 million million billion billion billion. That's a 1 with 40 zeroes after it.

The analysis also found several groups of Westbury students who had identical answer sheets – even getting all their unlikely wrong answers wrong in exactly the same way. Caveon also found an unusually high level of erasures at Westbury.

One Westbury junior – known only as No. 3561511 in the report – made a seemingly miraculous gain. As a sophomore, she performed very poorly on the math TAKS, outscoring only about 20 percent of the state's test takers. But as a junior, her score zoomed up – beating that of about 73 percent of Texas students.

No. 3561511 was helped by the 23 wrong answers on her answer sheet that were erased and replaced with correct answers. She ended up with an answer sheet identical to those of three of her peers and almost identical to three others.

In its report, Caveon is confident that there was wrongdoing at Westbury. "It appears likely that there are instances of testing irregularities at this school," it states. Caveon also writes that of all the Texas schools where it found math irregularities, Westbury was the seventh-most suspicious.

But the TEA never told Houston officials that Westbury's math scores were suspicious. That's because TEA officials didn't know themselves.


Dual analyses

The core of the confusion is that Caveon actually performed two different but complementary analyses of the state's test scores. One looked for suspicious test scores in each classroom. The other looked for problems throughout a school.

Both analyses examined the same scores. But they had different standards for how much suspicious activity it took for a classroom or school to be flagged.

Because classrooms have fewer students than whole schools, it takes a higher incidence of suspicious activity for a classroom to be flagged than for an entire school.

For example, imagine a classroom with only 10 students. If two of those students had scores Caveon considered suspect – 20 percent of the total – that probably wouldn't be enough for the classroom to be flagged as suspicious. That's because, when dealing with such small numbers, two strange test scores could result from random chance or "noise" in the data.

But imagine a school with 1,000 students. If 200 of those students had suspicious scores – still 20 percent of the total – that would in many cases be enough for Caveon to declare the school's performance suspect. Statistically, it is less likely that 200 strange scores would be attributable to chance.

As a result, Caveon was more likely to flag an entire school with strange scores than a classroom. Of the 73,793 classrooms whose scores it analyzed, the company flagged 702 – about 1 percent. But Caveon flagged 609 of the 7,112 schools it analyzed – more than 8 percent.


Short list explained

The problem is that the list of 442 suspect schools that the TEA distributed to districts includes only the schools that had classrooms flagged – not those flagged as an entire campus.

There is probably some overlap between the two lists. For example, in the case of Westbury High School, Houston officials have been told that there was potential cheating on the science and social studies tests in 11th-grade classrooms. But the TEA never informed them about the problems Caveon found schoolwide in the math test results.

At a minimum, 167 schools were flagged by Caveon as possible cheaters and still have no idea. According to the Caveon report, the number of those schools could be as high as 394.

Lisa Chandler, the state's director of assessment, responded to questions about the missing list via e-mail. She said the state didn't obtain the list of schools Caveon considered suspicious because "the list based on the classrooms seemed to be the most useful for districts to use in following up the results."

She cites a section of the Caveon report that suggests the suspicious classroom scores may be a good place to begin investigations. "That is, those schools where exceptions were detected in multiple classrooms might be investigated first," the report states.

But the TEA has already committed to investigate a number of schools regardless of how many classrooms were flagged. Last month, it announced plans to investigate 14 schools on the Caveon list that were also due cash bonuses from the state for their outstanding test scores.

The agency doesn't know whether any other schools on the bonus list might have been flagged by Caveon's schoolwide analysis. And it has no plans to find out which schools are on the list or how egregious their possible cheating might have been.

That means that even schools with what Caveon considers highly suspicious scores won't be identified or investigated.

"The schools that TEA intends to address would be the ones where classrooms were flagged in the list that's been provided," Ms. Marchman said.

E-mail jbenton@dallasnews.com

and hhacker@dallasnews.com

Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/072306dnmettakscheat.172ce95.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 8:30 PM 0 comments Links to this post

More than 90% of 3rd-, 5th-graders pass TAKS promotion test
Students who failed will likely advance with parents' appeal

07:34 AM CDT on Thursday, July 20, 2006


By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News


AUSTIN – More than 95 percent of third-graders and nearly 91 percent of fifth-graders have been promoted after passing the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills this year, but thousands of other students who failed the exam are depending on appeals by their parents to avoid flunking.

Results released Wednesday by the Texas Education Agency indicated that 13,178 third-graders could not pass the reading section of the TAKS after three opportunities – a state requirement to be promoted to the fourth grade.

However, state law also allows parents to appeal their child's retention, and most parents do. A student who has failed the TAKS can still be promoted with the approval of the principal, teacher and parent.

Past studies have indicated the majority of third-graders who fail the TAKS are allowed to move to the fourth grade with their peers because of parental appeals.

Fifth-graders are required to pass both the math and reading sections of the exam to be promoted. A total of 26,480 students in fifth grade (9 percent) failed the reading section of the TAKS, while 21,019 students (7.1 percent) failed the math section.

A majority of fifth-graders who failed also are expected to get around the test requirement through appeals by their parents.

Passing percentages remained about the same as last year for third-graders, while there was slight improvement for fifth-graders. Scores on Spanish versions of the exams improved for both third- and fifth-graders.

This was the second year that fifth-graders fell under a state law aimed at curtailing social promotion – the practice of automatically passing students regardless of achievement – by requiring them to pass the state achievement test. It was the fourth year that third-graders have had to meet the tougher promotion standard.

Stakes on the TAKS are highest for third- and fifth-graders, who must pass to be promoted, and for high school seniors, who must pass to be awarded a diploma.

A study by the Texas Education Agency last year indicated that the number of retentions in third grade has increased only slightly under the new promotion standards, which went into effect in 2003. The study showed that 46.4 percent of students who failed the test actually repeated the third grade. The rest were promoted after their parents successfully appealed.

State education officials have attributed the low failure rate to teacher training and reading intervention programs that begin in kindergarten and continue through the early elementary grades.

E-mail tstutz@dallasnews.com


TAKS PASSING RATES

Here are the passing rates on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills for the past year. Third-graders must pass the TAKS reading test to be promoted, while fifth-graders must pass both the reading and math tests:

Ethnic or racial group 3rd-grade reading 5th-grade reading 5th-grade math
Blacks 91% 85% 85%
Hispanics 94% 87% 91%
Whites 98% 97% 97%
Asians 99% 97% 99%

SOURCE: Texas Education Agency

Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-taks_20tex.ART.State.Edition1.22e4238.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 8:06 PM 0 comments Links to this post

This piece by ALAN JENKINS & LARRY COX appeared in the June issue of THE NATION. It's a really powerful piece that considers the utility of internationa standards of justice. I found it pretty eye-opening. -Angela

[from the June 27, 2005 issue]

On March 1 the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the Constitution forbids executing juvenile offenders. In putting to death people who were minors when they committed their crime, the majority noted, "The United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty." In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia attacked the majority's consideration of laws and practices outside the United States, saying that the consensus of "like-minded foreigners" had no bearing in understanding our own Constitution. One month later, in a speech to the American Society of International Law, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg responded that US courts should pay more attention, not less, to international norms. She added that "the notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the US Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification."

The increasingly noisy debate on the High Court over the proper role of international standards of justice in our domestic law and policy reflects a broader development that is gaining momentum around the country: Human rights are coming home. Advocates are discovering how the fight for justice and freedom here can be waged through human rights, the international ethical and legal standards that the United States helped to create more than fifty-five years ago and that it is officially committed to respect and uphold. In so doing, this emerging human rights movement is forced to confront deliberate, longstanding and nonpartisan policies aimed at insuring that human rights are reserved for external use only.

Unlike many governments, the United States never underestimated the power of human rights. Led by Eleanor Roosevelt, this country played a critical role in the adoption, on December 10, 1948, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which for the first time bound all governments to a common standard of conduct. Ever since then the United States has invoked human rights standards, often aggressively if highly selectively, to criticize other governments.

Yet from the very beginning, leaders from both political parties sought to insure that the human rights the United States championed abroad could never be employed as instruments of change at home. One concern was the possibility that the Declaration's recognition of economic and social rights--the right to a job, education, adequate food, shelter and healthcare--could be used to expose the large holes in the US social safety net. The driving fear, however, was the threat that human rights standards posed to the system of US racial apartheid. Even the treaty against genocide, adopted at about the same time as the Declaration, was blocked successfully by Southern politicians because of its potential use in the fight against lynching in the United States. As Professor Carol Anderson documents in her book Eyes Off the Prize, one of Eleanor Roosevelt's less celebrated roles was to work against any enforcement powers for UN human rights bodies and thus assure Southern Democrats that racial segregation had nothing to fear from human rights.

Under a deal made by the Eisenhower Administration, the United States would for forty years refuse to ratify a single one of the human rights treaties it had helped to inspire. When some treaties, such as the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, were finally ratified in the 1990s it was with the explicit condition that, absent specific legislation, these treaties could not be enforced in domestic courts. This policy of "US exceptionalism" effectively deterred civil rights and social justice organizations from taking advantage of the language, laws, methodologies, mechanisms, possible alliances and unifying vision offered by the international human rights framework and movement. American-based human rights organizations put most of their focus on every country except the United States, thus reinforcing the view that human rights were of relevance only to other countries.

In recent years, however, social justice activists, public interest attorneys and even federal judges have begun to discover human rights--and to bring them home. One promising development is the recent creation of the US Human Rights Network, a membership group that already includes more than 150 mostly community-based organizations. The network is dedicated to promoting US accountability to universal human rights standards, connecting domestic social justice movements with international movements for human rights, and building a "human rights culture" in America ("Something Inside So Strong," the network's resource guide, is available at www.ushrnetwork.org).

In San Francisco, WILD for Human Rights has been pioneering in its use of a human rights framework. WILD (Women's Institute for Leadership Development) led a highly creative campaign that convinced the City Council in 1998 to adopt the international Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) as part of its municipal law and to conduct a "gender analysis" of city operations to determine their impact on women. The campaign included organizing a public hearing in which residents who had experienced discrimination and community leaders testified about the practical impact that adopting CEDAW would have. The ordinance that emerged required the city not only to refrain from discriminating itself but also to "take all appropriate measures" to prevent discrimination by others--including gender-based violence--within the city. An analysis of the Department of Public Works, for example, led to new, nontraditional employment opportunities for women and more streetlights in unsafe neighborhoods. And in El Paso, Texas, the Border Network for Human Rights, which works to curb abuses against immigrants, has had similar success with a human rights approach. Within a year of adopting such a strategy, the network had established ten local Committees for the Defense of Human Rights, with more than 250 families as members.

These activists join groups, like the Indian Law Resource Center and the Center for Constitutional Rights, that have long used human rights principles in the legal context. And they mirror a change in the way that international human rights organizations based in the United States think about their own country's obligations. Global Rights, for example, is a twenty-five-year-old human rights group with offices around the world. Its work now includes the United States, with a focus on protecting the rights of migrant farm and domestic workers, addressing racial disparities in criminal justice and promoting the right to equal education. Human Rights Watch, too, has turned its attention to the domestic context, exposing violations of workers' rights in meatpacking and other industries.

Also spurring the nation's tentative steps toward embracing human rights is the work of scholars in the legal academy. At the University of Chicago Law School, Cass Sunstein is forcefully making the case that the notion of economic human rights is a part of our nation's political, legal and cultural legacy. His recent book The Second Bill of Rights details how much of the international human rights system flowed from the US experience of the Great Depression, as well as from core American values of freedom and human dignity. Just as legal scholars like Charles Hamilton Houston laid the theoretical groundwork for the rebirth of the equal protection clause in Brown v. Board of Education a half-century ago, so Sunstein and others are developing and testing the bases for human rights to assume their proper role in US law.

This legal movement is beginning to bear fruit--notably through some recent Supreme Court decisions. Over the past two decades the Rehnquist Court has rolled back a range of constitutional and civil rights protections. Yet in several landmark cases during its last two terms, the Court has vindicated fundamental freedoms, based partly on international human rights principles.

In Lawrence v. Texas, in which it protected consensual gay sexuality as within Americans' right to privacy, the Court cited a European Court of Human Rights decision as persuasive authority. In its decision upholding affirmative action as a tool for advancing diversity and addressing discrimination, Justice Ginsburg cited the convention against racial discrimination in her concurring opinion. In holding that executing people with mental retardation constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, the Court looked, in part, to international practices and standards of decency. And in its recent decision overturning the juvenile death penalty, the Court found relevant that every country save the United States and Somalia had ratified the international Convention on the Rights of the Child, which outlaws the practice.

These legal references have not gone unnoticed by critics of US human rights. House Republicans have introduced a resolution declaring that the "meaning of the Constitution of the United States should not be based on judgments, laws, or pronouncements of foreign institutions unless such foreign judgments, laws or pronouncements inform an understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution of the United States." A similar resolution has been introduced in the Senate.

What difference would it make if we in the United States began to take human rights seriously? Certainly, constitutional rights are central to our democracy. But reinvigorating a human rights culture alongside our constitutional one would advance American values of opportunity, fairness and dignity that have languished in recent years.

Think of what it would mean to the 45 million Americans without health insurance if the United States respected the right to "the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health" contained in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In South Africa, since a landmark Constitutional Court ruling, the right to health has meant that low-income, HIV-positive women who are pregnant have had access to antiretroviral drugs to prevent transmission of the virus to their newborn babies. We can only imagine what the trajectory of the HIV/AIDS epidemic might have been in the United States if we had made human rights principles central to our early response.

And consider our nation's criminal justice policies. In 2002, for the first time in our history, the nation's prison and jail population exceeded 2 million people--almost two-thirds of whom are people of color. Yet when the Supreme Court heard a 1987 case asserting that race played a determinative role in who receives the death penalty in Georgia, it assumed the accuracy of that claim, then went on to rule that this form of unequal protection did not violate the Constitution. In contrast, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination--which President Johnson signed in 1966 and the Senate ratified in 1994--requires governments to eliminate and redress "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise on an equal footing of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, or any other field of public life." There is no question that Georgia's racially biased use of the death penalty violated that standard, which focuses on government's obligation to remedy injustice rather than a defendant's obligation to prove individual discriminatory intent.

Just as social justice at home suffers in the absence of respect for human rights, the cost of US exceptionalism to our credibility abroad is immeasurable. It is especially great at a time when our government is pursuing the hearts and minds of the world's nations to combat global terrorism. Moreover, legitimate US criticism of countries like China and North Korea for human rights violations is unlikely to get a fair hearing when the United States has renounced its own treaty obligations to respect the rights of Guantánamo Bay prisoners under the Third Geneva Convention. Until it was recently rebuked by the Supreme Court, the Bush Administration asserted the right to imprison US citizens indefinitely as "enemy combatants" without charging them with a crime and without affording them access to impartial review or an attorney; it still claims the authority to subject foreign nationals to such treatment. The United States has properly called for international action to address the human rights catastrophe in the Darfur region of Sudan. Yet it tried to "unsign" the International Criminal Court treaty, which was designed to address precisely that kind of gross human rights violation.

To be sure, human rights are no magic bullet. Many countries have signed and ratified all the major human rights instruments, then routinely ignored them. Bringing human rights home to the United States would spur debate, disagreement and dissent. But whatever the leanings of the leaders in power at any given time, Americans have a tradition of respect for the rule of law. Government officials would oppose rights enforcement when inconvenient or embarrassing, and judges would disagree about the fundamental meaning of various human rights--just as they do with constitutional rights. But ultimately, they would be our law and could be enforced in ways that would change lives at home and be an inspiration abroad.

There is no question that international human rights remain a foreign concept today in many--perhaps most--communities around the United States. Yet they are no more foreign than the right to vote was in Mississippi before courageous civil rights activists and ordinary people began standing up to hatred and violence in an organized way. They are no more foreign than the right to a safe and legal abortion was in Texas when reproductive rights activists began laying the groundwork for Roe v. Wade. They are no more foreign than the right to organize for decent working conditions was in the auto plants of Detroit or the mines of West Virginia before workers took up that cause in mass numbers. That the right to vote, the right to organize and the right to reproductive freedom are under attack right now emphasizes the challenge facing all those who care about social justice, as well as the new energy and direction that human rights can bring to those struggles.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050627/cox

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 12:21 AM 0 comments Links to this post

This is alarming.... -Angela

July 23, 2006, 1:05PM
READING STRUGGLES
FIRST GRADE, SECOND TRY
Nearly 6 percent of students in Texas repeat the first grade, raising costs and controversy

By JENNIFER RADCLIFFE
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

Youngsters headed to first grade next month shouldn't take the assignment lightly: A whopping 1 in 9 students at some Houston schools won't earn his way into second grade.

Statewide, 6 percent of first-graders not in special education are held back annually — roughly twice the retention rate of any other elementary or middle school grade. And the percentage of failing first-graders has reached double digits in about 80 of Texas' 1,040 school districts, including Pasadena, Aldine and Houston, according to a 2005 state report.

Holding back nearly 21,000 Texas first-graders cost the state roughly $185 million in 2004-05.

"It is expensive, and it's a problem. We've got to find ways of addressing and meeting their needs," said Pasadena Superintendent Kirk Lewis, whose district's 12.4 percent first-grade retention rate is among the highest in Harris County.

The reason for the first-grade logjam is simple: Too many children — particularly those from poor families — arrive unprepared to do the work, struggle to read and are unable to catch up with their peers in one school year, experts said. Free prekindergarten programs for children from low-income families so far have seemingly failed to reverse that trend. And some researchers and educators are questioning the wisdom of Texas' hard-line stance against social promotion.

Making sure students succeed in the first grade — where they tackle the fundamentals of reading — could be critical in Texas' lowering its high school dropout rate and meeting federal achievement standards. High school dropouts are five times more likely to have repeated a grade than graduates; students who are retained twice almost always end up dropping out, according to national research.


Numerous goals

First grade isn't exactly child's play.
A 38-page curriculum asks youngsters to identify rhymes; use patterns to count by twos, fives and tens; observe and record the weather; create calendars; and identify historical figures who have exemplified good citizenship — among numerous other objectives.

Some districts expect students to read about 60 words a minute by the end of the year — a feat that trips up many. To solve the problem of high retention rates, schools need to find more effective ways of teaching children to read, experts said.

"We keep looking at the failure rate and acting like it's a problem with the children when it's a problem with the system," said Marion Blank, co-director of the developmental neuropsychiatry program at Columbia University and author of The Reading Remedy.

Blank called the double-digit failure rates of some Houston school districts "absolutely an alarm bell."

Much like dropouts, students who are retained in first grade in Texas are about twice as likely to be poor, male and either black or Hispanic than they are to be affluent, female and Anglo or Asian.

Those statistics hold true in the Houston Independent School District, where 93 percent of students who repeated the first grade in 2003-04 qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. Black students in that first grade were four times as likely as white students to be retained; Hispanic students were three times as likely.

One-third of the 1,752 HISD students who repeated first grade in 2003-04 had been enrolled in the school district's prekindergarten program three years earlier.

Statewide, districts with above-average poverty rates, including Houston, Aldine and North Forest, also have above-average retention rates. Students who come from poor families are less likely to know their letters or numbers before they arrive on campus.

"A lot of our students come to school without the life experiences," said Wanda Bamberg, assistant superintendent of the Aldine school district, which held back 11.1 percent of its first-graders in 2004-05. "They come in with considerable gaps."


Social promotion issue

School districts are adding summer programs, extending the school day and rethinking how they teach reading to try to help these struggling 6- and 7-year-olds. But when the efforts fail, teachers are faced with one of the most controversial decisions in education: whether to hold the child back a grade or "socially promote" struggling students to keep them with their peers.
Educators on either side of the social promotion debate can point to studies that appear to back their opinion.

"It's the classic pendulum, and over the last 30 years it has swung back and forth," said Karl Alexander, a sociology professor at Johns Hopkins University and co-author of On the Success of Failure.

According to Alexander's research, first-grade retention rates reached 15.3 percent for the District of Columbia in 1979-80 and 20 percent for Arizona in 1985-86. In the 1990s, first-grade retention rates in the 19 states that Alexander surveyed ranged from Vermont's 1.9 percent to Washington, D.C.'s 12.9 percent. Texas was in the middle of the pack.

But Texas' rate has been on the rise. It increased 20 percent — from 5 percent in 1997-98 to 6 percent in 2004-05. And the 61 school districts in the Houston region have seen a 20 percent jump in their rate since the mid-1990s.

"There's now a desire not to promote kids to the next level if they don't have the skills to go to the next level. That's really different than it was 10 years ago," said Karen Soehnge, the Houston school district's chief academic officer.


Presidents favor retention

Over the past decade, former President Clinton, President George W. Bush and other politicians have championed retention, saying it's a better option than promoting students before they're ready. As Texas governor, Bush pushed for laws that now require students at certain grade levels (but not first grade) to pass state exams before moving on.
Yet studies have repeatedly shown that students who are retained never catch up academically and are more likely to misbehave, dislike school and feel badly about themselves than other students, according to the National Association of School Psychologists.

La Porte grandmother Sharon Sims cried as she considered sending her grandson Roger Hight back to first grade last fall.

Even though he had been promoted, Roger's first month in the second grade at College Park Elementary was miserable. Teachers kept him out of physical education and other fun classes so that he could spend more time learning to read. In September, she decided her grandson should be moved back.

"Oh my gosh, I cried. I knew he needed it, but it was tough," Sims said. "I felt like I was a failure. He was not understanding how to read at all."

A year later, Sims said she's sure she made the right decision. Even though her grandson's older than most of his classmates, he's now in much better shape academically.

Some educators say that if a child must be held back, it's better to do it in kindergarten, first or second grade.

"There's an informal rule that earlier is better," said Jason Downer, a research scientist at the University of Virginia with expertise in the transition into first grade.

A study by University of Houston sociology professor Gary Dworkin showed that students who were held back because they failed Texas' standardized test went on to greater academic and social success.

"Higher retention rates, when it's done very early, ends up to be somewhat beneficial to the kids, as opposed to doing nothing or to socially promoting them and hoping they pick up the material," Dworkin said.

"The best we could say is that it was not harmful in ways that earlier studies conveyed," Dworkin said. "Retention is expensive. If a child continues through 12th grade, it's an additional year of public schooling. It also means schools will grow in size simply because some portion of kids don't move on."

But other studies concluded that children who are held back in early grades eventually suffer.

Students retained during a two-decade study in Baltimore didn't show short-term effects of repeating a grade, but they still tended to drop out out of high school at much higher rates than their classmates, Alexander said.

He encourages schools to look at creative options including "partial promotion" — keeping students with their peer group in most subjects but providing remediation in the subjects that are troubling.


A successful program

In 1993-94, Texas piloted a $5 million Retention Reduction Program to try to help 10,000 struggling first-graders. After the students in the program spent an extra month in the summer receiving intense remediation, 92 percent of them were ready for second grade.
The program cost $517 per student, a small fraction of what it costs to send them back to first grade.

Because of its success, the state now offers extra funding to schools that provide summer classes to elementary-age students.

The La Porte school district launched a summer academy for first-graders this year. About 50 students — some of whom were being promoted and some of whom were being held back — spent the month working on phonics, vocabulary and comprehension.

Eight-year-old Cory Snyder said the extra class time was a big help.

"Reading was pretty hard for me when I started," said Cory, who will start second grade at College Park in August. "I used to get worse at it, but I kept trying."

Despite the initiative, Texas Education Agency spokeswoman DeEtta Culbertson said the state is concerned that the retention rate is creeping back up.

She thinks educators might be more willing to hold students back early to better prepare them for the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, which students must pass to be promoted from the third and fifth grades.


HISD's strict policy

HISD leaders say their retention rates are higher than average — 10.2 percent for first-graders — because they've spelled out even more stringent promotion standards.
To pass first grade, HISD students must earn at least a 70 percent in their course work, pass a reading exam of common words and score within at least one grade level on the Stanford 9 Achievement Test of their actual placement.

"We're using a different standard in HISD," Soehnge said. "We will have a higher retention rate as a result."

HISD spokesman Terry Abbott said HISD's strict policy is good for children.

"Some of the researchers disagree, but many agree that social promotion is bad for kids, and retaining them and making sure they learn the material is important," he said.

Even with the higher standards, though, Soehnge said HISD hopes to make sure that every youngster who qualifies — those who come from poor families or who are learning English — has a spot in a full-day prekindergarten program.

"I really believe over time, we'll be able to lower those retention rates," she said.

jennifer.radcliffe@chron.com

This article is: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/4065585.html

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

Mon Jul 10 07:20:32 2006 Pacific Time
Latino Immigrants Come to U.S. With Negative Stereotypes of Black Americans, Study Shows

NOTE TO EDITORS: A copy of the study is available here in the August issue of the Journal of Politics

DURHAM, N.C., July 10 (AScribe Newswire) -- Latinos bring
negative stereotypes about black Americans to the U.S. when they
immigrate and identify more with whites than blacks, according to a
study of the changing political dynamics in the South.

The research also found that living in the same neighborhoods
with black Americans seems to reinforce, rather than reduce, the
negative stereotypes Latino immigrants have of blacks, said Paula D.
McClain, a Duke University political science professor who is the
study's lead author.

McClain said the findings are significant because the South
has the largest population of blacks in the U.S. and has been defined
more than other regions along a black-white divide. How Latino
immigrants relate to blacks and whites -- and how those groups relate
to Latinos -- has implications for the social and political dynamic
of the region, she said.

"Given the increasing number of Latino immigrants in the
South and the possibility that over time their numbers might rival or
even surpass black Americans in the region, if large portions of
Latino immigrants maintain negative attitudes of black Americans,
where will this leave blacks?" the researchers wrote. "Will blacks
find that they must not only make demands on whites for continued
progress, but also mount a fight on another front against Latinos?"

In an interview, McClain added: "We're actually pretty
depressed about a lot of our findings."

The findings will be published in the August issue of the
Journal of Politics, which is already available online
(http://journalofpolitics.org/art68_3.html#a7). The study was funded
by the Ford Foundation.

The study's co-authors are Niambi M. Carter, Victoria M.
DeFrancesco Soto and Monique L. Lyle of Duke; Jeffrey D. Grynaviski
of the University of Chicago; Shayla C. Nunnally of the University of
Connecticut; Thomas J. Scotto of West Virginia University; J. Alan
Kendrick of St. Augustine's College; and Gerald F. Lackey and Kendra
Davenport Cotton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The findings are based on a 2003 survey, conducted in English
and Spanish, of 500 Durham, N.C., residents, including 160 whites,
151 blacks and 167 Latinos. Durham was chosen for the pilot study
because North Carolina has the fastest-growing Latino population in
the country, and because Durham's black population includes residents
at all socioeconomic levels.

The goal was to understand how Latino immigration -- a
population largely new to the South in the past decade -- affects
group dynamics in the South, which has historically been defined by
the relationship between blacks and whites. The survey focused on a
range of social and political activities and attitudes, including
stereotypes each group holds about the other two.

Researchers found that 58.9 percent of Latino immigrants --
most Latinos in Durham are from Mexico -- feel that few or almost no
blacks are hard-working. About one-third, or 32.5 percent, of Latino
immigrants reported they feel few or almost no blacks are easy to get
along with. More than half of the Latino immigrants, or 56.9 percent,
feel that few or almost no blacks could be trusted.

Within the Latino immigrant population, researchers found,
more-educated Latinos have significantly fewer negative stereotypes,
and men have significantly more negative stereotypes.

"One might think that the cause of the Latinos' negative
opinions about blacks is the transmission of prejudice from Southern
whites, but our data do not support this notion," the researchers wrote.

White residents in Durham actually have a more positive view
of blacks, leading researchers to conclude that Latinos' negative
views were not adopted from whites. In the survey, only 9.3 percent
of whites surveyed indicate that few blacks are hard-working; only
8.4 percent believe few or almost no blacks are easy to get along
with; and only 9.6 percent feel that few or almost no blacks can be trusted.

The researchers also noted that if whites were the primary
influence on Latinos' stereotypes, Latinos would become more
prejudiced the longer they are in the U.S.; the findings do not
support that notion. The researchers also investigated whether
Latinos might be reciprocating the prejudice they sense from blacks;
again, the survey did not support this theory.

The survey showed that blacks view Latinos much more
favorably than Latinos view blacks. About 72 percent of blacks feel
most or almost all Latinos are hard-working, and 42.8 percent say
most or almost all Latinos are easy to get along with. About
one-third, or 32.6 percent, of blacks feel few or no Latinos could be trusted.

WHAT CAUSES THE LATINOS' STEREOTYPES?

The researchers concluded that Latino immigrants may bring
their feelings about the racial hierarchies in their own countries
with them to the U.S. The researchers noted that previous studies on
race and Latin America, especially Mexico, identify blacks as
"representing the bottom rungs of society."

The study also looked at the racial group with whom Latino
immigrants most identify. More than 78 percent feel they have the
most in common with whites, and 52.8 percent said they have the least
in common with blacks.

Whites do not feel the same connection to Latino immigrants.
Nearly half of whites -- 47.5 percent -- reported they have the least
in common with Latinos. Just 22.2 percent of whites see themselves as
having the most in common with Latinos, while 45.9 percent say they
have the most in common with blacks.

Among blacks, respondents are split -- 49.6 percent say
blacks have the most in common with Latinos, while 45.5 percent say
they have the most in common with whites.

The study did find that several factors do reduce
stereotypes. For instance, when Latinos have a sense of "linked fate"
with other Latinos -- or the sense that what happens to other Latinos
affects them -- they tend to have fewer stereotypes against blacks.

"The finding that these negative attitudes are modulated by a
sense of linked fate suggests possibilities for the formation of
connections to black Americans in the absence of the presence of an
extant American Latino community," the researchers wrote.

The researchers also noted that education and some types of
social interaction with blacks can reduce negative stereotypes among
Latinos. However, one type of social interaction -- living in the
same neighborhood -- "pushes them farther away from blacks and closer
to whites," the study said.

"These new Latino immigrants may behave in ways similar to
the Chinese in Mississippi in the mid-19th century, and the Cubans in
Miami in the mid-20th century -- identification with whites,
distancing themselves from blacks, and feeling no responsibility to
rectify the continuing inequalities of black Americans," the
researchers wrote.

EXPANDING THE STUDY

McClain noted that more research needs to be done to fully
understand these findings. Her research team plans to expand the
study to determine whether the Durham findings mirror Latino-black
relations in other Southern cities. In addition to re-surveying
Durham residents, her group plans to study Memphis, Tenn.;
Greensboro, N.C.; Greenville, S.C.; and Dalton, Ga. She recently
received a grant from the Russell Sage Foundation to survey three of
the cities and will seek funding from other sources to fund the
remaining two cities.

While the topic requires additional research, McClain said
the initial findings indicate that community leaders in cities with
burgeoning Latino immigrant populations must begin thinking through
how the different groups get along.

"Black and Latino leaders need to recognize that there is a
tremendous potential for conflict and that Latino immigrant attitudes
toward black Americans may be a part of that," she said. "There is
also a potential for a backlash against Latino immigrants from black
Americans."

- - - -

CONTACTS: Paula McClain can be reached for comment at
919-660-4303 or pmcclain@duke.edu. For media assistance, contact
Kelly Gilmer, Duke University Office of News & Communications,
919-681-8065, kelly.gilmer@duke.edu.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 2:24 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Thank you for sharing, Dr. Nilda Flores-Gonzalez (University of Illinois, Chicago). This survey of participants in the May 1 mobilization in Chicago yielded some very interesting results. This should help to dispel some stereoetypes. -Angela

UIC Immigrant Mobilization Project:General Survey Findings

Nilda Flores-Gonzalez
Amalia Pallares
Cedric Herring
Maria Krysan


On March 10, more than 100,000 people marched from Union Park to the Federal Plaza in Chicago to oppose pending federal immigration legislation. This unprecedented act surpassed the expectations of immigrant rights organizers and was the first large-scale demonstration of this order in the nation. As the U.S. senate met to consider a bill that would allow the legalization of many of the estimated 11 million undocumented people living in this country, the momentum continued. Massive marches took place in several cities of the nation such as Los Angeles, Dallas, Orlando, New York, Phoenix and Atlanta. On May 1, more than 400,000 people marched from Union Park to Grant Park in Chicago in support of undocumented immigrants. March leaders say that 700,000 people participated in the march, but more conservative accounts set participation from 400,000 to 600,000, making it the largest congregation in Chicago’s history. While most participants were Latinos, European, Asian and African immigrant groups were also visible. The march was also intergenerational as participation included large numbers of youth, elderly persons and families with young children.

The March 10 and May 1 mobilizations are the first national level movements in U.S. history to be spearheaded by Latinos. It is also the first national movement to focus on rights for undocumented immigrants. An important feature of this movement is that it connects immigrant rights, civil rights and workers’ rights.

While the Chicago media reported extensively on the marches, much of the information about the participants- who they were, why they were marching- was anecdotal and lacked a systematic study of the mobilization. During the May 1 march, researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago conducted a survey of participants at Union Park and Grant Park. We now have information about the characteristics and views of a large sample of people who participated in the march.

The Immigrant Mobilization Project is led by Professors Nilda Flores-Gonzalez and Amalia Pallares from the University of Illinois at Chicago and involves about a dozen faculty members and over 20 graduate and undergraduates students. The purpose of the project is to study the immigrant mobilizations, including participants, organizers, and the political conditions, resources and ideological frames that led to this mass movement. We are specifically interested in the role of different social, cultural and political institutions in shaping and framing the movement and in mobilizing participants. We also want to examine Chicago’s role as the first large-scale demonstration in the nation.

This project includes a survey of participants during the May 1 march and subsequent in-depth interviews with participants, organizers, and leaders of organizations and institutions that participated in the mobilizations. In this report, we are presenting the results of the first phase of this project: a survey of 410 participants in the May 1 march.[1] <#_ftn1>

Characteristics of the Participants:

1-Citizenship Status: (See Figure 1) It has been generally assumed that most of the March 10 and May 1 marchers are immigrants and that many are undocumented. The Pew Center estimates that there are 400,000 undocumented people in Chicago, the same number of people estimated by the police to have participated in the May 1 march, leading some to claim that the whole undocumented population of Chicago participated in that march. Our survey shows something different: 73% of our sample of marchers are US citizens (including U.S. born, naturalized, and dual citizens) and 42% were U.S. born.

While 57% of the marchers we surveyed are immigrants (born in another country), only 27% are not U.S. citizens. Among the latter are people with legal residency, work permits and student visas, as well as people without documents. Because we did not ask non-citizens about their legal status in the United States, we do not know for certain how many of the non-citizens are undocumented immigrants.

2- Race and Ethnicity: (See Figure 1) It has also been generally assumed that most of the marchers are Latinos, and in particular Mexicans. Indeed, we found that 76% of the sample are Latinos, 16% are white, 3% Black or African American, and 5% Asian or other. When asked to self-identify, 52% used a Mexican term (such as Mexicano, Mexican and Mexican American) and another 24% used some other Latino term (including Hispanic, Latino and other specific nationalities). Of the foreign born, 81% were Mexican, 10% from other Latin American countries (Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Argentina, Puerto Rico, Peru), 6% European, and 3% were born in other parts of the world.

3- Sex, Age and Marital Status: (See Figure 2) We found that participation was fairly evenly distributed between men (54%) and women (46%). We also found that the marchers we interviewed comprised a young population as the median age was 28 years old. Because we attempted to survey youths 16 years of age or older, we have no data on the thousands of children who participated. However, we found that 46% of the respondents had children: 87% had at least one child under the age of 21 and 50% had at least one child under the age of 7. We also know that 50% were married or cohabitating, 45% had never been married, and 5% were separated, divorced or widowed.

4- Language Spoken at Home: (See Figure 2) While many members of the press and the public have acknowledged the bilingualism and biculturalism of the Latino population in general, some have assumed that most of the marchers do not speak English and are unwilling to learn English. Contrary to this, in our sample of 410 marchers, we found that 86% spoke at least some English at home and 61% reported speaking English as much or more than another language at home. While 14% reported speaking only another language in the home, this does not mean that they do not speak English outside the home. Interestingly, 59% of the surveys were conducted in English.

5- Socioeconomic Status, Occupations and Education: (See Figure 3) There was an even distribution of education levels among the marchers we interviewed. The results show that 29% of the respondents had less than a high school education. Nearly a quarter of respondents (24%) were high school graduates. Another 21% have some college, and 26% are college graduates. Most of those surveyed (53%) reported a household income between $20,000 and $50,000. Only 21% had a household income below $20,000 while 26% had a household income over $50,000. The results also show that 73% of the respondents work either full-time or part-time. Sixty-nine percent hold traditional working class jobs: un-skilled workers (48%) and skilled workers (21%). About a third (31%) works in the white-collar sector.

6- Religious affiliation: (See Figure 3 and Figure 4) Since many religious leaders supported and participated in the march, we expected to find high rates of mobilization by churches. Our data shows that although church leaders encouraged congregation members to attend the march, many appear to have failed to take further steps to mobilize their congregations. Most of the participants (85%) in our survey reported a religious preference: Catholic (68%), Christian/Protestant (10%), Jewish (2%), Muslim (1%) and Other (5%). Seventy-one percent reported attending church at least once a month, and 71% said they were encouraged by religious leaders to attend the march. However, only 5% reported that someone from church had convinced them to attend the march and 4% reported convincing someone from church to attend the march. Furthermore, when asked if they attended the march with someone from church, only 2% responded that they had.

II. Mobilization Networks

1- Media: (See Figure 4) The findings show that the media played a role in mobilizing and/or making people aware of the march. About half of the marchers we surveyed reported hearing about the march in the media, particularly on television (56%), the radio (49%) and newspapers (28%). The Spanish-language media seemed to have had the largest impact, in particular Univision (television), Hoy (newspaper) and La Que Buena (radio), followed by Telemundo (television), La Raza (newspaper) and La Ley (radio).

2- Companions: (See Figure 4) In the sample of marchers we spoke to, the majority attended the march with someone else and more often than not they were family, friends or co-workers. Slightly over half (56%) attended the march with family members and 54% came with friends and/or co-workers. Many of the marchers in our sample reported attending the march with both family and friends. Nearly half (47%) had participated in the March 10 mobilization.

3- Reasons for Marching: (See Figure 5) Immigration was clearly the issue that mobilized people to march. Forty-four percent of the respondents declared that they were marching to support immigrants. More specific reasons included: to support legalization (27%), to defend or obtain rights - not only immigrant rights- (24%), to achieve or show unity (18%), for work/workers’ rights (12%), for justice (11%), and for families (10%).
4- Goal of March: (See Figure 6) Respondents were also clear about what they hope the march will accomplish. For 46% of those surveyed, legalization of undocumented people is the main objective of the march, and 28% say they hope for immigration policy changes. Other objectives included awareness of immigrants (14%), rights for immigrants (8%), and less abuse of immigrants (2%).

III. Civic Engagement

1-Civic Participation: (See Figure 7) Thirty-six million strong and growing, the Latino population has long been considered demographically important, but its political power has not yet matched its demographic growth. The immigrant mobilizations may have awakened the “sleeping giant” propelling people who were not politicized to march on the streets and risk losing their jobs for something that matters deeply to them. For many (regardless of citizenship status), this was the first time they had engaged in political activities. While more than half of the respondents have attended public meetings (55%), just over a third have signed petitions (37%), wrote letters or called officials (31%), placed campaign stickers in their car or home (32%), attended political rallies (39%) or contributed money to political candidates (23%). Of those eligible to vote, 62% reported participating in the past elections. Additionally, the survey shows that 47% of the respondents reported that they also marched on March 10. For the May 1 march, 72% of our sample said they had missed work to participate.

IV. Public Opinion and Policy Positions

1- Amnesty/Allowed to Stay: (See Figure 8) Not surprisingly, we found that 99% of those surveyed favor allowing undocumented people to stay in the U.S. Seventy-one percent of respondents believe in allowing undocumented immigrants to stay regardless of how long they have been in the U.S. while 18% favor amnesty for those who have been in the U.S. for more than five years. Only 36% support a guest worker program which would allow undocumented immigrants temporary work permits under the condition that they eventually return to their country of origin. It is clear that amnesty and not a guest worker program is what our sample of marchers is seeking. Furthermore, many may have been affected personally by current immigration policies since 37% of the respondents say they know someone who has been deported.

2- Common concerns: (See Figure 9 and Figure 10) The May 1 mobilization shows the potential for Latinos of different national backgrounds to work together towards a common goal. Most participants in our survey named immigration (82%) as a concern shared by Latinos, followed by work (73%), education (60%) and racial discrimination (52%). They also named concerns shared by Latinos and African Americans such as racial discrimination (65%), work (60%), and education (54%), which can perhaps be activated to create alliances.

3- Responsibilities and Rights of Non-citizens: (See Figure 11) One of the most controversial debates about immigrants revolves around the rights and responsibilities of non-citizens. According to 72% of the respondents, non-citizens should have the responsibility to pay taxes. There is less support for voting (53%), service on juries (29%) and military service (25%). Stronger support was found for non-citizens’ rights in this country. Over 80% of the respondents believe that non-citizens should have the right to work (83%), access to public education (81%), access to medical care (80%) and ability to obtain a driver’s license (80%). Sixty-seven percent also believe that non-citizens should have the right to obtain social security.

4- Strength of Love for the United States: (See Figure 12) Regardless of their citizenship status, 91% of the respondents expressed strong love for the United States. This is true of immigrants (90% of naturalized citizens, 96% of non-citizens, and 100% of dual citizens), as well as a slightly lower percentage of U.S. born citizens (86%). Ninety-four percent of respondents (immigrants and U.S. born) believe that dual citizens can be loyal to both countries. Furthermore, 93% of non-citizens said they want to become U.S. citizens.
--------------------------------

About the Authors:

Nilda Flores-Gonzalez is an associate professor of Sociology and Latin American and Latino Studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Amalia Pallares is an associate professor of Political Science and Latin American and Latino Studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Cedric Herring is a professor of Sociology at the University of Illinois at Chicago and in the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois.
Maria Krysan is an associate professor of Sociology at the University of Illinois at Chicago and in the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois.

Media Contact: Brian Flood, UIC News Bureau (bflood@uic.edu) (312)996-7681

--------------------------------
Acknowledgments: We want to acknowledge the support of the following departments at the University of Illinois at Chicago: College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Institute of Government and Public Affairs, The Jane Addams Hull House Museum, Office of Social Science Research, Department of Sociology, Latin American and Latino Studies Program, Office for the Protection of Research Subjects and UIC News Bureau. This project could not have been done without the 60 faculty and students who helped conduct the survey.

--------------------------------
Released July 17, 2006


[1] <#_ftnref1> The survey used a multi-stage block sampling technique to give respondents an equal chance of being selected for the study. Interviewers were assigned “block numbers” within Union Park and Grant Park. Within those blocks, they were instructed to approach every 10th person as a potential respondent for the survey. Because of Institutional Review Board (IRB) restrictions, interviewers were instructed only to approach people who were clearly over age 16. This process yielded 410 surveys.

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

The NYTimes editors conclude: "Instead of arguing about the alleged superiority of one category over another, the country should stay focused on the overarching problem: on average, American schoolchildren are performing at mediocre levels in reading, math and science--wherever they attend school."

This view, in my opinion, trivializes the differences and also fails to position societal and thusly, school-based inequalities as front and center. -Angela

July 19, 2006
Editorial /NYTimes
Public vs. Private Schools
The national education reform effort has long suffered from magical thinking about what it takes to improve children’s chances of learning. Instead of homing in on teacher training and high standards, things that distinguish effective schools from poor ones, many reformers have embraced the view that the public schools are irreparably broken and that students of all kinds need to be given vouchers to attend private or religious schools at public expense.

This belief, though widespread, has not held up to careful scrutiny. A growing body of work has shown that the quality of education offered to students varies widely within all school categories. The public, private, charter and religious realms all contain schools that range from good to not so good to downright horrendous.

This point was underscored last week when the United States Education Department released a controversial and long-awaited report comparing public and private schools in terms of student achievement as measured on the federal math and reading tests known as the National Assessment of Educational Progress. As with previous studies, this one debunked the widely held belief that public schools were inferior to their private and religious counterparts. The private schools appeared to have an achievement advantage when the raw scores of students were considered alone. But those perceived advantages melted away when the researchers took into account variables like race, gender and parents’ education and income.

The National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers’ union, quickly asserted that the study showed public schools were “doing an outstanding job.’’ That seems absurd, when we consider the dismal math and reading scores that American children racked up on last year’s national tests.

What the emerging data show most of all is that public, private, charter and religious schools all suffer from the wide fluctuations in quality and effectiveness. Instead of arguing about the alleged superiority of one category over another, the country should stay focused on the overarching problem: on average, American schoolchildren are performing at mediocre levels in reading, math and science — wherever they attend school.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/opinion/19wed2.html?th&emc=th

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 7:11 PM 0 comments Links to this post

July 15, 2006
Public Schools Perform Near Private Ones in Study

By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO / New York Times
WASHINGTON, July 14 — The Education Department reported on Friday that children in public schools generally performed as well or better in reading and mathematics than comparable children in private schools. The exception was in eighth-grade reading, where the private school counterparts fared better.

The report, which compared fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math scores in 2003 from nearly 7,000 public schools and more than 530 private schools, also found that conservative Christian schools lagged significantly behind public schools on eighth-grade math.

The study, carrying the imprimatur of the National Center for Education Statistics, part of the Education Department, was contracted to the Educational Testing Service and delivered to the department last year.

It went through a lengthy peer review and includes an extended section of caveats about its limitations and calling such a comparison of public and private schools “of modest utility.”

Its release, on a summer Friday, was made with without a news conference or comment from Education Secretary Margaret Spellings.

Reg Weaver, president of the National Education Association, the union for millions of teachers, said the findings showed that public schools were “doing an outstanding job” and that if the results had been favorable to private schools, “there would have been press conferences and glowing statements about private schools.”

“The administration has been giving public schools a beating since the beginning” to advance its political agenda, Mr. Weaver said, of promoting charter schools and taxpayer-financed vouchers for private schools as alternatives to failing traditional public schools.

A spokesman for the Education Department, Chad Colby, offered no praise for public schools and said he did not expect the findings to influence policy. Mr. Colby emphasized the caveat, “An overall comparison of the two types of schools is of modest utility.”

“We’re not just for public schools or private schools,’’ he said. “We’re for good schools.”

The report mirrors and expands on similar findings this year by Christopher and Sarah Theule Lubienski, a husband-and-wife team at the University of Illinois who examined just math scores. The new study looked at reading scores, too.

The study, along with one of charter schools, was commissioned by the former head of the national Center for Education Statistics, Robert Lerner, an appointee of President Bush, at a time preliminary data suggested that charter schools, which are given public money but are run by private groups, fared no better at educating children than traditional public schools.

Proponents of charter schools had said the data did not take into account the predominance of children in their schools who had already had problems in neighborhood schools.

The two new studies put test scores in context by studying the children’s backgrounds and taking into account factors like race, ethnicity, income and parents’ educational backgrounds to make the comparisons more meaningful. The extended study of charter schools has not been released.

Findings favorable to private schools would likely have given a lift to administration efforts to offer children in ailing public schools the option of attending private schools.

An Education Department official who insisted on anonymity because of the climate surrounding the report, said researchers were "extra cautious" in reviewing it and were aware of its “political sensitivity.”

The official said the warning against drawing unsupported conclusions was expanded somewhat as the report went through in the review.

The report cautions, for example, against concluding that children do better because of the type of school as opposed to unknown factors. It also warns of great variations of performance among private schools, making a blanket comparison of public and private schools “of modest utility.” And the scores on which its findings are based reflect only a snapshot of student performance at a point in time and say nothing about individual student progress in different settings.

Arnold Goldstein of the National Center for Education Statistics said that the review was meticulous, but that it was not unusual for the center.

Mr. Goldstein said there was no political pressure to alter the findings.

Students in private schools typically score higher than those in public schools, a finding confirmed in the study. The report then dug deeper to compare students of like racial, economic and social backgrounds. When it did that, the private school advantage disappeared in all areas except eighth-grade reading.

The report separated private schools by type and found that among private school students, those in Lutheran schools performed best, while those in conservative Christian schools did worst.

In eighth-grade reading, children in conservative Christian schools scored no better than comparable children in public schools.

In eighth-grade math, children in Lutheran schools scored significantly better than children in public schools, but those in conservative Christian schools fared worse.

Joseph McTighe, executive director of the Council for American Private Education, an umbrella organization that represents 80 percent of private elementary and secondary schools, said the statistical analysis had little to do with parents’ choices on educating their children.

"In the real world, private school kids outperform public school kids," Mr. McTighe said. "That’s the real world, and the way things actually are."

Two weeks ago, the American Federation of Teachers, on its Web log, predicted that the report would be released on a Friday, suggesting that the Bush administration saw it as "bad news to be buried at the bottom of the news cycle."

The deputy director for administration and policy at the Institute of Education Sciences, Sue Betka, said the report was not released so it would go unnoticed. Ms. Betka said her office typically gave senior officials two weeks’ notice before releasing reports. "The report was ready two weeks ago Friday,’’ she said, “and so today was the first day, according to longstanding practice, that it could come out."


Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/15/education/15report.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 7:10 PM 1 comments Links to this post

The deadline of July 31, 2006 for getting an essay in to the Mexican government is rapidly approaching. To see what other binational efforts with the U.S. that the government is pursuing, check out this website: http://www.ime.gob.mx/

Also, check out a thoughtful piece (below) by Haya El Nasser that appeared recently in USA TODAY on the U.S. nearing a milestone (sometime by mid-October) of 300 million people that’s due to immigration, longevity, a high brithrate, and economic stability.

A point that Brian Dixon, director of government relations for Population Connection, a grass-roots advocacy group formerly called Zero Population Growth, makes is the following:

“Immigration should not be viewed as a domestic issue, Dixon says. "Immigration is really foreign policy," he says. "What can the U.S. do to ease problems in the developing world that drive people to leave?" The goal, he says, should be to keep people in their native lands.”

Certainly, the Mexican government is ahead of the U.S. in construing and institutionalizing (through the I.M.E.) a binational agenda that’s social and political way beyond NAFTA which fulfills solely an economic one.

-Angela

Mexican Government Creates Contest to Get Migrant's Stories to the Policymakers

by Marisa Trevino in (http://latinalista.blogspot.com/)
July 18, 2006
There is a widely known fact among la raza that today's politicians who have declared undocumented immigrants as Public Enemy #1 seem to have forgotten: most undocumented immigrants did not come over with the intention of staying in the United States.

The intent was, is and always has been, for the vast majority of immigrants from Mexico and Latin America, to come long enough to earn some money to help the family back home then return there, unless home meant dodging bullets from an ongoing civil war.


(Source: San Francisco Chronicle)

It wasn't until we actually started beefing up border patrols and making it too risky to cross back and forth did immigrants resign themselves to living so far away from home.

It is said that roughly 10 percent of Mexico's population , about 107 million people, now live in the United States.

As much as we think immigration is a problem for us and that Mexico is condoning the northward hike by their citizens, we should look at the facts.

In Michoacan, in the town of Tendeparacua, there lives only 600 people today - in 1985, there were 6,000 residents. In the rural areas of the country, other towns like Tendeparacua, are totally devoid of any working-age men.

It doesn't bode well for the country's future not to have a workforce - of any kind.

In fact, demographers say that Mexico is aging and that its population trails the U.S. age profile by 30 years. (Ironic since if it wasn't for the Latino population in the United States, our own population wouldn't be as young as it is.)

Demographers expect the day will come when Mexico will have to import their own labor.

It sure would make things easier if their future labor force consisted of descendants of today's migrants. But by then, who knows how strong the tie, or the memories, would be to Mexico.

Maybe with that thought in mind, and as a preliminary step to address the mass migration from their country to the United States, the Institute for Mexicans Abroad, an initiative of the Mexican Secretary of Exterior Relations, is sponsoring an unique contest.

The First History of Migrants Contest , opened to all Mexicans or descendents of Mexicans, is an attempt by the Mexican government to gather first-hand accounts of the trips north of the border: Why they were taken, what risks were endured, how it went for the women and girls, what kind of support did they receive when they arrived and how they integrated into U.S. society.

The purpose of the contest is to create a space where others can read these stories and reflect on the impact migration can have on families, individuals and whole communities.

It is also, according to the contest's Spanish web site, a tool to be used to better understand the migration phenomenon by the citizenry and policymakers so that when programs are designed to address this issue, the policymakers will know what the exact needs are of the migrants and their families.

The stories must be written in Spanish and there are categories by age (12-20, 21 and older) for both Mexican and U.S. residency.

The winners of the essay contest will each win MXN$15,000 pesos or roughly US$1,364.70.

Also, winners, and a companion, will be invited to receive their prizes with an all-expense paid trip to Mexico City.

The winning essays will be available in the library of the National Population Council and on several government web pages.

Essays can either be mailed to the Mexico City headquarters of the National Population Council or the nearest Mexican Consulate.
Deadline is July 31, 2006.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A nation of 300 million
Updated 7/5/2006
By Haya El Nasser, USA TODAY


The USA is closing in on a milestone that seemed unthinkable 25 years ago. Sometime in mid-October, we will become a nation of 300 million Americans.
We will then embark on a relatively quick journey to 400 million. Target date: around 2040.

STATE BY STATE: Graphic shows USA's population growth

How did this young country get so big so quickly? Immigration, longevity, a relatively high birth rate and economic stability all have propelled the phenomenal growth. The nation has added 100 million people since 1967 to become the world's third-most populous country after China and India. It's growing faster than any other industrialized nation.

The biggest driver of growth is immigration — legal and illegal. About 53% of the 100 million extra Americans are recent immigrants or their descendants, according to Jeffrey Passel, demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center. Without them, the USA would have about 250 million people today.

The newcomers have transformed an overwhelmingly white population of largely European descent into a multicultural society that reflects every continent on the globe. Some arrived as war refugees. Most came in search of better opportunities in a country that has strong civil rights and a stable economy. Once here, they had babies, which helped the nation maintain a birthrate that is higher than that of Europe and Japan.

For a country that has equated growth with prosperity throughout much of its history, 300 million is prompting soul-searching about everything from the consumption of natural resources and sprawl to border control and traffic jams. The Census Bureau's population clock will hit the momentous number barely a month before midterm elections in which illegal immigration is a volatile issue.

Growth is visible

Half of Americans say their communities have grown a lot in the past five years, but more than three-fourths say growth is a minor problem or no problem where they live, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken in early June. Though about a third say growth will become a major issue in their communities, more than half say it will be a major problem for the country as a whole. Almost half attribute population growth to immigrants.

Lee Atkinson, 57, lives in Chesapeake, a city in Virginia's fast-growing Tidewater area near Norfolk and Virginia Beach. "The increase in people is creating an employment problem and increased demand for social services, and I'm not sure that the financial support is there," says Atkinson, owner of an occupational safety consulting company.

He worries that services and infrastructure are not keeping pace with population growth. "Nobody wants to build new highways. Nobody wants to maintain the ones we've got. We don't want to spend any money on it. More people are going to place more demands."

Oddly, most Americans don't have a clue how many people actually live in the USA or how many are expected to. Twenty-nine percent guessed the population at 200 million or less, and 19% put it at 1 billion or more. Twelve percent came within 50 million of guessing correctly.

There might be more awareness by year's end. Hoopla is mounting around the 300 million event. Some baby-food marketers plan to use it in their marketing campaigns. The Census Bureau and leading demographers are fielding calls from media worldwide.

"The world is watching," says William Frey, demographer at the Brookings Institution. He has gotten calls from British broadcasters asking which hospital the 300 millionth American will be born in and from parenting magazines trying to pinpoint the exact day of the event (Frey's estimate is Oct. 17).

Several publications want to know what race and ethnicity No. 300 million is likely to be. There is no way to pinpoint that person because the number is an estimate, not an exact accounting of the population. It could be a newborn. It could be an immigrant entering the country.

Carl Haub, senior demographer at the non-profit Population Reference Bureau, says a baby born in October probably will be white and not Hispanic because births from non-Hispanic white women still account for the majority. Frey disagrees. The elusive 300 millionth American is more likely to be Hispanic, he says, because Hispanics accounted for almost half the population gains in the past four years. “Eighteen percent of the gains are Anglos; the other 82% are something else,” he says.

On the brink of decline

The USA is alone among industrialized nations in its relatively rapid population increase. The populations in Japan and Russia are expected to shrink almost one-fourth by 2050. Germany, Italy and most European nations are not making enough babies to keep their populations from sliding.

"There's a fertility malaise in (other) industrialized countries," says Carl Haub, senior demographer at the non-profit Population Reference Bureau. "Europe and Japan and South Korea and Taiwan are getting desperate."

Women have to give birth to an average 2.1 babies to offset deaths and keep the population even. The birthrate in Western Europe is 1.6. It's even lower — 1.4 — in Italy, Spain and other southern European countries. France, which has done more to accommodate the needs of working mothers, has the highest rate at 1.9, Haub says.

Germany, where leaving children in day care is not socially embraced, is proposing a family allowance that would pay mothers 67% of their partner's net income up to 1,800 euros ($2,304) a month for up to a year after childbirth.

The USA would hardly grow in the next 50 years except for Hispanic immigrants, who have a higher birthrate than non-Hispanic whites. White women, who give birth to 56% of the children born here, have an average 1.85 babies. Blacks average about two and Asians 1.9. Hispanics have 2.8. The overall birthrate is slightly above two — just below replacement levels.

When the U.S. population was at 200 million in 1967, women had an average of three children and the government expected the population to hit 300 million as early as 1990. By the 1980s, the birthrate had tumbled and government estimates projected that the country wouldn't get there until the 2020s. The flow of immigrants turned those projections on their heads.

Why would a country want more babies? For industrialized nations, numbers mean economic and cultural power. To remain globally competitive, countries need workers. In addition to injecting innovation in the workplace, the young help meet the needs of the elderly through the taxes they pay, Haub says.

The nation is getting older as the oldest boomers turn 60 this year. People also are living longer. Since 1970, life expectancy at birth jumped about seven years to a record 77.9 years. The share of the population age 65 or older grew from 9.9% to 12.4%. The median age is up from 28.1 to 36.2 years.

Some experts argue that more people cause more problems. Brian Dixon, director of government relations for Population Connection, a grass-roots advocacy group formerly called Zero Population Growth, says the challenges for nations facing little growth or actual declines aren't as difficult as those confronting the USA.

"Figuring out a pension system has to be easier than dealing with the health crisis of polluted air or how we're going to address increases in childhood asthma," he says. "Is there going to be enough open space, enough parkland, enough housing, enough jobs? What does it mean for our quality of life?"

Immigration should not be viewed as a domestic issue, Dixon says. "Immigration is really foreign policy," he says. "What can the U.S. do to ease problems in the developing world that drive people to leave?" The goal, he says, should be to keep people in their native lands.

The United States all but shut its door to immigrants in the 1920s after a record wave of immigration that lasted about 30 years. The Depression and World War II followed. Then baby boomers were born from 1946 to 1964, arriving in a mostly white country that had very few recent immigrants.

Everything changed when President Johnson signed the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965. The policy opened U.S. shores to the Third World. "That was probably the single most important demographic event of the last 50 years," Haub says.

The act had less to do with attracting more immigrants than keeping immigration laws in line with the civil rights movement. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were designed to stop racial and ethnic discrimination —— inherent in the country's past immigration laws, which set quotas based on national origins. After 1965, race, religion, color and national origin were disregarded.

The end of the Vietnam War brought Asian refugees. In 1964, the United States ended the bracero program, which had allowed Mexican farmworkers to come to this nation to work and return home. By 1970, the Mexican economy had nosedived and more Mexicans came to stay — many illegally. Without the influx, Passel says, diversity would never have reached current levels: 15% Hispanic and 5% Asian compared with 5% Hispanic and 1% Asian in 1970.

"Our growth, were it not for that, would be barely enough to keep population constant," says Joel Darmstadter, senior fellow at Resources for the Future, a non-partisan research group that specializes in natural resources and the environment. His research shows that prosperity puts more pressure on natural resources than sheer population growth.

"It's not immigrants who are going to buy those expensive houses in Phoenix or Tucson," Darmstadter says. "To view immigration as the heavy in the problems of water use or energy use is a copout."

Plenty of space

It's difficult to imagine the country running out of space when there is open desert as far as the eye can see 30 minutes south or west of Phoenix.

The town of Maricopa, Ariz., is a dot in the breathtaking expanse of the Sonoran Desert. Not long ago, farmer Kelly Anderson, its first mayor, could rumble down state Highway 347 in his tractor, meet a buddy and hang out in the middle of the two-lane road for a chat and a beer without disrupting traffic.

Now, growth is galloping toward it across hundreds of square miles of arid soil, cotton fields and cattle feed lots. Maricopa's population has quadrupled since 2000 to more than 17,000. It's expected to reach 116,000 —Phoenix was that size in the early 1950s — by 2010 and top 300,000 by 2025.

Non-native palm trees appear on the horizon in every direction, a telltale sign of approaching subdivisions. Tanker trucks douse construction sites with water to dampen dust stirred up by bulldozers, a reminder of the natural resources gobbled up by growth.

What's happening in once-remote Maricopa is replicated across the country. The USA is getting more crowded — 83 persons per square mile in 2004 vs. 70.3 in 1990 — but it's far less dense than other nations such as France (287), China (361), Germany (609) and Japan (835). Arizona is getting denser: 50.5 in 2004 vs. 32.3 in 1990. That's still far less than other parts of the country, including California (230), Pennsylvania (277) and New Jersey (1,173).

Some regions haven't been touched by the nation's population surge. Parts of states in the Great Plains have suffered population losses and bemoan the exodus of their young. Nebraska's density (22.7) and North Dakota's (9.2) have barely budged this decade.

"We're still using a fraction of the national space," says Robert Lang, director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech. "By 2050, the settled space will be more developed. A lot of places are literally out of land. ... They're having to go up rather than out, but there'll still be the Great Plains and vast stretches of the Intermountain West."

Fueled by a sunny climate, plentiful land and cheaper housing, fast and furious growth has been a fact of life around Phoenix for decades.

Maricopa, Casa Grande, Goodyear, Buckeye and other small towns on the edge of the metro area are going through the same kind of boom that transformed closer-in suburbs such as Chandler and Glendale from specks on the map in 1970 to cities whose populations top 200,000 today.

"I've lived in northeast Pennsylvania, and declining growth is worse than rapid growth," says Jack Tomasik, planning director for the Central Arizona Association of Governments. "But rapid growth definitely has its drawbacks."

The boomtowns hope to create the infrastructure needed to sustain growth, something they've seen some bigger neighbors struggle with. That's why Buckeye, Goodyear, Litchfield Park and Avondale joined forces and put up money to speed the widening of I-10, the first time Arizona communities have done such a thing, Buckeye Mayor Bobby Bryant says. They're drafting plans to lure jobs and businesses, not just housing, a delicate balance because retail and employers won't come until enough people live there.

"You need to accept growth," Casa Grande Mayor Charles Walton says. "It's coming whether you want it or not."

Yet a future of whirlwind growth nags at him. He worries that it ultimately will harm the quality of life of future generations.

"I think I can tolerate it in my lifetime," he says, "but I feel very sorry for my grandchildren."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-04-us-population_x.htm

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 7:07 PM 0 comments Links to this post

This is an unfortunate debate because the premises from both sides of the debate are flawed--most significantly that the student's native language has no place in the child's instruction. Kids don't have too much trouble learning English. It's academic English that they have difficulty acquiring. Lots of Mexican Americans speak Spanish, but they can't handle themselves in formal, academic settings because they/we've never learned in one where Spanish was the sole language of instruction. California needs to revisit this entire matter, but more from a research-based perspective rather than a lesser-of-two-evils one. -Angela

Best way to teach English skills argued
By Laurel Rosenhall -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:01 am PDT Saturday, July 15, 2006

A high-decibel debate among education officials, politicians and advocates of bilingual schooling that led to the recent yanking of funds from the state Board of Education boils down to one difficult question:
How should California teach roughly a quarter of the state's public school population -- students who are not native English speakers -- how to read and write?

The persistent issue moved into the spotlight last week when former governors Gray Davis and Pete Wilson urged Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to resist bilingual activists and stick with California's current approach to teaching English learners how to read and write.

There is no argument that a solid grounding in those skills is essential to success; they open the gate to almost everything else students will learn. And both sides agree that students must learn to read and write in English, as mandated by Proposition 227 in 1998.

But even in English-only public schools, there's controversy over how best to reach students who are typically among the poorest-performing in the state.

One side insists students new to English should learn to read and write in a way that's geared toward non-native English speakers. They've yet to develop specifics, but advocates say the approach would incorporate more pictures, written passages with simple syntax, common vocabulary and less academic English.

The other side demands all children learn to read and write the same way, whether English is native to them or they're just learning the language.

They argue that reading and writing lessons geared for English learners would amount to state-sanctioned segregation.

"Why would we then give them something different from, less than, what native English speakers get? It's an equity issue," said Dale Webster, a policy consultant with the state Board of Education.

He helped develop an approach the Board of Education approved in April that calls for first- through fifth-graders to learn reading and writing the same way during 2 to 2 1/2 hours a day. The program includes an extra 30 minutes of instruction, tailored to non-native speakers, to learn English.

But advocates of an approach rejected by the Board of Education say non-native speakers should be taught English while taking lessons on reading and writing. They say dividing the English-learning time from other courses doesn't make sense and takes too much time.

Under the method approved by the Board of Education, said Maria Quezada, executive director of the California Association for Bilingual Education, students new to English must sit through a two-hour reading lesson they don't understand before they get a 30-minute lesson that's comprehensible.

"Why are we using an English-language arts program that's made for English speakers, not English learners?" she asked.

The approach bilingual advocates prefer -- known as Option VI -- was supported by the Legislature's Latino caucus and the Association of California School Administrators, which represents principals and superintendents.

The approach would be used only in classrooms dominated by immigrant children. And it would be a choice for districts, not a requirement. There is no need to worry that the approach would segregate schools, advocates say.

"This segregation business -- that's baloney," said Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles. "The only districts that would buy these materials are the ones that are overwhelmingly English learners."

But creating equality among schools was the whole point behind academic standards in the 1990s, said Marion Joseph, a former Board of Education member. She was on the board when it approved standards meant to raise achievement and expectations.

"The commitment that those standards would be for every child, that's the No. 1 piece," Joseph said. "That's a commitment that had never been made before, and taking that very seriously and making sure it's not just hypocrisy took a lot of thought and research."

In her eyes, a reading and writing curriculum that's different in an immigrant community than it is in an affluent white community defeats the whole point of standards.

Others say the state can uphold the same standards for all children but permit them to reach those standards along different paths.

As an example, they point to an elementary school book that tells the story of a friendship between two girls, Chrysanthemum and Delphinium.

"For a second-language learner, those names are almost impossible to say and the fact that their names are flowers is completely lost on the kids," said Shelly Spiegel-Coleman of the Los Angeles County Office of Education.

She would prefer a book that tells the friendship story whose characters have easier names.

Webster, of the Board of Education, said it's important to expose children to academic English and sophisticated vocabulary from an early age to prepare them for the upper grades when they are expected to understand history and science texts.

The fight now turns to the Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Senate Bill 1769 by Sen. Martha Escutia, D-Whittier, would require the Board of Education to develop an approach to teaching reading and writing that incorporates English instruction for non-native speakers.

The bill would restore funding to the state Board of Education. Democrats said they pulled the funding from the state budget in retaliation for the board's rejection of the proposed English learner curriculum.

A Schwarzenegger spokeswoman said he had not yet taken a position on the bill.


The Bee's Laurel Rosenhall can be reached at (916) 321-1083 or lrosenhall@sacbee.com
Copyright © The Sacramento Bee, (916) 321-1000
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/education/story/14278496p-15087358c.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 6:40 PM 0 comments Links to this post

The Arizona Republic allows people to post comments in response to columns. Because they help illuminate what’s going on at the 10th grade in Arizona charter schools when reading, math and writing take a nose dive, I include these as well.

-Angela
Charters' 10th-grade scores still below par
Districts remain ahead on AIMS

Anne Ryman, Pat Kossan and Matt Dempsey
The Arizona Republic
Jul. 13, 2006 12:00 AM

It's the mystery of the charter-school phenomenon.

In almost every grade through middle school, Arizona charter students perform about as well as district-school ones on the AIMS test.

But starting in 10th grade, something happens. The percentage of charter students who pass AIMS math, reading and writing plunges, clouding the reputation of the 11-year-old charter industry.

It happened again this year.

Although charter-school sophomores improved their scores over the past year, only 40 percent passed the AIMS math section, compared with 72 percent at district schools. Charter sophomores also lagged their district counterparts significantly in reading and writing.

One exception was some college-prep charters, which attract top students and have a record of high passing rates.

The high school drop, alarming because students now must pass AIMS to graduate, could spill into view when the state begins this fall to crack down on poorly performing charter schools. This is the first year charter schools could wind up on the state's failing-schools list, based largely on Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards results. Up to 14 schools, including nine that teach high school students, could make the list and face possible closure.

No one knows exactly why charter-school sophomores score lower on AIMS. But experts point to several factors that could create the problem.

Charter high schools take in greater shares of struggling students: Although a district high school serves all kinds of kids, Arizona's charter high schools tend to specialize in either college prep or as a catch-up for students who have fallen behind.

"We see a lot of both ends of the spectrum," said Kristen Jordison, executive director of the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools.

A report presented to the board this week concluded that Arizona students transferring from districts to charters have lower levels of academic achievement than other students, which means they are harder to educate. The study, by Arizona State University Assistant Professor David Garcia and the charter board's staff, looked at 390,000 students in Grades 2 through 8.

For example, most of the 78 students who attend the year-old Esperanza Community Collegial Academy in Phoenix transferred from district schools, co-founder Pamela Cullen said. They are struggling with low grades, and some are considering dropping out.

None of the sophomores passed math or reading, and 94 percent still need to pass writing. Cullen isn't giving up. Most students were close to passing, and the school will provide free tutoring before the next round of tests in the fall.

"I think it will be a better picture next year," she said.

Charters lack district-school resources: Many charter schools operate as stand-alone schools, while districts have full research units that give teachers up-to-the minute data on how each child is performing. This becomes critical in high school where it often is harder to turn a student's performance around.

Charters have long been allowed more freedom in what was taught and how it was taught. Now, federal and state laws are requiring all schools, including charters, to meet minimum standards for every grade.

Many charter schools find themselves running to catch up and rework their curriculum, said Bruce Fuller, professor of education and policy at the University of California-Berkeley.

"Charter educators' feet are being held to the fire now," Fuller said.

Charters have fewer licensed teachers: For years, charter teachers didn't even need a bachelor's degree. Now, the federal No Child Left Behind Act requires that teachers have a degree and expertise in the subject they teach.

But unlike district schools, charter teachers still don't need to be licensed by the state. The Arizona Education Association has long pushed for this to change, arguing that licensed, or certified, teachers have special training in helping kids learn.

Fuller said charter schools nationally have more teachers who are not licensed and, on average, have seven fewer years of experience than those in district schools. In high school, teaching quality is critical, especially for complex science and math.

Jay Heiler, board president of Great Hearts Academy Preparatory Academies, doesn't worry about hiring licensed teachers but looks for teachers who are "steeped in liberal-arts knowledge" and passionate about "lighting the fire of learning in teenagers."

Great Hearts' three schools have a large percentage of students passing AIMS.

"Some of our finest teachers come from other walks of life," he said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your comments
I went to a charter school and the problem with it was that some of the teachers ended up getting really lazy towards mid-year. The, you would also have alot of these talkative people in the class, which hepled contribute to the lack of the instructors attention. (Distraught3468, July 13, 2006 09:16AM)

I find it amazing that 72% of public school sophomores passed the math section of the AIMS assessment. AIMS is supposed to be an “exit” proficiency assessment. How can students who have not necessarily taken algebra 2, geometry, trigonometry,---not to mention pre-calculus-- pass the 12th grade exit assessment. AIMS serves as the benchmark standard for student proficiency in the state of Arizona—I never realized just how smart all these kids are! (Mark8438, July 13, 2006 12:41PM)

What is happing in charter schools is that they have become a corporations not an educational institute. They only want student for the money not to educate. Most students who attend charter schools are consider at-risk students who have droped out of public school or fallen behind for one reason or another. Charter schools are funded by the state yet the students have no resources no books but owners of the charters schools are increasing their bank account. It has been my experience that owners of most charter schools don't care about the student just the money that they get. The state and board of educations needs to have more control over the monies that these schools get. They receive grant monies for programs they don't even or either they don't continue with the program or don't even start them. Student are not benifiting from going to a charter school. I have taught in several different charter schools and I really believe these student could pass if they had the resources they needed to be successful. If a school is getting all of this money and a child doesn't have a book to learn from or any other learning materials that should be provided from the school what chance do they have. And to add online charter high school should not even be allowed!

(Donna8080, July 13, 2006 03:55PM)
Well, like any enterprise, there are good and bad charter schools, just as there are good and bad traditional public schools. Unfortunately, the charter school bias espoused by the traditional schools, has caused the public to form a false opinion of the entire process. Charter schools, as we should recall, came about due to parent dissatisfaction with the status quo of the public schools. I would argue that charter school oversight is not what it should be, but nevertheless, charters fill a void in our educational process. Many parents choose this option out of frustration and anger at bullying, poor policy enforcement, dangerous conditions, or failing schools. Others would like a more personalized atmosphere, school uniforms, and more focus for either at risk or accellerated students, both categories who go largely ignored, despite the lip service paid to remediation programs and gifted offerings. I am the Principal of a Charter High School for at risk youth, many of whom are involved in the Juvenile Justice system. In fact, we are sponosored by, and co-located with, the Juvenile Court in our county. Our students come from all walks of life, and at all stages in their education. These students have truancy issues, gang issues, drug invovlement, teen parenting, and rampant conduct disorder issues that have left them on the outside of the mainstream student body. Many have been dropped, dropped out, or simply tuned out the whole educational process. Most are 16 and over. When they come to us, their reading levels scrape the bottom of 4th-5th grade. Their math skills are frozen at the same level in many cases. Can we turn that around? We certainly try. We don't give students packet work, and we require uniforms. e have 112 students in our school, and in the years that schools have been labeled through AZLEARNS, our school has always made AYP, and been a Performing School. Our rate of passage on AIMS steadily increases, and our students continue to improve their scores. If any school should be failing, it should be ours...but we aren't. I believe it is because we have certified faculty who genuinely care about the success of these students, and we are very persistent. We do not allow these students to give up on themselves, because we never give up on them.
We may not end up with huge graduating classes..that is a lot to ask. But I tell my staff, and everyone who will listen, my thoughts: Is society better served by dismissing these students, or is it better served by pushing them to achieve as much as they possibly can, even if they eventually leave before graduating? The majority of my students now are 17 and older...and yet they keep returning to us, and they keep on working. Many of them will never graduate, but all of them will have gotten our full attention, something that did not happen in their previous schools. We fill a niche, and we serve a serious need. My greatest fear is that the state will force Charter schools to become like traditional public schools. Then where will my students go? (3736, July 14, 2006 02:14PM)

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0713aimscharters0713.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 6:06 PM 0 comments Links to this post

These changes are going to squeeze out a lot of the enrichment in the curriculum (that's already squeezed out in many of our schools. -Angela

State to require more of grads
4th year of math, science could cut into electives, hurt middling students

11:45 PM CDT on Sunday, July 16, 2006


By HOLLY K. HACKER / The Dallas Morning News


Texas students soon will need four years of math and science to graduate from high school – and that could make electives an endangered academic species.

The state now requires three years of math and science. With the changes, which take effect with freshmen in 2007-08, Texas will have some of the toughest graduation requirements in the country. Only Alabama requires four years of math and science now.

Teachers, counselors and parents agree the plan makes sense for aspiring engineers and doctors, and for kids shooting for selective colleges.

But it's the future artists and electricians, and the students bound for less selective schools or no college at all, that they worry about.

"Not only do electives give students practical skills – sometimes those are the classes that keep kids in school," said Paula Barnhouse, a counselor at MacArthur High School in Irving.

"I'm really concerned about what will happen with the dropout rate."

Lawmakers added the fourth year as part of the sweeping school finance reform package they passed in May. They upped the math and science credits to better prepare students for college and careers. Too many college students take remedial math classes, they say, and too few pursue math and science majors.

Many Texas universities recommend four years of math and science, but even the top ones don't mandate it. Texas A&M University, for example, requires applicants to have three and a half years of math and three years of science. (One big exception: Students in the top tenth of their high school class are automatically admitted by state law.) Rice University expects students to have at least three years of math and two years of laboratory science.


Science, math grants

More rigor in math and science is a growing state emphasis. Just Thursday, the Texas Education Agency announced $4 million in grants to create more high school academies focused on science, math, engineering and technology. (Recipients include Berkner High in Richardson and Conrad High, a new school opening in Dallas this fall.) Federal efforts to improve math and science education are under way, too.

As school counselors and teachers see it, students bound for four-year colleges will be OK. Chances are they're already taking extra math, science and other credits.

Struggling students will have a safety valve. With school and parent permission, they can switch to an easier program that requires just three years of math and two of science.

The kids in the middle – the ones contemplating four-year vs. two-year college, or debating whether to head to college right after graduation – stand to get squeezed the most.

Too many kids fail to graduate on time as it is, said Cameron Boone, a rising senior at Lamar High School in Arlington. Demand more math and science, he said, and even more kids will drop out.

Cameron said he struggled in chemistry as a junior and ended up dropping the class. He'll take it again this coming year. If he needed four years of science, he said, he might be in trouble.

Plus, he said, electives are important. "It allows students to express themselves. It allows them time to find a career. ... If they're going to eliminate all of your electives, what's the point?"

To encourage students to keep taking electives, the state could raise the graduation requirement from 24 credits to 26. Board of education members raised the idea last week, after hearing from a long line of music, art and other teachers.

Nina Boothe, president of the Texas Art Education Association, said she hopes the state does require more credits.

"We will always have our bands because we have football, but I fear for orchestras and the smaller groups. I very much fear for all of the visual arts," said Ms. Boothe, who taught art for 30 years at Lake Highlands Junior High in the Richardson school district.

"The arts touch our souls," she said. "Calculus never touched my soul."

Most local high schools follow the state requirement of 24 credits, although a few require more. Mansfield High, for instance, requires 27 credits.

Most high schools offer seven or eight class periods a day, which makes it possible for students to graduate with 28 or 32 credits, respectively. Still, some educators are concerned.

In Irving, students can earn up to 28 credits, but they can graduate with a minimum of 24. Require 26 credits, and "there's absolutely no room for failure," said Ms. Barnhouse, the MacArthur counselor.

"A lot of kids take credits in middle school, but those are your stronger students, and those aren't the ones I'm concerned about here."

Students torn between, say, regular and honors English might opt for the easier class because they don't want to risk failing and not graduating on time, she said.


A dilemma for athletes

It's especially dicey for student athletes in Texas high schools. Typically, one of their class periods is spent practicing their sport. They can take a sport all four years, but the state lets them earn a maximum of two credits.

Kelley Miller, another Lamar senior, plays softball. She'll also graduate with four years of math and science, because she wants to study veterinary medicine or forensic science in college. To fit all that in, she said, she couldn't take some electives, such as an interior design class that interested her.

Still, she said she's got mixed feelings about the extra math and science.

"A lot of high school students, I have to admit, are lazy, especially their senior year." She said she believes with hard work, they can take more classes – and pass them.

College officials, for their part, welcome the extra math and science – and the extra credits.

"We have encouraged students to take more science and math, but when it's not a requirement, you don't get a lot of support for that," said Joneel Harris, associate vice president for enrollment management at the University of North Texas.

She understands concerns about higher standards turning off some kids, but she doesn't believe that will happen.

"Our experience with our kids is that they've found time to do it all. The things they're passionate about, they will make time for it."

E-mail hhacker@dallasnews.com


GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS
Texas keeps raising the bar for a high school diploma — but how high is too high? Starting with freshmen in 2007-08, students will need four years of math and science to graduate, up from three years of each. But that leaves students with less time in their school day for electives such as drama, dance, auto mechanics or electronics. Texas has three types of high school programs: minimum, recommended and distinguished (not shown). The minimum program used to be the standard in Texas, but starting with the graduating class of 2005, the recommended program became the standard. Students can still take the minimum program, but they need permission from their parents and school counselor or principal. But schools have an incentive to not allow that — their state ratings depend partly upon the percentage of students taking the recommended program or higher. The state also requires students, starting with the class of 2005, to pass the TAKS exit exams to receive their diploma.


Minimum program Recommended program – now Recommended program – freshmen in 2007-08
English 4.0 4.0 4.0
Math 3.0 3.0 4.0
Science 2.0 3.0 4.0
Social studies 2.5 3.5 3.5
Fine arts - 1.0 1.0
Other requirements 5.0 6.0 6.0
Electives 5.5 3.5 1.5
TOTAL 22.0 24.0 24.0

Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/071706dnmetrequired.1a20f17.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 5:59 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Strong statement by the editors of the Dallas Morning News today. They're wanting clarification from the TEA on the extent of teaching. -Angela

08:34 AM CDT on Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Pardon our disgust, but it's asking a lot that Texas swallow the "chill pill" that Education Commissioner Shirley Neeley recommends to calm the furor over the TAKS cheating mess.

You can't blame local superintendents for getting worked up by their inability to get details on why schools in their districts popped up in a consultant's report on possible cheating in 2005.

A lot is on the line. And it's not just the integrity of the test that forms the spine of Texas' system of judging and, increasingly, rewarding districts. The integrity of schools and individual educators – many of them innocent, no doubt – has been drawn into question.

Yet the Texas Education Agency has been slow to wake up to the importance of quickly getting additional data to local officials to help clear the air.

Not everyone has been as lackadaisical. One Houston-area district hired a lawyer to pry the information loose from the state. If only the TEA had been as aggressive on its end.

Ms. Neeley last week promised to take the vital step of going back to the consultant to request additional data on student test results – a promise that came seven weeks after the cheating report was released.

Foot-dragging in Austin fits the TEA's pattern of minimizing the report's fallout. We'll grant the agency's contention that cheating didn't occur in each of the 609 schools cited; some large achievement gains certainly are attributable to stellar teaching and students' effort.

And give the TEA credit for agreeing to investigate suspected repeat or egregious violators, along with a handful of schools that await TAKS achievement bonuses from the governor's office.

The rest is up to local educators, especially the messy matters of suspicious erasures and similarities between answer sheets. As for the importance of accountability to the public, some superintendents seem to get it.

Gov. Rick Perry has said the state must "get to the bottom of this important question," an indication that he seems to get it.

If top state education officials don't get it – all the way up to Ms. Neeley – maybe they need to get out.

Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-cheating_18edi.ART.State.Edition1.2402de4.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:31 AM 0 comments Links to this post

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 9:43 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Check out the poll at PewHispanic.org. -Angela

July 14, 2006, 12:18AM
Immigration debate sours Latino attitude toward GOP
Poll finds Dems making no inroads as voters grow more disenchanted with both parties

By PATTY REINERT
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - Latinos to some extent hold the Republican Party responsible for what they perceive as the negative consequences of the national debate over immigration policy, a poll released Thursday concludes.

It was unclear, however, how the sentiment might play out in the November elections.

In a recent national telephone survey of 2,000 Hispanic adults in the United States, the Pew Hispanic Center found that party affiliation of Latino registered voters has not changed significantly since 2004. Slightly more than 40 percent called themselves Democrats; slightly more than 20 percent Republicans.

The survey's conclusion about Latino attitudes toward Republicans is based on erosion of support for the party's position on immigration.

The poll found that the portion of Latinos who believe the Republican Party has the best position on immigration dropped to 16 percent from 25 percent two years ago.

Virtually the entire decline of Hispanic support for the Republican approach comes from foreign-born Latinos, a growing pool of future voters, the poll showed.

But Gabriel Escobar, an author of the survey, said the results do not necessarily bode well for Democrats either.

The Democratic Party showed no significant gains among Latino registered voters and by some measures lost support from 2004 to 2006.

"The survey shows there's some disenchantment with both political parties," Escobar said. "The numbers are not good for anybody."

The survey, conducted from June 5 to July 3 with a margin of error of 3.8 percentage points, was the first major public opinion poll of the Hispanic population since this spring's massive pro-immigration marches in Houston and around the country as the Congress debated immigration reform.

The 2004 election was a watershed election for the Republican Party, with the Pew Center's polls at balloting locations showing 27 percent of Latino voters — a sample different from the Hispanic adults in the latest survey — identifying as Republican, the highest mark for the GOP recorded in any of the center's surveys.

"It's just not there now," Escobar said. "What this means for the November elections is unclear, but what it means to the long-term wooing of Latinos could be significant."

Lydia Camarillo, vice president of the San Antonio-based Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, said the immigration debate galvanized and unified Latino voters as never before.

Her group is teaming up with other Hispanic organizations in hopes of registering 100,000 voters before the next election.

"This is all in response to seeing all those people coming out to march," she said.

patty.reinert@chron.com
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/immigration/4046001.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 12:46 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Charters' 10th-grade scores still below par
Districts remain ahead on AIMS

by Anne Ryman, Pat Kossan and Matt Dempsey / The Arizona Republic
Jul. 13, 2006 12:00 AM
It's the mystery of the charter-school phenomenon.

In almost every grade through middle school, Arizona charter students perform about as well as district-school ones on the AIMS test.

But starting in 10th grade, something happens. The percentage of charter students who pass AIMS math, reading and writing plunges, clouding the reputation of the 11-year-old charter industry.

It happened again this year.

Although charter-school sophomores improved their scores over the past year, only 40 percent passed the AIMS math section, compared with 72 percent at district schools. Charter sophomores also lagged their district counterparts significantly in reading and writing.

One exception was some college-prep charters, which attract top students and have a record of high passing rates.

The high school drop, alarming because students now must pass AIMS to graduate, could spill into view when the state begins this fall to crack down on poorly performing charter schools. This is the first year charter schools could wind up on the state's failing-schools list, based largely on Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards results. Up to 14 schools, including nine that teach high school students, could make the list and face possible closure.

No one knows exactly why charter-school sophomores score lower on AIMS. But experts point to several factors that could create the problem.

Charter high schools take in greater shares of struggling students: Although a district high school serves all kinds of kids, Arizona's charter high schools tend to specialize in either college prep or as a catch-up for students who have fallen behind.

"We see a lot of both ends of the spectrum," said Kristen Jordison, executive director of the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools.

A report presented to the board this week concluded that Arizona students transferring from districts to charters have lower levels of academic achievement than other students, which means they are harder to educate. The study, by Arizona State University Assistant Professor David Garcia and the charter board's staff, looked at 390,000 students in Grades 2 through 8.

For example, most of the 78 students who attend the year-old Esperanza Community Collegial Academy in Phoenix transferred from district schools, co-founder Pamela Cullen said. They are struggling with low grades, and some are considering dropping out.

None of the sophomores passed math or reading, and 94 percent still need to pass writing. Cullen isn't giving up. Most students were close to passing, and the school will provide free tutoring before the next round of tests in the fall.

"I think it will be a better picture next year," she said.

Charters lack district-school resources: Many charter schools operate as stand-alone schools, while districts have full research units that give teachers up-to-the minute data on how each child is performing. This becomes critical in high school where it often is harder to turn a student's performance around.

Charters have long been allowed more freedom in what was taught and how it was taught. Now, federal and state laws are requiring all schools, including charters, to meet minimum standards for every grade.

Many charter schools find themselves running to catch up and rework their curriculum, said Bruce Fuller, professor of education and policy at the University of California-Berkeley.

"Charter educators' feet are being held to the fire now," Fuller said.

Charters have fewer licensed teachers: For years, charter teachers didn't even need a bachelor's degree. Now, the federal No Child Left Behind Act requires that teachers have a degree and expertise in the subject they teach.

But unlike district schools, charter teachers still don't need to be licensed by the state. The Arizona Education Association has long pushed for this to change, arguing that licensed, or certified, teachers have special training in helping kids learn.

Fuller said charter schools nationally have more teachers who are not licensed and, on average, have seven fewer years of experience than those in district schools. In high school, teaching quality is critical, especially for complex science and math.

Jay Heiler, board president of Great Hearts Academy Preparatory Academies, doesn't worry about hiring licensed teachers but looks for teachers who are "steeped in liberal-arts knowledge" and passionate about "lighting the fire of learning in teenagers."

Great Hearts' three schools have a large percentage of students passing AIMS.

"Some of our finest teachers come from other walks of life," he said.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0713aimscharters0713.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 3:56 PM 0 comments Links to this post

JULY 14, 2006
Five-Card Draw
As the governor's race begins, is there a winning hand for Texas?
by Michael King /Austin Chronicle

It's still very early – the dust of the World Cup and the All-Star Game has barely settled – but it's probably not a good sign that the burning July political issue is whether Comptroller and "independent" gubernatorial candidate Carole Keeton Strayhorn is entitled to have the nickname "Grandma" embossed on the November ballot in addition to all her other names. Secretary of State Roger Williams (whose qualifications for the office are confined to large Republican campaign contributions and even larger used-car sales) ruled this week that "Grandma" – as in "One Tough ..." – is instead a political slogan, to which Strayhorn responded she will sue. (Her actual grandchildren, reportedly not yet entirely on message, were not consulted.) The Rick Perry campaign chimed in to denounce Strayhorn's "childish temper tantrum."

Can anybody here say "Kinky"?

The Texas Name Game has gone national – not surprising for a media much more devoted to bug-swallowing contests than public discourse. But it is helpful for the rest of us to recall that there are still a few state policy issues requiring earnest attention. Chief among those remains public education, although the illusion produced by the Supreme Court decision and the recent special Lege session (not to mention the summer doldrums) may have left the impression that the state has "solved" the education crisis once again. For those suspecting otherwise, I recommend Paul Burka's piece on the governor's race in the July Texas Monthly. The school-finance summary is somewhat buried within, but lays out nicely in a few paragraphs how the current $8.2 billion budget "surplus" (a Capitol term of art meaning, "income we refuse to spend on real needs") allowed a cynical Lege sleight-of-hand with property taxes for a whopping bill that will come due in future years.

"In its determination to reduce property taxes by one third and increase spending on education," writes Burka, "the leadership promoted a plan that did not balance. The new taxes do not cover the cost of the tax cuts and the new spending on education ... So the tax cuts not only have first claim on all the revenue from the new taxes but will almost surely require dipping into future surpluses, leaving less money for education, health care, and other state responsibilities. What happens when the economy suffers an inevitable downturn and there's a shortfall instead of a surplus? One of two things: a tax increase or budget cuts – and you know which one the Republican leaders will choose. One crisis is solved; another is born."

Back to School

Although it's hard to tell if anybody's listening, education indeed comes up now and again on the stump. A couple of weeks ago, the candidates wooed the Texas Classroom Teachers Association, meeting in Austin. Perry understandably proclaimed the school-finance plan a bipartisan boon for property owners, teachers, and students (very much in that order). Strayhorn mocked Perry's pretensions to massive property-tax cuts, having previously described the plan (aptly enough) as a "hot check." Friedman, who elsewhere bragged that he hadn't paid any attention to the Legislature, proposed legalizing casino gambling for school funding – although doing the same with lottery money certainly hasn't paid the note. He added that we should privatize school sports, to get that corporate money flowing as well – maybe that would help pay the steroid bill for the big suburban football conferences. (Libertarian James Werner, who didn't address the school group, promises school vouchers for everybody.)

Democrat Chris Bell has focused recently more on ending high-stakes testing than financing per se. (Teachers are painfully and personally aware that the TAKS test has always been more about beating up schools and teachers than about educating students.) Bell did say that the overdue $2,000 raise for teachers needs an additional $4,000 to approach the national average, and he actually and publicly declares that if Texas wants good schools, it has to pay for them.

That played well to the TCTA. But as with other such groups (most notably the Texas State Teachers Association), teachers are so tired of being shortchanged and pounded by the Lege, and so doubtful that Bell can win in deep red Texas, that many are embracing Strayhorn as their only hope.

Looking for Leadership

Last week, Democratic deep pocket Ben Barnes, now supporting Strayhorn, told my colleague Amy Smith much the same thing, although financial defections from BB and his fellows tend to be self-fulfilling prophecies. It's certainly true that only Perry and Strayhorn, at the moment, have sufficient funds to run statewide media, and Bell's Mr. Rogers persona has failed to light a fire under an electorate (or funders) now accustomed to looking for film stars or bomb-throwers – or even machine-tongued grandmas – for political entertainment. All Friedman has to do is drop a few one-liners and he's assured of a sound bite or two, but whether that comedy routine and free media can carry him beyond the summer doldrums into actual policy discussions, which he abhors, remains an open question.

Burka suggests that Perry's golden political fortune (less glossy but akin to that of his predecessor) will bless him once again. "A crowded field benefits him," Burka argues; "the more people in the race, the more the anti-Perry vote is divided and the less likely it is that any single opponent can get enough votes to defeat him." Maybe so. But it also means that with both Strayhorn and Werner draining votes from his right, Bell and Friedman from his left, Perry will inevitably be a minority governor. He probably won't notice, having long since accustomed himself (again like his predecessor) to governing by, from, and for the lobby.

But maybe the opposition will. Faced with an exploding minority, working-class population, and a state budget foundering in 19th-century notions of laissez-faire economics, perhaps progressive Dems and a handful of their GOP colleagues can begin to form a governing coalition that can actually respond to 21st-century political and social conditions. Despite Tom DeLay, there's only so many ways you can re-draw an electoral map. The voters will be there, if the politicians can only find them, and assume a leadership worthy of their attention and engagement.

Copyright © 2006 Austin Chronicle Corporation. All rights reserved. http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2006-07-14/pols_point.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 8:57 AM 0 comments Links to this post

This is a good piece that gets to the heart of cherished myths in this country. -Angela
July 9, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Immigration — and the Curse of the Black Legend

By TONY HORWITZ / NEW YORK TIMES
Vineyard Haven, Mass.

COURSING through the immigration debate is the unexamined faith that American history rests on English bedrock, or Plymouth Rock to be specific. Jamestown also gets a nod, particularly in the run-up to its 400th birthday, but John Smith was English, too (he even coined the name New England).

So amid the din over border control, the Senate affirms the self-evident truth that English is our national language; "It is part of our blood," Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, says. Border vigilantes call themselves Minutemen, summoning colonial Massachusetts as they apprehend Hispanics in the desert Southwest. Even undocumented immigrants invoke our Anglo founders, waving placards that read, "The Pilgrims didn't have papers."

These newcomers are well indoctrinated; four of the sample questions on our naturalization test ask about Pilgrims. Nothing in the sample exam suggests that prospective citizens need know anything that occurred on this continent before the Mayflower landed in 1620. Few Americans do, after all.

This national amnesia isn't new, but it's glaring and supremely paradoxical at a moment when politicians warn of the threat posed to our culture and identity by an invasion of immigrants from across the Mexican border. If Americans hit the books, they'd find what Al Gore would call an inconvenient truth. The early history of what is now the United States was Spanish, not English, and our denial of this heritage is rooted in age-old stereotypes that still entangle today's immigration debate.

Forget for a moment the millions of Indians who occupied this continent for 13,000 or more years before anyone else arrived, and start the clock with Europeans' presence on present-day United States soil. The first confirmed landing wasn't by Vikings, who reached Canada in about 1000, or by Columbus, who reached the Bahamas in 1492. It was by a Spaniard, Juan Ponce de León, who landed in 1513 at a lush shore he christened La Florida.

Most Americans associate the early Spanish in this hemisphere with Cortés in Mexico and Pizarro in Peru. But Spaniards pioneered the present-day United States, too. Within three decades of Ponce de León's landing, the Spanish became the first Europeans to reach the Appalachians, the Mississippi, the Grand Canyon and the Great Plains. Spanish ships sailed along the East Coast, penetrating to present-day Bangor, Me., and up the Pacific Coast as far as Oregon.

From 1528 to 1536, four castaways from a Spanish expedition, including a "black" Moor, journeyed all the way from Florida to the Gulf of California — 267 years before Lewis and Clark embarked on their much more renowned and far less arduous trek. In 1540, Francisco Vázquez de Coronado led 2,000 Spaniards and Mexican Indians across today's Arizona-Mexico border — right by the Minutemen's inaugural post — and traveled as far as central Kansas, close to the exact geographic center of what is now the continental United States. In all, Spaniards probed half of today's lower 48 states before the first English tried to colonize, at Roanoke Island, N.C.

The Spanish didn't just explore, they settled, creating the first permanent European settlement in the continental United States at St. Augustine, Fla., in 1565. Santa Fe, N.M., also predates Plymouth: later came Spanish settlements in San Antonio, Tucson, San Diego and San Francisco. The Spanish even established a Jesuit mission in Virginia's Chesapeake Bay 37 years before the founding of Jamestown in 1607.

Two iconic American stories have Spanish antecedents, too. Almost 80 years before John Smith's alleged rescue by Pocahontas, a man by the name of Juan Ortiz told of his remarkably similar rescue from execution by an Indian girl. Spaniards also held a thanksgiving, 56 years before the Pilgrims, when they feasted near St. Augustine with Florida Indians, probably on stewed pork and garbanzo beans.

The early history of Spanish North America is well documented, as is the extensive exploration by the 16th-century French and Portuguese. So why do Americans cling to a creation myth centered on one band of late-arriving English — Pilgrims who weren't even the first English to settle New England or the first Europeans to reach Plymouth Harbor? (There was a short-lived colony in Maine and the French reached Plymouth earlier.)

The easy answer is that winners write the history and the Spanish, like the French, were ultimately losers in the contest for this continent. Also, many leading American writers and historians of the early 19th century were New Englanders who elevated the Pilgrims to mythic status (the North's victory in the Civil War provided an added excuse to diminish the Virginia story). Well into the 20th century, standard histories and school texts barely mentioned the early Spanish in North America.

While it's true that our language and laws reflect English heritage, it's also true that the Spanish role was crucial. Spanish discoveries spurred the English to try settling America and paved the way for the latecomers' eventual success. Many key aspects of American history, like African slavery and the cultivation of tobacco, are rooted in the forgotten Spanish century that preceded English arrival.

There's another, less-known legacy of this early period that explains why we've written the Spanish out of our national narrative. As late as 1783, at the end of the Revolutionary War, Spain held claim to roughly half of today's continental United States (in 1775, Spanish ships even reached Alaska). As American settlers pushed out from the 13 colonies, the new nation craved Spanish land. And to justify seizing it, Americans found a handy weapon in a set of centuries-old beliefs known as the "black legend."

The legend first arose amid the religious strife and imperial rivalries of 16th-century Europe. Northern Europeans, who loathed Catholic Spain and envied its American empire, published books and gory engravings that depicted Spanish colonization as uniquely barbarous: an orgy of greed, slaughter and papist depravity, the Inquisition writ large.

Though simplistic and embellished, the legend contained elements of truth. Juan de Oñate, the conquistador who colonized New Mexico, punished Pueblo Indians by cutting off their hands and feet and then enslaving them. Hernando de Soto bound Indians in chains and neck collars and forced them to haul his army's gear across the South. Natives were thrown to attack dogs and burned alive.

But there were Spaniards of conscience in the New World, too: most notably the Dominican priest Bartolomé de Las Casas, whose defense of Indians impelled the Spanish crown to pass laws protecting natives. Also, Spanish brutality wasn't unique; English colonists committed similar atrocities. The Puritans were arguably more intolerant of natives than the Spanish and the Virginia colonists as greedy for gold as any conquistador. But none of this erased the black legend's enduring stain, not only in Europe but also in the newly formed United States.

"Anglo Americans," writes David J. Weber, the pre-eminent historian of Spanish North America, "inherited the view that Spaniards were unusually cruel, avaricious, treacherous, fanatical, superstitious, cowardly, corrupt, decadent, indolent and authoritarian."

When 19th-century jingoists revived this caricature to justify invading Spanish (and later, Mexican) territory, they added a new slur: the mixing of Spanish, African and Indian blood had created a degenerate race. To Stephen Austin, Texas's fight with Mexico was "a war of barbarism and of despotic principles, waged by the mongrel Spanish-Indian and Negro race, against civilization and the Anglo-American race." It was the manifest destiny of white Americans to seize and civilize these benighted lands, just as it was to take the territory of Indian savages.

From 1819 to 1848, the United States and its army increased the nation's area by roughly a third at Spanish and Mexican expense, including three of today's four most populous states: California, Texas and Florida. Hispanics became the first American citizens in the newly acquired Southwest territory and remained a majority in several states until the 20th century.

By then, the black legend had begun to fade. But it seems to have found new life among immigration's staunchest foes, whose rhetoric carries traces of both ancient Hispanophobia and the chauvinism of 19th-century expansionists.

Representative J. D. Hayworth of Arizona, who calls for deporting illegal immigrants and changing the Constitution so that children born to them in the United States can't claim citizenship, denounces "defeatist wimps unwilling to stand up for our culture" against alien "invasion." Those who oppose making English the official language, he adds, "reject the very notion that there is a uniquely American identity, or that, if there is one, that it is superior to any other."

Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado, chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, depicts illegal immigration as "a scourge" abetted by "a cult of multiculturalism" that has "a death grip" on this nation. "We are committing cultural suicide," Mr. Tancredo claims. "The barbarians at the gate will only need to give us a slight push, and the emaciated body of Western civilization will collapse in a heap."

ON talk radio and the Internet, foes of immigration echo the black legend more explicitly, typecasting Hispanics as indolent, a burden on the American taxpayer, greedy for benefits and jobs, prone to criminality and alien to our values — much like those degenerate Spaniards of the old Southwest and those gold-mad conquistadors who sought easy riches rather than honest toil. At the fringes, the vilification is baldly racist. In fact, cruelty to Indians seems to be the only transgression absent from the familiar package of Latin sins.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 9:30 PM 0 comments Links to this post

School reform in state's hands
Education chief setting rules for local districts on spending, test scores
Monday, July 10, 2006


By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News


AUSTIN – Control over public schools is swinging back toward the state as Texas' education chief and her staff write a series of new rules regulating everything from how districts spend their tax dollars to how much student test scores must improve each year.

The rules are part of the massive school finance and education reform legislation passed by state lawmakers in last spring's special session. And while most of the attention was on the effort to cut local property taxes, the Legislature also ordered a long list of education changes that will affect every school campus and district in the state.

The job of putting those in place will fall primarily to state Education Commissioner Shirley Neeley, who is working on nearly two dozen rules governing student achievement, merit pay for teachers and school district spending.

The rules would even empower Dr. Neeley to sweep teachers and administrators out of low-performing schools with limited input from local officials.

Legislative leaders say the changes are needed to get schools on the right track, while school officials worry about erosion of local control – a contrast to the state's landmark 1995 education reform law that emphasized less state regulation.

"There has to be a final word from someone, so we chose the commissioner of education" to implement the reforms, said Sen. Florence Shapiro, author of the new education law and chairwoman of the Senate Education Committee.

While school districts will come under a battery of new state regulations, Ms. Shapiro rejected the idea that local control of schools is being undermined.

"For the most part, they can still do whatever they want," the Plano Republican said. "They got more money and more flexibility in spending their money."

The new requirements, she added, are intended to "keep Texas on the forefront of the national education reform movement."

Dr. Neeley said she will seek input from school superintendents and major education groups, as well as the public, before she puts the new rules in place.

"It will be a very collaborative process," she said.

But many local school officials see a striking movement toward more state regulation of schools. As primary evidence, they cited the establishment of a new uniform start date for all public schools beginning in 2007. School superintendents have had wide discretion in setting their school calendars in the past.


'Too much power'

"There is a feeling among superintendents that the commissioner is getting too much power," said Clayton Downing, director of the Texas School Coalition and former superintendent of the Lewisville school district. "It's not that we don't trust Dr. Neeley, but we don't know who will be commissioner down the road."

Dr. Downing said that while the education and tax measures passed in May produced benefits for school districts, they also prompted superintendents to fear that local control of schools is gradually being usurped.

David Anderson, a consultant with Austin-based HillCo Partners and former curriculum director for the Texas Education Agency, said there is no doubt that state's top education official will become more powerful under the new law.

"It is perhaps the most significant shift of authority to the commissioner's office in the past 15 years," Mr. Anderson said. "Whenever more authority is placed with the commissioner and Texas Education Agency, there is some erosion of discretion and decision for school superintendents and local school boards."

Dr. Neeley, who did not request the new authority from the Legislature, said school districts will have ample time to prepare for the requirements.

"Most superintendents are ready for a more rigorous instructional program and want to work to make this a win-win situation for our schoolchildren," she said.


Possible rules

Some of the rules being drafted by Dr. Neeley and the education agency would:

•Set state benchmarks for annual improvement in student achievement, based on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. The agency will then report whether each student met, fell below or exceeded the expected level of improvement, with results provided to teachers and parents.

•Establish spending targets for each school district based on data from campuses and districts found to be most efficient and effective. Spending targets would be set for instruction, central administration, district operations and any other category decided by the commissioner. School boards that exceed the targets must publicly defend their actions.

•Authorize the commissioner to set the requirements for paying out $260 million in incentive pay for teachers and other school employees. The program is touted as the largest incentive pay program for educators in the nation.

But the power to quickly intervene at school campuses or districts that have low ratings could be the most significant change in store.



Campus intervention

Under the new law, the commissioner can replace the entire staff at any campus that is rated academically unacceptable for two years in a row. A campus intervention team appointed by the commissioner would determine which employees would be removed, with the principal automatically removed. The team would run the campus until it was rated acceptable.

The change begins with the recently completed 2005-06 school year. Although this year's ratings won't be out until next month, a total of 364 campuses – including 51 charter schools – were graded academically unacceptable a year ago. If similar numbers are poorly rated this year, thousands of teachers and principals could be replaced in summer 2007.

And if a campus continues to receive poor ratings for two years after state intervention, the commissioner must turn over management of the school to a nonprofit education entity or order closure of the school. The commissioner can take similar actions against a school district for multiple years of poor academic or financial ratings under the state's accountability system.

The changes signal a shift in power not only to the education commissioner, but also to the governor, who appoints the commissioner, said Richard Kouri of the Texas State Teachers Association. Dr. Neeley was appointed by Gov. Rick Perry.


Local control shrinks

"Things that were previously decided locally no longer will be," he said, citing another rule that empowers the commissioner to order a school district or campus to hire an outside professional to examine problems in finances, student testing, data quality, governance or learning programs.

"The pendulum has swung pretty far in the direction of more state control over public education," he added.

E-mail tstutz@dallasnews.com


STATE'S SCHOOL CHIEF AND DUTIES
Under new measures approved in the spring, the state education commissioner will acquire significant new powers. Here's a look at the position and the commissioner:

THE POSITION

Appointed: by the governor and confirmed by the Senate

Term of office: four years

Annual salary: $164,748

Requirement to hold office: must be a U.S. citizen

Duties: head of the Texas Education Agency and responsible for overseeing the state's 1,037 school districts and nearly 200 independent charter schools


DR. SHIRLEY J. NEELEY

Dr. Neeley, the current commissioner, was appointed by Gov. Rick Perry in January 2004. Prior to that, she was superintendent of the Galena Park school district near Houston for 10 years. During her tenure, Galena Park was the largest "exemplary" school district in the state based on student test scores and other factors. She also has been an elementary school teacher, assistant principal and principal. She is an avid Harley-Davidson motorcycle rider.


PREVIOUS COMMISSIONERS

They include two appointees of Gov. George W. Bush – Jim Nelson and Mike Moses – who later served as school superintendents in Richardson and Dallas. The first commissioner of education was J.W. Edgar, who held office from 1950 to 1974. Before that, Texas had a state superintendent of public instruction.

Terrence Stutz

Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/071006dntexedcommish.1afe972.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:30 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Luis Orozco Student called 'a natural-born leader.'

Discussion flows freely at Lanier's Social Justice Summer School. From left, students Clara Zamora and Luis Orozco tune in with Julia Padilla from Austin Voices for Education and Youth

My daughter, Clara, has really enjoyed this social justice class. It's one class that she never wants to miss. Congrats to Alfredo Santos for making this happen and for a job well done! -Angela

From the streets to the classroom
Social justice school offers summer course in history and activism.

By Juan Castillo
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Monday, July 10, 2006

On a sticky day in April at the University of Texas, Luis Orozco, a diminutive, fist-pumping dynamo from Lanier High School, lit a fire under a crowd more than 2,000 strong, the vast majority his elders.

At a rally with a parade of speakers, Orozco railed against a U.S. House bill retroactively making all illegal immigrants subject to felony charges.

"We are not going to stay quiet anymore," Orozco, who will be a junior in the fall, would say later.

Emboldened by their participation in this spring's eruption of protests over proposed crackdowns on illegal immigration, he and other high school students wondered what would come next. Orozco and about a dozen others are finding the answer in a classroom far from that emotionally pulsating scene at UT, a new Social Justice Summer School designed to provide insight into historical social struggles and to instill skills to organize for change.

The six-week school at Lanier, which ends this month, has a small, diverse group of U.S.- and foreign-born students spending weekday afternoons confronting topics rarely covered in depth, or at all, in high school: prejudice and racial hatred, and stains on American history such as slavery and segregation.

By the time it's over, the class will have explored heady topics: the civil rights movement, the United Farm Workers labor movement, assimilation and acculturation, poverty and barriers to economic success, to name a few.

Students, not all of whom participated in the demonstrations, are there on their own time, not for high school credit.

According to its lead sponsor, the nonprofit Austin Voices for Education and Youth, the school grew out of conversations with some of the hundreds of area middle school and high school students who protested proposals to clamp down on illegal immigration.

Though supported by many, student protesters came under much public criticism for missing classes. Others complained, too, that students weren't fully able to articulate their message.

"Oh, yeah, a lot of the kids were just going with the flow," said Alfredo Santos, the school's coordinator, who says he has been a community activist for 38 years.

Santos said that at the height of the protests, he and veterans of the Chicano movement noticed a need.

"We commented that this is all emotion here, but at some point it's going to have to make a switch to some basic social justice 101-type stuff," said Santos, who successfully pitched the idea of a school to Amy Averett, director of Austin Voices for Education and Youth.

The nonprofit group works with community members, students, parents and educators to improve schools and neighborhoods.In 2005, with the Austin school district, it was host of community forums to gather input on redesigning and improving Austin high schools.

Social justice school instructors, including visiting college professors, teach U.S. history with a focus on social issues. They don't espouse ideological views, instead encouraging students to think critically.

"We want to also encourage young people to be politically active and active in decision-making, and one of the quickest ways to turn them off of that is to tell them what to think," Averett said.

At its heart, the school is intended to keep alive the intellectual curiosity that drove student participation, said Tim Eubanks,a community organizer with Austin Voices and, with Santos, an instructor in the social justice school.

"One of the things we've always found is that when students are engaged and take action, that lifts all boats in their lives," Eubanks said.

A typical class meets for a total of about 7 1/2 hours a week and combines instruction, lots of questions and free-flowing, unyielding conversations.

On a recent afternoon, virtually the entire canvas of U.S. history and race relations framed the lesson, with Santos and Eubanks finding common threads in how social justice movements such as the fight for civil rights formed, why they were necessary and why change was slow. Students offered examples of racism they'd witnessed or seen on the news: an incident at a local grocery store, motives attributed to the government's delayed response to Hurricane Katrina.

Many social movements were born when segments of society resisted change, said Santos, adding that similar experiences can be found in today's debate over illegal immigration.

"My opinion, it has to do with fear," he said. "The country is changing, and it's changing very quickly."

The next day, the instructional centerpiece, a documentary on 1970s efforts to desegregate schools in Boston, recalled an ugly era of racial violence, when the N-word was a commonly used weapon of hate. White residents strongly resisted court-ordered busing that sent black students into their schools. The courts later assumed oversight of Boston public schools.

Eubanks said the documentary captured how students and parents in black neighborhoods succeeded in improving the quality of their education.

"It showed that change happens when people help make change happen," Eubanks said.

Orozco is trying to make things happen at Lanier.

"He's a natural-born leader," said Principal Edmund Oropez, citing the 18-year-old's involvement in school discussions to energize the PTA and to end isolation of Spanish-speaking immigrants in separate classrooms.

Having emigrated four years ago from the Mexican state of Michoacán, Orozco led a few of his classmates, including twins Eduardo and German Sifuentes, in a March 30 immigration march and protest. The Sifuentes brothers also attend the social justice school.

With a genial smile and self-deprecating humor, as well as a penchant for stirring class conversations, Orozco also is making a mark in the social justice school. He said he was drawn there because he thought it was important to understand the historical contexts of social protest in the United States and why social movements began.

"What I'm seeing now with the movements led by Martin Luther King and César Chávez, they worked because they led them peacefully," Orozco said.

Proposals clamping down on illegal immigrants, which could separate families with members both legally and illegally in the country, awakened Orozco.

"I didn't agree, and as always, I raised my voice and I said it, and I did something about it," he said.

jcastillo@statesman.com; 445-3635


http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/07/10justiceschool.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 7:32 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Motion reopens 35-year-old case over educating students with limited English skills

Hearing in Austin on July 24 over quality of education for students with limited English abilities.

By Francisco Vara-Orta
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Saturday, July 08, 2006

The complaint is decades old: Texas does not do enough to educate children with limited English skills.

It's been 35 years since a federal judge agreed with that claim and ordered the state to fix the problem. But in a court hearing this month in Austin, civil rights groups will argue that Texas is still failing miserably and will demand that students with limited English skills be placed in well-designed and adequately funded, staffed and monitored programs.

State statistics show that students with limited English are more likely to fail state achievement tests, and although the consequences for failure are high — students must pass to graduate from high school and to be promoted in some grades — the Texas Education Agency doesn't hold districts accountable for the performance of these students in the same ways it holds districts accountable when other student groups fail.

Dismal academic results have prompted the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and other civil advocacy groups to file a motion in February in the U.S. Eastern District Court in Tyler.

It's the continuation of a 1971 lawsuit in which the court first ruled that Texas must offer programs to get limited-English students up to other students' levels. MALDEF's argument is that Texas is failing to meet that goal.

After months of legal wrangling, senior U.S. District Judge William Wayne Justice ruled in May that the case can be heard in his Austin court on July 24.

State officials declined to comment on the legal points of the case, but Georgina Gonzalez, director of the state's Bilingual Education and English as a Second Language unit, said Texas is committed to helping limited-English students, who she says have shown marked improvement on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills test, after a few years in the system.

"There are many challenges facing the students who are trying to learn a new language and culture on top of learning the curriculum," Gonzalez said. "We can't give (them) any easier form of the TAKS test. Instead, we have to push them up to the same standards that we hold for other students."

Texas enrolled 711,737 students in the 2005-06 school year under the designation "limited English proficient," about one in six of the state's 4.5 million students.

The limited-English category includes elementary students who are taught through bilingual education, in which students learn mostly in their native languages, and middle and high school students in the English as a Second Language program, in which students are immersed in English and get limited help with coursework in their own language.

Students with limited English skills typically score below state averages on the TAKS, but the problem is particularly apparent with English as a Second Language students.

Just 18 percent of seventh-grade English as a Second Language students passed all parts of the TAKS, a rate that's 46 percentage points lower than the 2006 average for all students. Only 15 percent of 11th-grade English as a Second Language students passed all of the high school exit exam, compared with 64 percent of all students. Those results show a decline from 24 percent passing in 2004.

"It seems that the Texas take on the 'No Child Left Behind' motto doesn't include (limited-English) students," said David Hinojosa, MALDEF's lead attorney on the case. "The numbers speak for themselves and speak volumes."

Texas' accountability system is intended to ensure that all students are receiving an adequate education. Various categories of students — such as a particular ethnic group or gender — starting in third grade all must pass state achievement tests at certain levels, or schools and their districts can face sanctions.

Poorly performing schools and districts could receive low ratings, and campuses that don't improve could be forced, as Johnston High School was about two years ago, to restructure, allow students to transfer to other schools or eventually be taken over by the state.

Though the state collects performance information on students with limited English skills, it doesn't force districts to address poor passing rates among limited-English students on the TAKS as aggressively as it does for ethnic groups, for example.

If successful, MALDEF's motion would require on-site, in-person monitoring for districts where the TAKS passing rates among limited-English students are the lowest.

In addition, the motion requests that the state:

•Ensure that the passing rates of elementary and secondary students are considered separately.

•Investigate districts that, based on U.S. Census Bureau data, appear to underreport the number of limited-Englishstudents enrolled.

•Intervene in school districts where significant gaps exist in the achievement, promotion and dropout rates of limited-English and English-speaking students.

"Districts only get reviewed if (limited-English) students fall more than 10 percentage points below the state standard for that exam," Hinojosa said.

In 2004-05, 180 districts were flagged for review, but just two turned in corrective action plans required in such situations, Hinojosa said.

The state uses a system that primarily relies on computer analysis of test scores and district self-assessments to determine compliance with bilingual education laws. Under the system, poor performance at specific schools can be masked by the district's overall performance.

"That means for a district that relatively higher performance at one school on the TAKS can cancel out failing performance at another school, and students that need help aren't going to get any," Hinojosa said.

Limited-English students are four times less likely than students overall to pass the high school exit exam, according to state data.

Such students were more than twice as likely to be held back a grade; 14 percent weren't promoted in 2003-04 compared with 6.3 percent of students overall, and limited-English students dropped out at twice the rate of Texas students overall.

But state education officials said limited-English students show rapid improvement on the TAKS once in Texas schools.

In 11th grade, for example, 44 percent of students with one full year of limited-English instruction passed, compared with 15 percent of their "newcomer" colleagues.

Hinojosa said no matter which way the numbers are presented, they show a problem that needs to be fixed.

"The TEA keeps telling us to look at this or that breakdown, but ultimately, students are held to the TAKS test scores, and that holds them back or leads them to dropping out," Hinojosa said.

MALDEF timed the filing of its motion to coincide with the State Board of Education's debate about encouraging state legislators to allow elementary schools to choose English as a Second Language courses instead of the bilingual curricula now required.

The board, which has no legal power to change the law, has not decided on a recommendation.

"I don't think there is solid evidence that bilingual education works," said Education Commissioner Dan Montgomery, whose district includes Austin. "But I'm not for English-only either. I'm not advocating a sink or swim policy. More research is needed."

Montgomery said he thinks state law should be changed so that schools may use English as a Second Language or other English-immersion programs approved by the Texas Education Agency to cut the costs of bilingual education. In the 2004-05 school year, the state gave districts $965.3 million for bilingual education and ESL programs.

The push for English-only immersion, Hinojosa said, "is entirely irrelevant because the State of Texas has adopted a bilingual education code and recognizes that the best way to ensure educational opportunities is through bilingual programs for primary and (English as a Second Language) classes for secondary students."

Martha Garcia, the Austin school district's bilingual education and English as a Second Language program director, said, "There's a common misperception by outsiders that we don't teach English or we want to keep (limited-English) students only speaking their native language, but that's absolutely false. We believe that using the native language is crucial in introducing and fully developing their English."

Jill Kerper Mora, an associate professor at San Diego State University and a former bilingual education consultant with the state, said studies she conducted indicate that limited-English students who receive more instruction in their native languages learn English faster and perform better academically.

Districts have options in structuring their programs, typically using more English to teach math and science and native languages to teach reading in the primary grades. Secondary students get a heavier dose of English in all areas.

"In middle school and high school, you get no native language support, only (English as a Second Language) instruction, and the teachers don't even have to know Spanish or other languages," Mora said. "That paints a strong picture of maybe what would be a more effective method at the secondary level."

fvara-orta@statesman.com; 445-3616

Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/07/8bilingual.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:06 PM 0 comments Links to this post

I respond to my friend, George Schmidt (editor of SUBSTANCE MAGAZINE out of Chicago) who expresses concern over the under-reporting of labor's role in the recent mobilization in Chicago. My response to him is provided below. -Angela

6/19/06

Angela,

I was glad that you shared the materials I sent to you after Chicago's
massive March 10 march and hope you'll share some of the observations below as well.
This information needs to be in the general discussion of what's going on,
especially among progressive college and university people.

I read with interest the article (from Nation) that you forwarded about the
use of new media to organize the May Day marches. I wanted to add something to
the analysis of the May Day marches that you forwarded two weeks ago from The
Nation.

Since the beginning of the marches, one of the things that's puzzled me is
how consistently the media -- including the "progressive" media, like The Nation
and In These Times -- have either ignored or downplayed the role of the
unions in the organizing of the huge March 10 and May 1 marches in Chicago (and
elsewhere).

One of the reasons I spent so much time organizing the photo essay on
Chicago's May Day march in the May Substance (which will be available on line at
www.substancenews.com in PDF format this week) is that I had begun to notice a
bias in the media from both the bourgeois media (The New York Times, for example,
ignored the March 10 Chicago march entirely, despite the fact that they had
reporters at it) and from "progressives." I haven't figured out why and haven't
asked. We also put into print a great deal more about the March 10 Chicago
march than got out elsewhere.

More important, I think, is the role of the unions, both in focusing the
class aspects of the events and in providing the infrastructure for the actual
unfolding of the days' work both those days. In the Spanish materials going out
before March 10, it was very clear that the day was viewed as a "general
strike" and that unions were involved. That continued through May 1.

Without the organizing infrastructure of hundreds of union staff, members,
and volunteers from SEIU, Unite HERE, UFCW, Teamsters, UE (electrical workers),
Carpenters, and Laborers -- to name the seven I witnessed giving major support
in the run-up to May Day -- Chicago's May Day would not have happened, let
alone happened as it did as a rebirth of May Day as a workers' holiday in the
USA (explicit here in the march, as you can see by reading Substance). At the
street level, the unions were more important than the Catholic churches, and
easily equal to the immigrant rights groups in importance in making the events
happen.

As I've already reported, SEIU Local 73 executive board member Jose Artemio
Arreola (from Michoacan) was one of the key organizers for both marches.
Cynthia Rodriguez (vice president of Local 73, SEIU) was in the middle of all the
pre- May Day planning. Hundreds of other SEIU members were involved in various
parts of all that, from making badges for people to providing marshals to
supplement the police.

As the SEIU Local 73 Website reflects (with more than 400 photographs I took
on May 1, see seiu73.org), the union presence was massive, and crucial.

Another important reality, largely ignored in media reports, is that most of
the African Americans who marched both days in Chicago were union members,
marching with their unions. I could introduce anyone who came to Chicago to
dozens of them, from a half dozen unions. For the life of me, I'm having trouble
figuring out why the media reports on the marches now focus on African American
opposition to the marches (often, from rump fringe groups) while ignoring the
African American workers who actually helped organize the marches and marched.

Thus, while I like hearing about the importance of MySpace and other high
tech methods of mobilizing students (although we shouldn't downplay AM and FM
radio), whatever distinctions might have been between Chicago and other places, I
suspect that we need to take a second look at the importance of unions in the
struggles.

I'll leave it at that.

I expect The New York Times to downplay the revival of labor unions,
especially when that includes a revival of May Day as a workers' holiday in the USA,
rebirthed right here in Chicago, where May Day was born 120 years ago. What I'm
having more trouble understanding is why The Nation and In These Times are
truncating their reporting on these massive and important marches. Have they
become so soaked in identity politics that they can't see class politics any
more? I don't really know.

But anyone who wants to buy extra copies of my two reports on the Chicago
marches can send $2 per copy to Substance (5132 W. Berteau, Chicago 60641). And
if not, they can go to our website (www.substancenews.com) and see the marches
in the dozens of photographs I published.

George N. Schmidt
Editor, Substance
www.substancenews.com
_______________________________________

Thanks, George, for your analysis. Yes, your work and analysis on the influence of labor provides an important and necessary corrective to present reporting on the mobilizations. I especially appreciate your commentary on solidarity by African-American unionists. Technology only explains so much. The photos in SUBSTANCE are breathtaking, by the way. Great job with the photographs (some of which are on my blog). You truly capture just how monumental all of this is.

James K. Galbraith's recent piece in MOTHER JONES titled, "The Kids are all Right"
supports your class/labor view in a way that identifies shared underlying causes in both the French and U.S.-immigrant mobilizations. In both instances, the "kids" are the stakeholders in so-called reform and are consequently solidly represented in the protest movement. Galbraith in effect maintains that through their actions, young people have just launched the next labor movement. Despite this, the press (on top of identity politics, as you suggest) is responsible for the lack of either coverage of workers or for not providing a labor-based perspective to this mobilization. The press' bias against labor is historic. Other blinders, however, also seem to be present.

Another necessary corrective involves the organizing of undocumented workers as part of a rather long history that dates back to the 1960s Mexican American Civil Rights Movement. Civil rights' leadership and membership's connections to workers and involvement in labor union struggles are also part of this story.

Lovato, in THE NATION, provides a good analysis of this in his leading piece in the June 2006 issue titled, "Voices of a New Movimento." This article does the best job I’ve seen yet of outlining these organizational linkages over time. Indeed, LULAC was very instrumental in the Dallas half-million-person march--and I would imagine, most or all of the other mobilizations. More recently, on July 1, LULAC held an immigration rally at the Midwest Airlines Center in Milwaukee at the site of their national conference. They stressed the importance of registering 2 million new voters. NCLR is highlighting immigration at their national conference in L.A. beginning tomorrow (July 8).

Also, the story continues through the emergence of significant immigrant, grassroots, labor, local, statewide and national organizations that have formed a new coalition called the "We Are America Alliance" that is supporting immigrant rights:
Since SEIU is a member of the coalition, you must know about this already.

Finally, check out this piece, too, titled Leading "La Marcha" published in Thomas Paine. This piece asks us to probe a little deeper than most accounts into the role of race, and the changing complexion of our nation which many fear. It also provides good political analysis.

What also needs to be factored in at some point is the influence of Mexico through the existence of binational efforts and programs, as well as the increasing role that global human rights organizations and commissions play in present mobilizations.

Probably no single factor was sufficient in terms of the outcome, yet all were perhaps necessary--though some factors will certainly bear greater explanatory power.... Plus, variations in these factors across sites would exist. If you don't mind, I'll post this stuff on my blog so others can weigh in, too, if they wish. Thanks for sharing.

-Angela

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:46 PM 0 comments Links to this post

July 9, 2006
The Immigration Equation
By ROGER LOWENSTEIN/ New York Times

This is a really good piece that lays out well the economics versus the politics of immigration reform--based on what highly regarded economists opine. In particular, Lowenstein makes the case that economists make: "Market forces like supply and demand, not legal status, are what determine wages." So legalizing the immigrant labor pool (which labor supports) will not raise wages (which is labor's wager), but neither will it necessarily depress it. Immigrants are consumers; plus, their presence spurs myriad other business activity (housing, small businesses like restaurants, etc.) Also, immigrants pay into social security.

Lowenstein hangs his hat on UC Berkeley professor, David Card's analysis--as appeared in a recent paper, "Is the New Immigration Really So Bad?"

"Despite the recent onslaught of immigrants, he [Card] pointed out, U.S. cities still have fewer unskilled workers than they had in 1980. Immigrants may be depriving native dropouts of the scarcity value they might have enjoyed, but at least in a historical sense, unskilled labor is not in surplus. America has become so educated that immigrants merely mitigate some of the decline in the homegrown unskilled population. Thus, in 1980, 24 percent of the work force in metropolitan areas were dropouts; in 2000, only 18 percent were."

Giovanni Peri, at University of California, Davis, helps to settle the debate over wage depression by pointing out that most of the competition that immigrants face is with each other.

In any case, this is the best layman's piece I've read in awhile. -Angela

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 5:48 PM 0 comments Links to this post

On the subject of undocumented immigration, Princeton Professor Douglas Massey offers the following in his piece titled, Backfire at the Border: Why Enforcement without Legalization Cannot Stop Illegal Immigration (pdf) , July 13, 2005. This brief, which you can download in its entirety, is a Cato Institute Publication.

Because of my own interest in the development of cross-border institutions that translate the goal of regional integration into cooperative policies and practices in other arenas like education, I'm contemplating these matters. It seems to me that while the issue of immigration and immigrants' rights and responsibilities will be a continuing one, it's also still time to consider in a parallel fashion possibilities across borders through binational programs. While this is not totally unchartered territory, it remains woefully under-developed especially in light of a much more developed discourse on free trade. -Angela


From Prof. Massey's executive summary:


"For the past two decades, the U.S.government has pursued a contradictory policy on North American integration. While the U.S. government has pursued more commercial integration through the North American Free Trade Agreement, it has sought to unilaterally curb the flow of labor across the U.S.-Mexican border. That policy has not only failed to reduce illegal immigration; it has actually made the problem worse.

Increased border enforcement has only succeeded in pushing immigration flows into more remote regions. That has resulted in a tripling of the death rate at the border and, at the same time, a dramatic fall in the rate of apprehension. As a result, the cost to U.S.taxpayers of making one arrest result is that illegal immigrants are less likely to return to their home country, causing an increase in the number of illegal immigrants remaining in the United States. Whatever one thinks about the goal of reducing migration from Mexico, U.S.policies toward that end have clearly failed, and at great cost to U.S.taxpayers. A border policy that relies solely on enforcement is bound to fail.

Congress should build on President Bush’s immigration initiative to enact a temporary visa program that would allow workers from Canada, Mexico, and other countries to work in the United States without restriction for a certain limited time. Undocumented workers already in the United States who do not have a criminal record should be given temporary legal status."

http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/pas/tpa-029.pdf

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 3:56 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Herre are a couple of stories about the status of English language learners. MALDEF is taking the state to task on the egregiously low passing rates at all levels, but most especially at the exit level (vis-a-vis the TAKS test required for graduation). In light of this critique, the Statesman's usage of "outshines" seems a bit stretched. In any case, William Wayne Justice's court will again review the constitutional / statutory rights of English language learners in Texas. For more on the case, scroll down. -Angela

Austin outshines averages in educating pupils with limited English skills
District officials attribute improved performance of such students on state achievement tests to intense programs, teacher recruitment.

By Francisco Vara-Orta
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Saturday, July 08, 2006

Honduran immigrant Elias Barahona, an incoming senior at Johnston High School, said learning English is the most intimidating obstacle for many newcomers, but it's the key to reaching his dreams.

"For the sake of me and my family, I want to learn English to get a good job and be a professional," Barahona said. "We immigrated here for the American dream."

Barahona was ranked in the top 10 percent of his 10th-grade class at International High School, a two-year-old program housed near Johnston that focuses on helping immigrant students. Now that he's improved academically, Barahona will take classes at Johnston in the fall to get more English-language instruction.

State statistics show that Austin schools do a slightly better than average job of bringing students with limited English skills up to par academically with their native English-speaking peers.

Overall, 76 percent of Austin students designated as "limited English proficient" in 2005 passed the reading portion of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills a year after leaving bilingual education and English as a Second Language programs. That's substantially above the state average of 50 percent.

Martha Garcia, director of the Austin school district's bilingual education and English as a Second Language programs, said a federal lawsuit challenging Texas' enforcement of its bilingual education laws brings needed attention to the limited-English population but that she's gotten all the support from the state that she's needed to keep her program in good shape.

Now in her second year as director, Garcia said the district's limited-English students fare better on the TAKS in part because the district invests about $450 more in each of those students than the state average of $224.

The extra money goes for hiring teachers and for awarding bilingual education teachers an annual $2,000 bonus.

Yet while the performance of Austin's limited-English students on TAKS tests has improved recently, from 30 percent passing in 2004 to 35 percent in 2005, a grade-by-grade breakdown shows that some passing rates hover just a few percentage points over state averages. For example, 20 percent of Austin's 11th-graders with limited English passed the TAKS in 2005, compared with 19 percent statewide.

"We have to remember that acquiring a second language takes time," Garcia said.

The pressure to prepare students for the tests, which determine whether third- and fifth-grade students are promoted to the next grade, puts stress on bilingual teachers such as Cook Elementary School's Andrea Yz.

"The emphasis on TAKS is challenging, and all educators know that not all children learn at the same pace," said Yz, a first-grade teacher now in her fourth year at Cook, where 77 percent of limited-English students overall passed the TAKS in 2005, a 16 percentage point improvement over the year before. "If we don't get the younger students up to par by the third grade, it's forever playing catch-up."

Districts aren't required to offer bilingual education past the fifth grade under state law and usually don't. School districts with an enrollment of 20 or more limited-English students in any language classification in the same grade are required to offer a bilingual education program in elementary school and English as a Second Language instruction from grades 7 to 12.

Yz said many such students struggle because they don't have an English-speaking support system at home. Parents can't help them with homework or communicate with teachers who speak only English.

Austin's 17,263 limited-English students represented about 22 percent of the 79,707 overall student population in the 2005-06 school year, an increase of about 8,500 students over 10 years. The district offers limited-English program instruction in at least 54 languages and dialects.

"People have to remember this is a language issue, not a racial one," Garcia said. "The majority of (limited-English) students are American-born citizens and aren't going to be sent out of the country anytime soon."

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/07/8ausbilingual.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion reopens 35-year-old case over educating students with limited English skills

Hearing in Austin on July 24 over quality of education for students with limited English abilities.

By Francisco Vara-Orta
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Saturday, July 08, 2006

The complaint is decades old: Texas does not do enough to educate children with limited English skills.

It's been 35 years since a federal judge agreed with that claim and ordered the state to fix the problem. But in a court hearing this month in Austin, civil rights groups will argue that Texas is still failing miserably and will demand that students with limited English skills be placed in well-designed and adequately funded, staffed and monitored programs.

State statistics show that students with limited English are more likely to fail state achievement tests, and although the consequences for failure are high — students must pass to graduate from high school and to be promoted in some grades — the Texas Education Agency doesn't hold districts accountable for the performance of these students in the same ways it holds districts accountable when other student groups fail.

Dismal academic results have prompted the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and other civil advocacy groups to file a motion in February in the U.S. Eastern District Court in Tyler.

It's the continuation of a 1971 lawsuit in which the court first ruled that Texas must offer programs to get limited-English students up to other students' levels. MALDEF's argument is that Texas is failing to meet that goal.

After months of legal wrangling, senior U.S. District Judge William Wayne Justice ruled in May that the case can be heard in his Austin court on July 24.

State officials declined to comment on the legal points of the case, but Georgina Gonzalez, director of the state's Bilingual Education and English as a Second Language unit, said Texas is committed to helping limited-English students, who she says have shown marked improvement on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills test, after a few years in the system.

"There are many challenges facing the students who are trying to learn a new language and culture on top of learning the curriculum," Gonzalez said. "We can't give (them) any easier form of the TAKS test. Instead, we have to push them up to the same standards that we hold for other students."

Texas enrolled 711,737 students in the 2005-06 school year under the designation "limited English proficient," about one in six of the state's 4.5 million students.

The limited-English category includes elementary students who are taught through bilingual education, in which students learn mostly in their native languages, and middle and high school students in the English as a Second Language program, in which students are immersed in English and get limited help with coursework in their own language.

Students with limited English skills typically score below state averages on the TAKS, but the problem is particularly apparent with English as a Second Language students.

Just 18 percent of seventh-grade English as a Second Language students passed all parts of the TAKS, a rate that's 46 percentage points lower than the 2006 average for all students. Only 15 percent of 11th-grade English as a Second Language students passed all of the high school exit exam, compared with 64 percent of all students. Those results show a decline from 24 percent passing in 2004.

"It seems that the Texas take on the 'No Child Left Behind' motto doesn't include (limited-English) students," said David Hinojosa, MALDEF's lead attorney on the case. "The numbers speak for themselves and speak volumes."

Texas' accountability system is intended to ensure that all students are receiving an adequate education. Various categories of students — such as a particular ethnic group or gender — starting in third grade all must pass state achievement tests at certain levels, or schools and their districts can face sanctions.

Poorly performing schools and districts could receive low ratings, and campuses that don't improve could be forced, as Johnston High School was about two years ago, to restructure, allow students to transfer to other schools or eventually be taken over by the state.

Though the state collects performance information on students with limited English skills, it doesn't force districts to address poor passing rates among limited-English students on the TAKS as aggressively as it does for ethnic groups, for example.

If successful, MALDEF's motion would require on-site, in-person monitoring for districts where the TAKS passing rates among limited-English students are the lowest.

In addition, the motion requests that the state:

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 1:43 PM 0 comments Links to this post

This puts a human face on the immigration conundrum. It's a story that supports passage of the DREAM Act that is currently being considered in Congress' discussion on immigration. -Angela

Good kids are counting on Dream Act
But path to college is tied up in immigration reform

08:34 AM CDT on Friday, July 7, 2006

This week, House and Senate committees have embarked on a nationwide tour to listen to people who have a stake in immigration policy. Casting all cynicism aside, let's say these public hearings have nothing to do with midterm elections and everything to do with an honest desire to untangle our immigration mess.

If that's the case, then I think these leaders need to hear from Carla, a bright, ambitious 17-year-old Dallas student who will be directly affected by whatever they decide. This is what she'd tell them:

After watching her mother clean other people's bathrooms for 14 years, she wants something more for her life. She's worked hard, and she's now poised to graduate from high school in the top 10 percent of her class. She wants to go to a good college, but she can't – unless Congress acts.

Because Carla (who asked that her last name not be used) is in this country illegally, she doesn't qualify for most financial aid. Even if she manages to work her way through school with a low-paying job – the only kind available to her – without legal status, she would be blocked from pursuing her profession.

Her only hope is an amendment, known as the Dream Act, tacked onto the controversial immigration legislation now stalled out in Congress. The amendment would give the estimated 65,000 undocumented high school seniors who graduate annually the legal status to qualify for college financial aid and put them on a path to citizenship.

If there is anyone to make a case for the Dream Act, it's Carla. Even as her mother tells her to give up her dream, Carla keeps studying. This summer, she's taking a year's worth of pre-calculus so that she'll be able to take Advanced Placement calculus this fall.

In some ways, she says, being here illegally "made me want to be better, and to show them that I'm not here to waste my time."

Carla, her mother and two older siblings left Chihuahua in 1992 after her father abandoned them. They came to Dallas on a visa to visit family and never left.

"I know it's not my fault that I'm here, but I'm not blaming my single mother for trying to pursue a better life, either," she says. "I was only 3 when I came here. I can't go back to Mexico; I can barely speak Spanish."

Federal law mandates equal access to education for elementary and secondary education, no matter the child's legal status. Denying the good students a route to higher education is not only cruel, but also wasteful. By some estimates, $200,000 in taxpayer money will be spent on Carla's education by the time she graduates in May 2007.

"If we allow these roadblocks to higher education to persist," says Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a co-sponsor of the Dream Act, "we ultimately hurt our nation because we deprive ourselves of future leaders and the increased tax revenues and economic growth they would produce."

Carla wants to enroll at the University of Texas at Austin. She loves math and wants to become an accountant. Someday, she says, she'd also like to open a center that helps single mothers, like her own, learn English, find resources and help kids like her find scholarships. She says she was counting on the Dream Act to pass this year. It's been making its way through Congress since 2004, and last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed it, 16-3, with overwhelming bipartisan support. With the best of intentions, though, the legislation was attached to the larger immigration package – and then it got swallowed up in the contentious debate.

Some people may think the Dream Act sounds like a free pass, a reward to people who've broken the law. But the legislation is written to encourage the young people with the most promise, like Carla. At the time of application, they must have earned their high school diploma or GED, be accepted to a two- or four-year college, have no criminal record and exhibit good moral character.

If the immigration reform legislation tanks, Carla fears her life won't be much better than her mother's. "I don't want to be cleaning other people's houses," she says. "That's not what I dream of. I want a piece of the American dream."


Macarena Hernández is a Dallas Morning News editorial columnist. Her e-mail address is mhernandez@dallasnews.com.

Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/columnists/all/stories/DN-hernandez_07edi.ART.State.Edition1.245f1a8.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:28 AM 0 comments Links to this post

This article titled, Put to the Test, appearing in the latest issue of Stanford Magazine (July-Aug. 2006 issue) is worth reading.

It lays out Terry Moe's pro-accountability, pro-choice (read: vouchers, but also charter schools) perspective against Gerald Bracey's argument that privatization ("choice") is the agenda that undergirds NCLB.

Moe's view is expressed as follows:

"If we want significant improvement, we need to target the incentives at the heart of the system. Fortunately, there are potent reforms capable of doing that: school accountability and school choice. Accountability shapes incentives from above through effective management. Under a well-designed system, the states develop rigorous academic standards, measure whether the standards are being met, and attach rewards and sanctions to the outcomes--thus putting a laser-like focus on achievement, and giving educators and students strong incentives to promote it.

School choice, by contrast, shapes incentives from below through grassroots action. When parents are able to vote with their feet, and when they are given alternatives--charter schools or private schools--to the regular public schools, the latter are put on notice that they stand to lose kids and money if they don't perform. And their incentives are enhanced accordingly.

Neither accountability nor choice can be an immediate fix, because institutional reform is a complex and imperfect process. Each of these reforms can be designed and implemented in countless ways, and some may prove much better than others. Success turns on well-intentioned efforts to move--over time, with experience--toward frameworks that adjust for the inevitable early problems and promote school improvement most effectively over the long run. There is nothing ideological about this and nothing conspiratorial. It simply calls for a practical, much-needed search for an appropriate mix of accountability, choice, and traditional schooling--a mix that gets the incentives right and really boosts student learning."


In response, Bracey offers the following:

"I have never believed that this law is the idealistic, well-intentioned but poorly executed program that many claim it to be. NCLB aims to shrink the public sector, transfer large sums of public money to the private sector, weaken or destroy two Democratic power bases--the teachers unions--and provide vouchers to let students attend private schools at public expense. The original proposal, and each subsequent presidential budget, provided for vouchers, but Congress has thus far removed these provisions."

I appreciate, in particular, Bracey's analyses of international mathematics data (TIMMS) that show that at lower percentages of student poverty, our public school performance translates into higher test scores--higher even than Sweden, the leading nation. However, because we have greater poverty than other industrialized nations, our overall score is lower.

As does Moe who alludes to the problematic of teacher union power, he provides other pertinent commentary on the vexed politics of school reform that includes the demonizing of teachers and the chronic and determining conditions of poverty.

Good going, Jerry! -Angela

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 1:55 PM 0 comments Links to this post

From Tim Wise's website:

Tim Wise is the Director of the newly-formed Association for White Anti-Racist Education (AWARE) in Nashville, Tennessee. He lectures across the country about the need to combat institutional racism, gender bias, and the growing gap between rich and poor in the U.S. Wise has been called a "leftist extremist" by David Duke, "deceptively Aryan-looking" by a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and "the Uncle Tom of the white race," by right-wing author, Dinesh D' Souza. Whatever else can be said about him, his ability to make the right kind of enemies seems unquestioned.

-Angela

CounterPunch April 26, 2006

What Kind of Card is Race?
The Absurdity (and Consistency) of White Denial
by Tim Wise

Recently, I was asked by someone in the audience of one of my speeches, whether or not I believed that racism--though certainly a problem--might also be something conjured up by people of color in situations where the charge was inappropriate. In other words, did I believe that occasionally folks play the so-called race card, as a ploy to gain sympathy or detract from their own shortcomings? In the process of his query, the questioner made his own opinion all too clear (an unambiguous yes), and in that, he was not alone, as indicated by the reaction of others in the crowd, as well as survey data confirming that the belief in black malingering about racism is nothing if not ubiquitous.

It's a question I'm asked often, especially when there are several high-profile news events transpiring, in which race informs part of the narrative. Now is one of those times, as a few recent incidents demonstrate: Is racism, for example, implicated in the alleged rape of a young black woman by white members of the Duke University lacrosse team? Was racism implicated in Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney's recent confrontation with a member of the Capitol police? Or is racism involved in the ongoing investigation into whether or not Barry Bonds--as he is poised to eclipse white slugger Babe Ruth on the all-time home run list--might have used steroids to enhance his performance?*

Although the matter is open to debate in any or all of these cases, white folks have been quick to accuse blacks who answer in the affirmative of playing the race card, as if their conclusions have been reached not because of careful consideration of the facts as they see them, but rather, because of some irrational (even borderline paranoid) tendency to see racism everywhere. So too, discussions over immigration, "terrorist" profiling, and Katrina and its aftermath often turn on issues of race, and so give rise to the charge that as regards these subjects, people of color are "overreacting" when they allege racism in one or another circumstance.

Asked about the tendency for people of color to play the "race card," I responded as I always do: First, by noting that the regularity with which whites respond to charges of racism by calling said charges a ploy, suggests that the race card is, at best, equivalent to the two of diamonds. In other words, it's not much of a card to play, calling into question why anyone would play it (as if it were really going to get them somewhere). Secondly, I pointed out that white reluctance to acknowledge racism isn't new, and it isn't something that manifests only in situations where the racial aspect of an incident is arguable. Fact is, whites have always doubted claims of racism at the time they were being made, no matter how strong the evidence, as will be seen below. Finally, I concluded by suggesting that whatever "card" claims of racism may prove to be for the black and brown, the denial card is far and away the trump, and whites play it regularly: a subject to which we will return.

Turning Injustice into a Game of Chance: The Origins of Race as "Card"
First, let us consider the history of this notion: namely, that the "race card" is something people of color play so as to distract the rest of us, or to gain sympathy. For most Americans, the phrase "playing the race card" entered the national lexicon during the O.J. Simpson trial. Robert Shapiro, one of Simpson's attorneys famously claimed, in the aftermath of his client's acquittal, that co-counsel Johnnie Cochran had "played the race card, and dealt it from the bottom of the deck." The allegation referred to Cochran's bringing up officer Mark Fuhrman's regular use of the 'n-word' as potentially indicative of his propensity to frame Simpson. To Shapiro, whose own views of his client's innocence apparently shifted over time, the issue of race had no place in the trial, and even if Fuhrman was a racist, this fact had no bearing on whether or not O.J. had killed his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. In other words, the idea that O.J. had been framed because of racism made no sense and to bring it up was to interject race into an arena where it was, or should have been, irrelevant.

That a white man like Shapiro could make such an argument, however, speaks to the widely divergent way in which whites and blacks view our respective worlds. For people of color--especially African Americans--the idea that racist cops might frame members of their community is no abstract notion, let alone an exercise in irrational conspiracy theorizing. Rather, it speaks to a social reality about which blacks are acutely aware. Indeed, there has been a history of such misconduct on the part of law enforcement, and for black folks to think those bad old days have ended is, for many, to let down their guard to the possibility of real and persistent injury (1).

So if a racist cop is the lead detective in a case, and the one who discovers blood evidence implicating a black man accused of killing two white people, there is a logical alarm bell that goes off in the head of most any black person, but which would remain every bit as silent in the mind of someone who was white. And this too is understandable: for most whites, police are the helpful folks who get your cat out of the tree, or take you around in their patrol car for fun. For us, the idea of brutality or misconduct on the part of such persons seems remote, to the point of being fanciful. It seems the stuff of bad TV dramas, or at the very least, the past--that always remote place to which we can consign our national sins and predations, content all the while that whatever demons may have lurked in those earlier times have long since been vanquished.

To whites, blacks who alleged racism in the O.J. case were being absurd, or worse, seeking any excuse to let a black killer off the hook--ignoring that blacks on juries vote to convict black people of crimes every day in this country. And while allegations of black "racial bonding" with the defendant were made regularly after the acquittal in Simpson's criminal trial, no such bonding, this time with the victims, was alleged when a mostly white jury found O.J. civilly liable a few years later. Only blacks can play the race card, apparently; only they think in racial terms, at least to hear white America tell it.

Anything but Racism: White Reluctance to Accept the Evidence
Since the O.J. trial, it seems as though almost any allegation of racism has been met with the same dismissive reply from the bulk of whites in the U.S. According to national surveys, more than three out of four whites refuse to believe that discrimination is any real problem in America (2). That most whites remain unconvinced of racism's salience--with as few as six percent believing it to be a "very serious problem," according to one poll in the mid 90s (3)--suggests that racism-as-card makes up an awfully weak hand. While folks of color consistently articulate their belief that racism is a real and persistent presence in their own lives, these claims have had very little effect on white attitudes. As such, how could anyone believe that people of color would somehow pull the claim out of their hat, as if it were guaranteed to make white America sit up and take notice? If anything, it is likely to be ignored, or even attacked, and in a particularly vicious manner.

That bringing up racism (even with copious documentation) is far from an effective "card" to play in order to garner sympathy, is evidenced by the way in which few people even become aware of the studies confirming its existence. How many Americans do you figure have even heard, for example, that black youth arrested for drug possession for the first time are incarcerated at a rate that is forty-eight times greater than the rate for white youth, even when all other factors surrounding the crime are identical (4)?

How many have heard that persons with "white sounding names," according to a massive national study, are fifty percent more likely to be called back for a job interview than those with "black sounding" names, even when all other credentials are the same (5)?

How many know that white men with a criminal record are slightly more likely to be called back for a job interview than black men without one, even when the men are equally qualified, and present themselves to potential employers in an identical fashion (6)?

How many have heard that according to the Justice Department, Black and Latino males are three times more likely than white males to have their vehicles stopped and searched by police, even though white males are over four times more likely to have illegal contraband in our cars on the occasions when we are searched (7)?

How many are aware that black and Latino students are about half as likely as whites to be placed in advanced or honors classes in school, and twice as likely to be placed in remedial classes? Or that even when test scores and prior performance would justify higher placement, students of color are far less likely to be placed in honors classes (8)? Or that students of color are 2-3 times more likely than whites to be suspended or expelled from school, even though rates of serious school rule infractions do not differ to any significant degree between racial groups (9)?

Fact is, few folks have heard any of these things before, suggesting how little impact scholarly research on the subject of racism has had on the general public, and how difficult it is to make whites, in particular, give the subject a second thought.

Perhaps this is why, contrary to popular belief, research indicates that people of color are actually reluctant to allege racism, be it on the job, or in schools, or anywhere else. Far from "playing the race card" at the drop of a hat, it is actually the case (again, according to scholarly investigation, as opposed to the conventional wisdom of the white public), that black and brown folks typically "stuff" their experiences with discrimination and racism, only making an allegation of such treatment after many, many incidents have transpired, about which they said nothing for fear of being ignored or attacked (10). Precisely because white denial has long trumped claims of racism, people of color tend to underreport their experiences with racial bias, rather than exaggerate them. Again, when it comes to playing a race card, it is more accurate to say that whites are the dealers with the loaded decks, shooting down any evidence of racism as little more than the fantasies of unhinged blacks, unwilling to take personal responsibility for their own problems in life.

Blaming the Victims for White Indifference
Occasionally, white denial gets creative, and this it does by pretending to come wrapped in sympathy for those who allege racism in the modern era. In other words, while steadfastly rejecting what people of color say they experience--in effect suggesting that they lack the intelligence and/or sanity to accurately interpret their own lives--such commentators seek to assure others that whites really do care about racism, but simply refuse to pin the label on incidents where it doesn't apply. In fact, they'll argue, one of the reasons that whites have developed compassion fatigue on this issue is precisely because of the overuse of the concept, combined with what we view as unfair reactions to racism (such as affirmative action efforts which have, ostensibly, turned us into the victims of racial bias). If blacks would just stop playing the card where it doesn't belong, and stop pushing for so-called preferential treatment, whites would revert back to our prior commitment to equal opportunity, and our heartfelt concern about the issue of racism.

Don't laugh. This is actually the position put forward recently by James Taranto, of the Wall Street Journal, who in January suggested that white reluctance to embrace black claims of racism was really the fault of blacks themselves, and the larger civil rights establishment (11). As Taranto put it: "Why do blacks and whites have such divergent views on racial matters? We would argue that it is because of the course that racial policies have taken over the past forty years." He then argues that by trying to bring about racial equality--but failing to do so because of "aggregate differences in motivation, inclination and aptitude" between different racial groups--policies like affirmative action have bred "frustration and resentment" among blacks, and "indifference" among whites, who decide not to think about race at all, rather than engage an issue that seems so toxic to them. In other words, whites think blacks use racism as a crutch for their own inadequacies, and then demand programs and policies that fail to make things much better, all the while discriminating against them as whites. In such an atmosphere, is it any wonder that the two groups view the subject matter differently?

But the fundamental flaw in Taranto's argument is its suggestion--implicit though it may be--that prior to the creation of affirmative action, white folks were mostly on board the racial justice and equal opportunity train, and were open to hearing about claims of racism from persons of color. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. White denial is not a form of backlash to the past forty years of civil rights legislation, and white indifference to claims of racism did not only recently emerge, as if from a previous place where whites and blacks had once seen the world similarly. Simply put: whites in every generation have thought there was no real problem with racism, irrespective of the evidence, and in every generation we have been wrong.

Denial as an Intergenerational Phenomenon
So, for example, what does it say about white rationality and white collective sanity, that in 1963--at a time when in retrospect all would agree racism was rampant in the United States, and before the passage of modern civil rights legislation--nearly two-thirds of whites, when polled, said they believed blacks were treated the same as whites in their communities--almost the same number as say this now, some forty-plus years later? What does it suggest about the extent of white folks' disconnection from the real world, that in 1962, eighty-five percent of whites said black children had just as good a chance as white children to get a good education in their communities (12)? Or that in May, 1968, seventy percent of whites said that blacks were treated the same as whites in their communities, while only seventeen percent said blacks were treated "not very well" and only 3.5 percent said blacks were treated badly? (13)?

What does it say about white folks' historic commitment to equal opportunity--and which Taranto would have us believe has only been rendered inoperative because of affirmative action--that in 1963, three-fourths of white Americans told Newsweek, "The Negro is moving too fast" in his demands for equality (14)? Or that in October 1964, nearly two-thirds of whites said that the Civil Rights Act should be enforced gradually, with an emphasis on persuading employers not to discriminate, as opposed to forcing compliance with equal opportunity requirements (15)?

What does it say about whites' tenuous grip on mental health that in mid-August 1969, forty-four percent of whites told a Newsweek/Gallup National Opinion Survey that blacks had a better chance than they did to get a good paying job--two times as many as said they would have a worse chance? Or that forty-two percent said blacks had a better chance for a good education than whites, while only seventeen percent said they would have a worse opportunity for a good education, and eighty percent saying blacks would have an equal or better chance? In that same survey, seventy percent said blacks could have improved conditions in the "slums" if they had wanted to, and were more than twice as likely to blame blacks themselves, as opposed to discrimination, for high unemployment in the black community (16).

In other words, even when racism was, by virtually all accounts (looking backward in time), institutionalized, white folks were convinced there was no real problem. Indeed, even forty years ago, whites were more likely to think that blacks had better opportunities, than to believe the opposite (and obviously accurate) thing: namely, that whites were advantaged in every realm of American life.

Truthfully, this tendency for whites to deny the extent of racism and racial injustice likely extends back far before the 1960s. Although public opinion polls in previous decades rarely if ever asked questions about the extent of racial bias or discrimination, anecdotal surveys of white opinion suggest that at no time have whites in the U.S. ever thought blacks or other people of color were getting a bad shake. White Southerners were all but convinced that their black slaves, for example, had it good, and had no reason to complain about their living conditions or lack of freedoms. After emancipation, but during the introduction of Jim Crow laws and strict Black Codes that limited where African Americans could live and work, white newspapers would regularly editorialize about the "warm relations" between whites and blacks, even as thousands of blacks were being lynched by their white compatriots.

>From Drapetomania to Victim Syndrome -- Viewing Resistance as Mental Illness

Indeed, what better evidence of white denial (even dementia) could one need than that provided by "Doctor" Samuel Cartwright, a well-respected physician of the 19th century, who was so convinced of slavery's benign nature, that he concocted and named a disease to explain the tendency for many slaves to run away from their loving masters. Drapetomania, he called it: a malady that could be cured by keeping the slave in a "child-like state," and taking care not to treat them as equals, while yet striving not to be too cruel. Mild whipping was, to Cartwright, the best cure of all. So there you have it: not only is racial oppression not a problem; even worse, those blacks who resist it, or refuse to bend to it, or complain about it in any fashion, are to be viewed not only as exaggerating their condition, but indeed, as mentally ill (17).

And lest one believe that the tendency for whites to psychologically pathologize blacks who complain of racism is only a relic of ancient history, consider a much more recent example, which demonstrates the continuity of this tendency among members of the dominant racial group in America.

A few years ago, I served as an expert witness and consultant in a discrimination lawsuit against a school district in Washington State. Therein, numerous examples of individual and institutional racism abounded: from death threats made against black students to which the school district's response was pitifully inadequate, to racially disparate "ability tracking" and disciplinary action. In preparation for trial (which ultimately never took place as the district finally agreed to settle the case for several million dollars and a commitment to policy change), the school system's "psychological experts" evaluated dozens of the plaintiffs (mostly students as well as some of their parents) so as to determine the extent of damage done to them as a result of the racist mistreatment. As one of the plaintiff's experts, I reviewed the reports of said psychologists, and while I was not surprised to see them downplay the damage done to the black folks in this case, I was somewhat startled by how quickly they went beyond the call of duty to actually suggest that several of the plaintiffs exhibited "paranoid" tendencies and symptoms of borderline personality disorder. That having one's life threatened might make one a bit paranoid apparently never entered the minds of the white doctors. That facing racism on a regular basis might lead one to act out, in a way these "experts" would then see as a personality disorder, also seems to have escaped them. In this way, whites have continued to see mental illness behind black claims of victimization, even when that victimization is blatant.

In fact, we've even created a name for it: "victimization syndrome." Although not yet part of the DSM-IV (the diagnostic manual used by the American Psychiatric Association so as to evaluate patients), it is nonetheless a malady from which blacks suffer, to hear a lot of whites tell it. Whenever racism is brought up, such whites insist that blacks are being encouraged (usually by the civil rights establishment) to adopt a victim mentality, and to view themselves as perpetual targets of oppression. By couching their rejection of the claims of racism in these terms, conservatives are able to parade as friends to black folks, only concerned about them and hoping to free them from the debilitating mindset of victimization that liberals wish to see them adopt.

Aside from the inherently paternalistic nature of this position, notice too how concern over adopting a victim mentality is very selectively trotted out by the right. So, for example, when crime victims band together--and even form what they call victim's rights groups--no one on the right tells them to get over it, or suggests that by continuing to incessantly bleat about their kidnapped child or murdered loved one, such folks are falling prey to a victim mentality that should be resisted. No indeed: crime victims are venerated, considered experts on proper crime policy (as evidenced by how often their opinions are sought out on the matter by the national press and politicians), and given nothing but sympathy.

Likewise, when American Jews raise a cry over perceived anti-Jewish bigotry, or merely teach their children (as I was taught) about the European Holocaust, replete with a slogan of "Never again!" none of the folks who lament black "victimology" suggests that we too are wallowing in a victimization mentality, or somehow at risk for a syndrome of the same name.

In other words, it is blacks and blacks alone (with the occasional American Indian or Latino thrown in for good measure when and if they get too uppity) that get branded with the victim mentality label. Not quite drapetomania, but also not far enough from the kind of thinking that gave rise to it: in both cases, rooted in the desire of white America to reject what all logic and evidence suggests is true. Further, the selective branding of blacks as perpetual victims, absent the application of the pejorative to Jews or crime victims (or the families of 9/11 victims or other acts of terrorism), suggests that at some level white folks simply don't believe black suffering matters. We refuse to view blacks as fully human and deserving of compassion as we do these other groups, for whom victimization has been a reality as well. It is not that whites care about blacks and simply wish them not to adopt a self-imposed mental straightjacket; rather, it is that at some level we either don't care, or at least don't equate the pain of racism even with the pain caused by being mugged, or having your art collection confiscated by the Nazis, let alone with the truly extreme versions of crime and anti-Semitic wrongdoing.

Conclusion -- See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Wrong as Always
White denial has become such a widespread phenomenon nowadays, that most whites are unwilling to entertain even the mildest of suggestions that racism and racial inequity might still be issues. To wit, a recent survey from the University of Chicago, in which whites and blacks were asked two questions about Hurricane Katrina and the governmental response to the tragedy. First, respondents were asked whether they believed the government response would have been speedier had the victims been white. Not surprisingly, only twenty percent of whites answered in the affirmative. But while that question is at least conceivably arguable, the next question seems so weakly worded that virtually anyone could have answered yes without committing too much in the way of recognition that racism was a problem. Yet the answers given reveal the depths of white intransigence to consider the problem a problem at all.

So when asked if we believed the Katrina tragedy showed that there was a lesson to be learned about racial inequality in America--any lesson at all--while ninety percent of blacks said yes, only thirty-eight percent of whites agreed (18). To us, Katrina said nothing about race whatsoever, even as blacks were disproportionately affected; even as there was a clear racial difference in terms of who was stuck in New Orleans and who was able to escape; even as the media focused incessantly on reports of black violence in the Superdome and Convention Center that proved later to be false; even as blacks have been having a much harder time moving back to New Orleans, thanks to local and federal foot-dragging and the plans of economic elites in the city to destroy homes in the most damaged (black) neighborhoods and convert them to non-residential (or higher rent) uses.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, has to do with race nowadays, in the eyes of white America writ large. But the obvious question is this: if we have never seen racism as a real problem, contemporary to the time in which the charges are being made, and if in all generations past we were obviously wrong to the point of mass delusion in thinking this way, what should lead us to conclude that now, at long last, we've become any more astute at discerning social reality than we were before? Why should we trust our own perceptions or instincts on the matter, when we have run up such an amazingly bad track record as observers of the world in which we live? In every era, black folks said they were the victims of racism and they were right. In every era, whites have said the problem was exaggerated, and we have been wrong.

Unless we wish to conclude that black insight on the matter--which has never to this point failed them--has suddenly converted to irrationality, and that white irrationality has become insight (and are prepared to prove this transformation by way of some analytical framework to explain the process), then the best advice seems to be that which could have been offered in past decades and centuries: namely, if you want to know about whether or not racism is a problem, it would probably do you best to ask the folks who are its targets. They, after all, are the ones who must, as a matter of survival, learn what it is, and how and when it's operating. We whites on the other hand, are the persons who have never had to know a thing about it, and who--for reasons psychological, philosophical and material--have always had a keen interest in covering it up.

In short, and let us be clear on it: race is not a card. It determines whom the dealer is, and who gets dealt.



* Personally, I have no idea whether or not Barry Bonds has used anabolic steroids during the course of his career, nor do I think the evidence marshaled thus far on the matter is conclusive, either way. But I do find it interesting that many are calling for the placement of an asterisk next to Bonds' name in the record books, especially should he eclipse Ruth, or later, Hank Aaron, in terms of career home runs. The asterisk, we are told, would differentiate Bonds from other athletes, the latter of which, presumably accomplished their feats without performance enhancers. Yet, while it is certainly true that Aaron's 755 home runs came without any form of performance enhancement (indeed, he, like other black ball-players had to face overt hostility in the early years of their careers, and even as he approached Ruth's record of 714, he was receiving death threats), for Ruth, such a claim would be laughable. Ruth, as with any white baseball player from the early 1890s to 1947, benefited from the "performance enhancement" of not having to compete against black athletes, whose abilities often far surpassed their own. Ruth didn't have to face black pitchers, nor vie for batting titles against black home run sluggers. Until white fans demand an asterisk next to the names of every one of their white baseball heroes -- Ruth, Cobb, DiMaggio, and Williams, for starters -- who played under apartheid rules, the demand for such a blemish next to the name of Bonds can only be seen as highly selective, hypocritical, and ultimately racist. White privilege and protection from black competition certainly did more for those men's game than creotine or other substances could ever do for the likes of Barry Bonds.

NOTES
(1) There is plenty of information about police racism, misconduct and brutality, both in historical and contemporary terms, available from any number of sources. Among them, see Kristian Williams, Our Enemies in Blue. Soft Skull Press, 2004; and online at the Stolen Lives Project: http://stolenlives.org.

(2) Washington Post. October 9, 1995: A22

(3) Ibid.

(4) "Young White Offenders get lighter treatment," 2000. The Tennessean. April 26: 8A.

(5) Bertrand, Marianne and Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment in Labor Market Discrimination." June 20. http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mullainathan/papers/emilygreg.pdf.

(6) Pager, Devah. 2003. "The Mark of a Criminal Record." American Journal of Sociology. Volume 108: 5, March: 937-75.

(7) Matthew R. Durose, Erica L. Schmitt and Patrick A. Langan, Contacts Between Police and the Public: Findings from the 2002 National Survey. U.S. Department of Justice, (Bureau of Justice Statistics), April 2005.

(8) Gordon, Rebecca. 1998. Education and Race. Oakland: Applied Research Center: 48-9; Fischer, Claude S. et al., 1996. Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press: 163; Steinhorn, Leonard and Barabara Diggs-Brown, 1999. By the Color of Our Skin: The Illusion of Integration and the Reality of Race. NY: Dutton: 95-6.

(9) Skiba, Russell J. et al., The Color of Discipline: Sources of Racial and Gender Disproportionality in School Punishment. Indiana Education Policy Center, Policy Research Report SRS1, June 2000; U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System: Youth 2003, Online Comprehensive Results, 2004.

(10) Terrell, Francis and Sandra L. Terrell, 1999. "Cultural Identification and Cultural Mistrust: Some Findings and Implications," in Advances in African American Psychology, Reginald Jones, ed., Hampton VA: Cobb & Henry; Fuegen, Kathleen, 2000. "Defining Discrimination in the Personal/Group Discrimination Discrepancy," Sex Roles: A Journal of Research. September; Miller, Carol T. 2001. "A Theoretical Perspective on Coping With Stigma," Journal of Social Issues. Spring; Feagin, Joe, Hernan Vera and Nikitah Imani, 1996. The Agony of Education: Black Students in White Colleges and Universities. NY: Routledge.

(11) Taranto, James. 2006. "The Truth About Race in America--IV," Online Journal (Wall Street Journal), January 6.

(12) The Gallup Organization, Gallup Poll Social Audit, 2001. Black-White Relations in the United States, 2001 Update, July 10: 7-9.

(13) The Gallup Organization, Gallup Poll, #761, May, 1968

(14) "How Whites Feel About Negroes: A Painful American Dilemma," Newsweek, October 21, 1963: 56

(15) The Gallup Organization, Gallup Poll #699, October, 1964

(16) Newsweek/Gallup Organization, National Opinion Survey, August 19, 1969

(17) Cartwright, Samuel. 1851. "Diseases and Peculiarities of the Negro Race," DeBow's Review. (Southern and Western States: New Orleans), Volume XI.

(18) Ford, Glen and Peter Campbell, 2006. "Katrina: A Study-Black Consensus, White Dispute," The Black Commentator, Issue 165, January 5.

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:32 PM 1 comments Links to this post

States distort school test scores, researchers say
Critics say California among those that lower standards for No Child Left Behind
- Carrie Sturrock, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, June 30, 2006

California and some other states have inflated test outcomes by lowering the achievement standard students need to meet to be proficient in reading and math under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, university researchers say.

It amounts to a dumbing down of how the states calculate student progress, the researchers concluded.

Under No Child Left Behind, individual schools and school districts can be punished for repeatedly failing to meet the federal standards, including restructuring schools and possibly closing them in extreme cases.

Researchers with Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) studied 12 states and found nearly all reported results significantly higher than those gathered through the federal government's own testing.

Their study confirms long-held suspicions that many states have set a low bar on what it means to be proficient, distorting the true extent to which kids are learning, said Bruce Fuller, a UC Berkeley professor of education and public policy and co-director of PACE.

In the process, he said, parents have no clear idea of how their children are progressing.

"Parents and citizens can't rely on the state test scores to know whether No Child Left Behind is working -- they can't rely on state test scores to find out whether students are learning more or less over the last 10 years," Fuller said. "We think the states are inflating the percentage of kids who are proficient."

In California, for example, state officials in 2005 estimated 50 percent of fourth-graders were proficient or better in math on the California Standards Tests, compared with 29 percent on the federal National Assessment of Educational Progress or NAEP.

California education officials questioned the validity of comparing an individual state's test scores to a national test that's intended to gauge the relative progress among states. And just because California's test scores outperform the NAEP scores doesn't make them invalid -- it might be instead that NAEP scores underestimate kids' proficiency, said Rick Miller, a spokesman for Jack O'Connell, state superintendent of public instruction.

"The NAEP tests are not aligned to our standards, so (California students are being tested) on information they're not learning in class," he said. "The NAEP scores are less valid -- they're a less-sensitive gauge of the progress of our schools. ... It makes sense to put your stock in the test of what your kids learned."

But U.S. Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, who helped champion the bipartisan No Child Left Behind legislation, considers the PACE study comparison valid and likened the discrepancies to law school graduates boasting they passed all their tests even though they failed the state bar examination. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) aims to force states to honestly describe the quality of education provided to all students, he said, adding that he had not yet read the PACE study.

"There are a lot of people who can't break the habit of gaming the system," he said of states in general. "They want to appear they are doing right by the children, and the fact is, they're not. NCLB shines the light, and that's why there's so much resistance. It shines the light on a lot of practices where districts and states were conning the parents about the quality of education the children were getting."

PACE, an independent research center at UC Berkeley, UC Davis and Stanford University, compared federal and state fourth-grade test score data between 1992 and 2005 from 12 states: Arkansas, California, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas and Washington.

The final report, titled "Is the No Child Left Behind Act Working? The Reliability of How States Track Achievement," comes as the House of Representatives' Committee on Education and the Workforce begins hearings on reauthorizing No Child Left Behind in 2007.

No Child Left Behind mandated in 2002 that all 50 states -- many of which already had their own testing programs -- participate in a federal testing plan to improve education for all children. Every state had to create a blueprint for ensuring that every student scores proficient in math and English by 2013. To reach that goal, the federal government requires that school test scores increase by set amounts each year -- called adequate yearly progress -- and threatens sanctions against schools and districts if they don't.

Fuller said states have found it challenging to make adequate yearly progress and face political pressure to permit the numbers to float upward artificially by, for example, allowing teachers to closely tailor their lessons to the test. The study found large gaps between various states' estimations of students' progress and the federal government's.

In Oklahoma, for example, the discrepancy between state and federal findings since 1994 averaged 48 percentage points in reading and 60 percentage points in math since 1996. In Texas, that gap averaged 55 points in reading and 51 points in math.

In California, the gap averaged 19 percentage points in reading and 24 points in math over several years. Massachusetts scores most closely aligned with NAEP -- there was a 10 percentage-point average annual gap in reading scores and a 1 percentage-point gap in math.

The study outlines several reasons for these large differences. One is that states sometimes lower their standards for what they deem proficient.

Another is that once states establish a test, similar test questions may be used each year. Some teachers circulate the tests, making it easier for students to answer the questions, thereby inflating scores. An additional problem in determining student progress, the study notes, is that states commonly change testing companies and/or the actual tests. As a result, scores often drop when a new test is used. States could equate the new and old tests to bring scores into alignment, but many don't, Fuller said. In 2002, Texas reported that 91 percent of fourth-graders were proficient in reading, a number that fell to 76 percent the following year after the state used a new test. According to NAEP, 29 percent of Texas fourth-graders were proficient.

"Parents and citizens, if they look at a graph like this, it's bewildering," Fuller said. "It doesn't help them determine whether students are learning more or less over time."

The study found that overall, federal reading scores have stayed flat, and federal math scores have improved a little since No Child Left Behind. At the same time, states boast significant gains. California has reported a 3.7 percent average annual gain in reading scores while NAEP has showed no improvement. The Golden State did a little better in math, boasting a 4.3 percent average annual gain while NAEP reported a 2.3 percent gain.

"Does NCLB further raise achievement?" Fuller asked. "So far, the evidence is pretty thin."

The study recommends several ways of addressing the disparity between federal and state test scores, including:

-- State policymakers could enact more challenging standards that involve more analytic and writing skills and higher order thinking.

-- The federal government could provide financial resources to help states link old and new tests and compare the scores.

-- The federal government could call for state tests to be released simultaneously with NAEP scores so the public can better gauge how students are doing.

-- Federal officials could encourage states to reach a consensus on where their respective proficiency bars are set.

California education officials insist the state has tougher standards than many states and notes that California students are making real progress.

"Where this report does a disservice is that it implies that real reforms and real improvements made in student achievement over the last five years are not real, when in fact we know that kids are doing better and achievement is up," said Rick Miller, the spokesman for California's superintendent.

On the Web
To read the report, go to pace.berkeley.edu/testscoretrends.html

A big difference

California boasts much greater progress in fourth-grade reading and math scores on its California Standards Tests than the federal government does with its National Assessment of Educational Progress tests. A new study by Policy Analysis for California Education concludes that many states, including California, exaggerate the extent of students' educational achievement.


Fourth grade results, percent proficient or above:


Reading

CST

2002: 36%

2005: 47%

NAEP tests

1992: 19%

2005: 21%


Math

CST

2002: 37%

2005: 50%

NAEP tests

1992: 12%

2005: 29%


Source: Policy Analysis for California Education


E-mail Carrie Sturrock at csturrock@sfchronicle.com.

Page A - 4
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/30/MNG28JN9RC1.DTL

©2006 San Francisco Chronicle

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 12:08 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Teachers in Texas are conveying their concerns over testing. See other post below regarding the same stuff taking shape nationally. Whether tackling testing is a decisive election strategy for Strayhorn, Belll, and Friedman is open to question. While I do think that there is great discontent, i also think that the general public is generally unaware of teachers' experiences and sentiments. I may be wrong.... -Angela

Bell, Strayhorn, Friedman take on Perry over testing, teacher pay
By KELLEY SHANNON
June 30, 2006

AP Political Writer
AUSTIN — Challengers to Republican Gov. Rick Perry took turns Friday trying to woo a statewide teachers group by saying they want higher teacher pay and less classroom time devoted to standardized testing.

Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn tried to separate herself from the other four gubernatorial hopefuls, declaring she's the only one facing Perry with enough broad support and campaign money "to take him out."

"Let me tell you, this is a two-person race. You can have four more years of Rick Perry or you can have Carole Keeton 'Grandma' Strayhorn, a teacher in the governor's office," Strayhorn, a former educator, told the Texas Classroom Teachers Association.

She noted the last major campaign disclosure reports showed Perry with $9.4 million in campaign cash to spend, while she had $8.1 million. The other candidates each had far less than $1 million.

"It costs a million dollars a week for TV in Texas," she said, referring to campaign advertising that has become a staple in Texas governor races.

Perry spoke to the teacher group Thursday, when he praised the work teachers do and talked up the Legislature's school finance plan he recently signed into law that included a $2,000 teacher pay raise.

Perry called Democrat Chris Bell as his "principle opponent" in the Nov. 7 election and criticized him for wanting to use the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills test only for diagnostic purposes, not for promotion to the next grade level or graduation, as it is used now in some grades.

Bell said Perry doesn't have a clue about what's going on in classrooms. He said he believes teachers agree that it's time to move away from "high-stakes testing."

The state's high dropout rate and poor SAT scores show that the emphasis on standardized testing isn't helping and isn't holding schools accountable, Bell said.

"My sense in talking to teachers all across the state is that they've had it. I think parents have had enough, students have had enough and principals and teachers have had enough when it comes to high-stakes standardized testing," he said.

Strayhorn proposed moving TAKS testing from the spring to the fall each school year. She said that would make it a truly diagnostic test and allow teachers and students to spend the rest of the year working on subjects that need the most attention.

Independent candidate Kinky Friedman said he wants to end the TAKS test. He also proposed legalizing casino gambling in Texas, a move he contends would provide $6 billion to $8 billion annually to help fund education.

"Right now we are fueling the economies of five separate states, none of them Texas. It needs to come back to us. We invented Texas Hold 'Em. We can't even play it here," said Friedman. A number of teachers approached him after his speech to wish him well and take photographs with him.

Perry's spokesman, Robert Black, said that while the other candidates have been occupied with criticisms, promises and pandering, Perry has been taking action.

"Texans know that real leadership is backing up words with positive actions and real results, and the fact is Gov. Perry has successfully addressed the school finance challenge, signed the largest tax cut in Texas history and given teachers a $2,000 pay raise," Black said in a prepared statement.

All the challengers said they want to increase teacher pay beyond the $2,000 increase approved in the recent school funding special legislative session. They said they want Texas teachers' salaries to move closer to the national average, not remain below it.

Though Perry talked favorably about a new merit play plan he signed into law that could give some teachers extra pay for improved academic performance by their students, his challengers weren't high on that program.

"That puts the whole teaching to the test on steroids. It will just make it more high stakes in nature," Bell said, adding that merit pay shouldn't be addressed before the across-the-board pay for teachers is improved.

Strayhorn said the school funding plan passed in the special legislative session as the state faced a court deadline will keep schools open for now, but she said education funding is likely to land in court again.

She has repeatedly criticized it as a plan that won't live up to its financial promises. She called the plan "a smoke and mirrors patch that won't fool the people of Texas."
--
Kelley Shannon has covered politics and government in Austin since 2000.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/gen/ap/TX_Texas_Governor.html

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 11:44 AM 0 comments Links to this post

NEA delegates discuss issues on the floor of the representative assembly during the union's annual convention this week in Orlando, Fla.
-Photo courtesy of Brenda Alvarez/NEA

Check this out: "Instead, the union recommends designing a system based on multiple benchmarks, including teacher-designed classroom assessments, student portfolios, graduation/dropout statistics, and college-enrollment rates, among other measures." This is what a coalition in Texas has been calling for at the state level for a very long time (since before NCLB even became law).

The survey seems worth checking out as well: "nearly 70 percent dislike the No Child Left Behind Act and believe it has failed to improve education. Only 29 percent of those surveyed said they approve of the law." Here is a report (but no actual survey results) that I found from the NEA website.


-Angela

July 5, 2006

Changing NCLB Is Top Topic at NEA Convention
By Vaishali Honawar

Orlando, Fla.
A majority of the 8,200 delegates gathered here for the National Education Association's annual convention overwhelmingly approved a plan that would push for aggressive changes to the federal No Child Left Behind law, which is up for reauthorization next year.

The nation's largest union, whose leaders have often complained they were not allowed to participate in the crafting of the country's chief education law, approved a plan during the July 2-5 meeting that calls on NEA members to lobby Congress for reforms to bring the law more in line with the views of the 2.8 million-member union.

The changes proposed include establishing an accountability system that no longer relies only on testing as the measure of success or failure. Instead, the union recommends designing a system based on multiple benchmarks, including teacher-designed classroom assessments, student portfolios, graduation/dropout statistics, and college-enrollment rates, among other measures.

The plan also calls for smaller class sizes, more funding for schools, and revisions to the definition of "highly qualified" teacher.

The plan passed with just three delegates speaking publicly against it, because they argued that the union should take even more extreme measures and try to repeal the NCLB law in its entirety.

At the Representative Assembly, the union also released a survey of 1,000 NEA members that showed nearly 70 percent dislike the No Child Left Behind Act and believe it has failed to improve education. Only 29 percent of those surveyed said they approve of the law.

NEA Executive Committee member Rebecca Pringle, who chaired the committee set up last year by union President Reg Weaver to craft the strategy, said that this plan "authorizes the NEA to go boldly where it has never gone before."

"We knew from the start that a flawed law would prevent educators from providing a rich, supportive environment for students," Ms. Pringle said, adding that bipartisan support for the law had, at the beginning, made the NEA voice "lonely." Support for the NEA point of view has since grown, she added, with some states—such as Connecticut—taking a stand against the law.

Abby Beytin, a teacher at Timber Grove Elementary School in Owings Mills, Md., and a member of the committee that drew up the plan, said it was unfair that teachers who deal every day with children in the classroom, were left out of the crafting of the NCLB law. "We are given a curriculum and step-by-step instructions as if every child will fit in a box," she said. "But they are not giving me, the expert, the opportunity to do what I think is the best way to teach a child."

'Experience and Expertise'
The NEA has long opposed the law, particularly some of its accountability and teacher-qualification mandates. In his keynote address July 2, Mr. Weaver exhorted members to aggressively lobby state and federal lawmakers to press for changes to the No Child Left Behind Act.

"You should be--must be--among the leaders in the education reform debate.... We have the experience and the expertise, and we should be the vanguard innovators of education reform," Mr. Weaver said.

Mr. Weaver also called for a $40,000 annual minimum wage for all teachers, and a living wage for education support professionals, as well as adequate and equitable funding for schools.

"If we are going to close the gaps in student achievement, have the ethnic minority community believe that we care, increase salaries, attract more teachers to the classroom,... we must have a funding structure that does not discriminate," he said.

The national debate over immigration this year found its voice at the NEA convention as well, with delegates pushing for and passing--a resolution that would protect teachers and school employees from the role of policing undocumented immigrants and reporting such students to immigration authorities.

Pushed by several states and led by the California Teachers Association, the largest delegation at the convention, with more than a 1,000 delegates, the resolution states that the "NEA will work with state affiliates to assure that any immigration process will protect the rights of all students, support a safe environment, and provide an opportunity to learn."

Barbara E. Kerr, the president of the CTA, said the resolution reflects the "horror and frustration caused when Congress started looking at making teachers felons and immigration officers. "This is about a quality education for all children, about guaranteeing human rights," she said.

NCLB 'Horror Stories'
In this city of amusement parks, delegates dressed as if for a picnic cheered wildly and kept up an atmosphere of light-heartedness even as they plodded through numerous business items over the four-day Representative Assembly. Despite the numerous topics they tackled, the NCLB acronym was heard most in the conference hall, with many delegates expressing personal frustration with the law.

Nearly 100 teachers told their own NCLB "horror stories" to a video camera in a room in the convention center. As the NEA campaign on the law gets under way, one of those teachers will win a trip to Washington to meet with his or her congressional representative to recount the story in person.

Sharon Stacy, a teacher from Van Buren County, Mich., who teaches children with severe disabilities at the Bert Goens Learning Center, spoke to the video camera of increased paperwork, no time for planning, and the almost impossible mandates set for her children, some who are so disabled, she said, that the most basic accomplishments, such as learning to talk and walk, are milestones.

"It sounds great to say 'no child left behind,' but to expect every child in my school to meet standards is ridiculous," she said later in an interview.

Tanya Earle, a social studies teacher at Molalla High School in Molalla River, Ore., said the NCLB law "has undermined a lot of what we do. … It has taken the emphasis away from the core principles we wanted to teach," she said, contending that her subject area has suffered tremendously because of the federal law’s intense focus on math and reading.

"With limited resources and unfunded mandates, schools are not making good choices," Ms. Earle maintained. "Some schools are saying social studies is not even part of the core curriculum."

Still, while Ms. Stacy said she would be happy if Congress does away with the law, some NEA stalwarts appeared to believe that a compromise was more in order.

Most teachers agree on some of the basic principles in the law, including the need for accountability and skilled teachers, said Patricia A. Foerster, the outgoing president of the Maryland State Teachers Association. "There are ways to deal with the negativity of NCLB short of destroying it," she said, "that will put us on a better track."

Vol. 25

© 2006 Editorial Projects in Education

posted by Dr. Angela Valenzuela at 10:51 AM 0 comments Links to this post