Translate

Sunday, February 06, 2005

Why We Speak ENGLISH in Arizona

by R.C. Price - Community Columnist
Arizona Republic, Mesa Community Section Feb 5, 2005

Time for a mother-tongue lashing

For years, the battle over what language to speak in Arizona has simmered in our melting pot, but now, thanks to some stirring by our East Valley legislators, it's fi-nally coming to a boil.

And for that, I can only say: muchas gracias.

The coup de grace is here. The piece de resistance. Mesa's own lovely and talented Russell Pearce and his GOP doppelgangers are reviving that cause celebre, Arizona's English-only movement, by sponsoring legislation to tie those foreign tongues once and for all, restoring a much- needed joie de vivre to us lin-guistic aficionados who just wanna speak American.

And we're not talking just an occasional bon mot here and there, but the whole enchilada, a true tour de force. Quicker than you can sing "Frere Jacques," it'll be done. A fait accompli.

You find the whole thing a bit loco? Au contraire!

Let's you and me have a quick tete-a-tete, mano a mano. We're living la vida loca when everyone assumes carte blanche to speak a different tongue. Restrict us to one lan-guage, and we'll all be on the same page, en masse, living la dolce vita, immersed in esprit de corps. All we need to do is redirect the time and effort spent on all these irritating translations, and voila!

Starting in kindergarten, we'll make speaking English de rigueur, and before long, it'll be arrivederci, Roma, to all this multicultural folderol. Anyone flaunting foreign phrases will be persona non grata in our brave new world. Sayonora, baby!

A lesser man might have given up, but our Russell pos-sesses that je ne sais quoi that lifts him above the hoi polloi. Issues like this are his raison d'etre. Only an East Valley rep could summon the zeitgeist and savoir faire required to lead such an effort. So much so that even those elitist bon vi-vants down at Starbuck's should tip a grande to their longtime bete noire. Carpe diem! And doumo arigatou, Mr. Linguisto.

And to those dummkopfs who would resist, dropping their symbolic lederhosen and mooning our moral majority ad nauseum: Sit on a saguaro, senors. It'll take more than a mere mea culpa to get you off the hook when you get caught conversing in unofficial tongues - subscribe to La Voz, and it's caveat emptor!

Your downfall will merely provide the Republicans a little well-earned schadenfreu-de. Instead, in the spirit of glas-nost, you should cheer, "Viva, Russell!" for this awesome dis-play of chutzpah.

I could go on ad infinitum, but space constraints force me to close. Say "buenas dias" to your new lingo, and adios to lesser languages, amigos. The vox populi has spoken, and it's speaking English, dang it. Any-thing else will be verboten. Comprende?

And when it is, a new day will dawn for right-speaking peo-ple statewide, thanks to the leaders from our very own community: the great and mighty city of Table. [Mesa, AZ]. C'est la vie.



R.C. Price is a Mesa resident, marketing coordinator and father of three. He is co-author of "Mesa: Beneath The Shadows of the Superstitions." He can be reached at OneMindRCP@aol.com via e-mail.


Visit our website:

www.brownsville1965.com

George Lopez, Jr
BHS 1965
Gilbert, AZ

Saturday, February 05, 2005

Don't Put Teachers in Detention for Seeking a Pay Raise

Feb. 5, 2005, 9:46PM

By CLAY ROBISON
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

Like a junior high principal catching eighth-graders without hall passes, state Sen. Florence Shapiro clucked her disapproval at a group of schoolteachers caught lobbying legislators at the state Capitol for more education funding and, of all things, a pay raise.

What nerve! Maybe a couple of hours in detention will put them in their place. Or should we banish them to an alternative disciplinary campus?

Seriously, however, teachers need a pay raise, no strings attached, and they need all the help they can muster in convincing the Legislature to give them one. If they can't lobby on their own behalf, for starters, who can?

Shapiro, a Republican from Plano who chairs the Senate Education Committee, admitted that teachers — no fooling — have "concerns" about how the school debate will unfold, but she must have felt besieged when about 400 of them showed up in an orchestrated effort last week.

"In my opinion, it doesn't look professional to have this many teachers all up here at once like this," she said, according to the Austin American-Statesman.

Not nearly as professional, for sure, as the schmoozing that legislators regularly enjoy with the army of business-suit, expense-account persuaders who daily prowl the statehouse and Austin's prime social venues.

Shapiro wondered if some of the teachers were playing hooky, since the lobbying event was on a weekday. The Association of Texas Professional Educators, the sponsoring organization, said the teachers were either taking a personal day off — which is allowed by their districts — or were using a staff development day to lobby.

Some school districts didn't have classes that day.

Quibbling aside, schoolchildren are better off with teachers lobbying on educational issues, than with entrepreneurs seeking to privatize much of the educational system with vouchers or other schemes designed as much to enrich themselves as to improve instruction.

Sure, teachers have a personal stake in how much they are paid, but they have no less a right to address their legislators on their own behalf than do countless other people promoting a variety of special interest legislation.

The average public school teacher's salary in Texas is about $41,000 a year, usually based on a 10-month contract. That level, according to the Texas State Teachers Association, is about $6,000 below the national average and puts Texas 32nd among the states. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said Texas teachers are about $4,000 behind the national average, but either way a signficant gap exists.

Dewhurst and other Senate leaders, including Shapiro, have said they would like to give teachers an across-the-board raise to bring Texas up to the national average. So far, details haven't been spelled out, and the Senate's outline of educational goals indicates some teachers would be singled out for higher rewards than others.

Instead of a general pay increase, Gov. Rick Perry and House leaders want to pay only the best teachers more, provided they meet certain "incentives." Perry has proposed paying some teachers as much as $7,500 extra a year for working in struggling schools.

House Public Education Chairman Kent Grusendorf of Arlington has filed a bill that would require school districts to spend 1 percent of their basic state allotment for teacher performance bonuses and mentoring.

Paying extra rewards to the best teachers is an option worth considering, provided a fair, realistic way can be found to measure performance. But the best teachers should be singled out only after every teacher is given a significant raise, something the Legislature hasn't done (aside from providing a health care allotment) since 1999.

As in any profession, compensation is crucial to a strong teacher base. The longer the Legislature dawdles, the more that base will erode.

Principal Shapiro, meanwhile, can mark Spring Break on her calendar. If the fate of the education bill is still undecided then, as I suspect it will be, more teachers will be dropping by. And they won't be playing tourist.

clay.robison@chron.com

This article is: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/3025605

Friday, February 04, 2005

No TAK$ Bonus: Teacher Rewards Need a Broader Foundation

No TAK$ Bonus: Teacher Rewards Need a Broader Foundation

Thursday, February 3, 2005


Most human beings like money and are willing to work harder to get more of it. There's nothing wrong with that. However, the more money involved and the narrower the criteria according to which it is distributed, the more likely it is that some people will cheat.

That's true of Olympic athletes. It's true of stockbrokers. It's true of corporate CEOs. There's no reason to think it's not true of teachers and school principals.

That's why legislators who favor a bonus system for teachers need to tie the bonuses to something broader and more nuanced than students' performance on a single test, the annual statewide TAKS exam.

Cheating already happens. This newspaper has reported widespread statistical evidence that suggests cheating in hundreds of Texas schools. The Houston and Dallas districts are investigating those scores and have beefed up security for the next round of TAKS testing.

Most teachers and administrators don't cheat and wouldn't consider cheating. But for a person who is struggling to get by on the average Texas teacher's salary of $40,000 a year, a $5,000 bonus is not a negligible temptation.

We don't buy all the teachers unions' arguments against merit pay – for instance, that it is inherently so political that it's unacceptable. Yes, the subjective judgment of principals would affect teachers' raises – but what profession is immune from boss subjectivity? With a sound grievance process and firm leadership by school boards, a merit pay system could be fair and productive.

So, by all means, let's talk about how to reward teachers who truly deliver an exceptional quality of education. But let's not make their reward contingent on a single event whose results can easily be manipulated.

After all, if enough moolah is riding on a single roll of the dice, somebody will try to load them.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/020405dneditaksbonus.5582.html

House Plan Ups District Funding

By R.A. Dyer
Fort Worth Star-Telegram Austin Bureau

AUSTIN - Every school district in Texas would get more money and spending would increase for bilingual education and teacher bonuses under a school finance plan unveiled Thursday in the Texas House.

The preliminary House proposal calls for an overhaul of standardized testing in high schools, more regulatory freedom for exemplary districts and stiffer penalties for low-performing districts. It would also require a uniform school start date after Labor Day.

The proposed legislation represents the House's response to what has been declared the No. 1 issue of the 79th Texas Legislature: school finance reform. The Senate unveiled a separate plan last month.

All told, House Bill 2 would increase statewide spending on public schools by about $1.5 billion annually -- even after accounting for normal budget growth related to enrollment gains.

For individual districts, that means funding increases of 3 percent to 8 percent, according to an analysis by House leaders. And because the plan allows for the continued collection of local property taxes, some property-wealthy districts would see even greater gains.

"No longer will local school districts bear a majority of education costs," said Rep. Kent Grusendorf, R-Arlington, who filed the legislation Thursday. "The state will dramatically increase its share of funding from 38 percent to 60 percent -- the greatest contribution the state has made in more than two decades."

But teacher groups, some Democrats and others assailed the legislation, saying it won't solve serious school funding problems. A state district judge has ruled the current system unconstitutional, declaring that it does not provide enough money for schoolchildren and robs districts of meaningful control over their tax rates.

"The plan laid out today does not meet Texans' priorities," said Rep. Jim Dunnam, D-Waco. "There appears to be no new funding for pre-K programs. There appears to be no new funding for [low-income student] education programs. The current gap between the haves and the have-nots is not reduced."

Like the Senate plan, the House plan raises as many questions as it answers. For instance, HB 2 is predicated on a reduction in local property taxes, but it does not spell out how the state would make up for that lost revenue or pay for increases in education funding.

All told, lawmakers would have to come up with about $7 billion per year from other sources. House Speaker Tom Craddick said that revenue would come from a combination of sales tax adjustments, changes in the business tax and cost-saving measures -- all of which would be handled through separate legislation.

Likewise, Craddick said lawmakers can find more money through an expansion of gambling or possibly by creating a statewide property tax. Both measures would require a two-thirds vote in the House.

"We're going to have [committee] hearings and [the bill] may change," said Craddick, who added that HB 2 would probably make it to the House floor by the second week of March. Lawmakers "may add things and they may take things out. But we wanted to introduce a bill today that members of the Legislature could look at ... and so the school districts know where they are and so the people of Texas know where they are."

The 137-page bill covers several broad areas, including teacher pay, the accountability system and academic changes.

Among the highlights:

o The legislation does not call for an across-the-board teacher pay increase but would allocate $200 million to $300 million for incentive bonuses or teacher mentoring.

The response from teacher groups? Thanks, but no thanks.

"Incentive pay alone fails to address our most fundamental challenge: Without a meaningful across-the-board pay raise for Texas teachers, we cannot attract the best and brightest to the teaching profession and keep them in our classrooms," said Donna New Haschke, president of the Texas State Teachers Association.

o A $1,000 stipend that teachers can use to pay for health care would be restored. That stipend was cut in half two years ago.

o High school students would be required to pass a series of end-of-course exams. The current standardized testing system, which requires students to pass exit exams to graduate, would be abandoned.

o Schools would begin administering state-mandated standardized tests through an online computer system beginning in spring 2006.

o In a weakening of the "Robin Hood" school finance system, the amount of property tax dollars surrendered by property-wealthy districts for distribution to property-poor districts would drop by 88 percent -- from $1.2 billion per year to $145 million.

o Schools and districts rated "exemplary" under the current accountability system could operate under the less-stringent regulatory guidelines enjoyed by the state's charter schools. However, low-performing districts would face a mandatory management overhaul after two years, and low-performing charter schools would be closed.

o Classes would start on the same day after Labor Day at all schools, giving some students a longer summer break. According to information provided by the House leadership, the change would save taxpayers nearly $90 million related to air-conditioning expenses and the hiring of temporary workers.

o Funding for bilingual education would increase and new accountability guidelines would be enacted for bilingual educators.

o The state would provide funding for college-readiness tests, such as the SAT.

The Legislature is under an Oct. 1 deadline to revamp the $30-billion-a-year school finance system or face a possible shutdown of its education system. About 4.3 million students attend schools in more than 1,000 districts in Texas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ONLINE:www.capitol.state.tx.us
R.A. Dyer, (512) 476-4294 rdyer@star-telegram.com

House Leaders Want to Spend $3 Billion More on Schools

79TH LEGISLATURE
House Leaders Want to Spend $3 Billion More on Schools
Teacher pay raises not included; later start date, online testing proposed.

By Jason Embry
AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN
Friday, February 04, 2005

Texas House leaders filed a sweeping education bill Thursday that would require schools to start after Labor Day, students to take state tests online and board members to run for office in November instead of May.

The plan calls for the state to increase the total $30 billion spent annually on education by more than $3 billion over two years, on top of new money it will spend to support student enrollment growth. It assumes that lawmakers will cut property taxes for school maintenance and operation by about one-third.

It does not, however, prescribe how lawmakers will make up for the property tax cut or where they will get the $3 billion.

The bill is House leaders' first substantive crack at school finance reform, the dominant issue of the young legislative session.

"Every district will receive at least 3 percent more through the state funding formula," said Rep. Kent Grusendorf, R-Arlington, chairman of the Public Education Committee. "That money will be available this fall."

The bill does not provide an across-the-board pay raise for teachers but would provide about $270 million a year statewide for teacher incentive programs. Districts would develop their own programs and could reward teachers for improving student test scores or for serving as faculty mentors.

Two teacher groups quickly assailed the plan because it does not mandate wage increases, but House aides said districts could pay for across-the-board raises with their additional money.

Four years ago, lawmakers created a $1,000 pay supplement to help teachers pay for their health insurance, but that amount was cut in half when state revenues dried up in 2003. The House plan would restore the supplement.

The plan aims to save $85 million a year by requiring districts to start school after Labor Day, when the cost to cool classrooms drops. That could push the end of the school year of 180 instructional days into the middle of June.

It also calls for school board elections in November instead of May so districts would bear less of the cost. All trustees would serve four-year terms.

The current share-the-wealth system would be altered but still based on a district's property wealth per student. The Austin district no longer would have its localproperty tax money redistributed throughout the state. The amount of local property tax money that the Eanes district sends elsewhere would decrease from $50.4 million this year to $22 million next year, according to state projections. The plan calls for major changes in testing and accountability. Students would take state tests online beginning next year, and high schools would give end-of-course tests, also online, instead of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills.

State ratings would be based partly on how well students who speak limited English learn the language, and a high school would need high marks for college readiness to be tagged exemplary. The state would close charter schools that earn low ratings for two straight years, and teachers and administrators at traditional schools with two years of low ratings could be fired. Their students could transfer more easily.

"We're dropping the hammer on low-performing schools," Grusendorf said.

The bill does not call for private-school vouchers, but vouchers likely will get heavy consideration later in the session. It also does not address new money for construction and renovation.

Lawmakers estimate that state spending per student on maintenance and operations for the Austin school district would increase from $6,325 this year to $6,515 next year and $6,702 in 2007. Those figures do not include federal funds or separate allotments for technology or instructional materials.

"There are still some major issues that are unresolved: inadequate funding for poor children and children with English problems, no equitable classroom construction funding, inadequate pay of Texas teachers," said Rep. René Oliveira, D-Brownsville, the vice chairman of the education committee. "I hope we can improve the plan's shortcomings."

The House plan is similar in many ways to the goals for school finance reform endorsed by all senators last month, but there are differences.

The House plan would allow local voters to add 10 cents per $100 property valuation to their tax rates over five years. The Senate plan would let voters add 15 cents over six years.

The Senate outline, unlike the House bill, calls for the local school property tax to become a state tax. A state tax would need a constitutional amendment, meaning it would need approval from two-thirds of the House and Senate and a simple majority among the public.

The House could increase the budget by more than $3 billion by cutting other parts of the state budget or by tapping new revenue sources, such as video lottery terminals, which are similar to slot machines.

Gov. Rick Perry called the bill a strong starting point.

"It devotes new resources to schools, improves teachers' compensation and focuses the debate on achievement," Perry said.


Highlights

•Adds more than $3 billion to budget

•Calls for school districts to develop incentive-pay plans to reward teachers who mentor teachers or whose students perform well

•Calls for the reorganization of schools that post low ratings for two straight years

•Aims to save money by starting school year after Labor Day

•Calls for the state to pay college-entrance exam fees

http://www.statesman.com/hp/content/shared/tx/legislature/stories/02/4edreform.html
 

Bill Would Set Later School Start Date

Teacher merit pay plan, overhaul of student testing also sought
Friday, February 4, 2005

By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN ˆ House leaders laid out a school reform plan Thursday that would
create one of the largest teacher merit pay plans in the nation, force all
school districts to begin classes after Labor Day and overhaul student
testing.

The legislation also would increase funding for education by $1.5 billion a
year, sharply scale back "Robin Hood" sharing of local property tax revenues
and reduce the maximum property tax rate for schools by a third, from $1.50
to $1 per $100 valuation.

All districts would be guaranteed a funding increase of at least 3 percent,
but some could get substantially more under the plan.

For example, the Dallas school district would get a 3 percent boost ˆ
totaling $6,736 a year per student ˆ while the Highland Park school district
would get 55 percent more ˆ $9,128 per student.

Highland Park's windfall would come because of a proposed limit of 35
percent of property tax revenues that could be taken under share-the-wealth
requirements of the law.

House Speaker Tom Craddick and House Public Education Committee Chairman
Kent Grusendorf, R-Arlington, laid out their reform plan, called "Roadmap to
Results," at a Capitol news conference. Senate leaders had already outlined
a broad plan to improve education and fix the state's troubled school
finance system.

"We want to get the maximum bang for every dollar we spend on education in
Texas," Mr. Grusendorf said, referring to the array of proposed reforms in
the bill. One of those would make it easier to shut down ineffective charter
schools and replace the principal and teachers at low-performing public
schools.

"We're also taking the sting out of Robin Hood's arrow," he said. The number
of districts giving up revenue would be cut from 135 to 62, and the amount
of money taken from those districts would plummet from $1.2 billion to $145
million a year.

Because of the property tax reduction, wealth disparities among districts
would diminish, the sponsors said.

The House Ways and Means Committee is reviewing various tax options to raise
the additional $1.5 billion and replace the $5.5 billion that would be lost
by lowering the maximum property tax rate for schools to $1 per $100
valuation. Districts could still collect up to 50 cents more to pay off
voter-approved construction bonds.

A provision that would greatly affect parents in many districts would
require all school districts to start classes in September—no earlier than
the day after Labor Day. Currently, most districts start the week when Aug.
21 falls, although some get state waivers to start even earlier in the
month.

Under Mr. Grusendorf's bill, there would be no waivers and everyone would
start after Labor Day. He said the move would save $85 million a year,
including savings in utility costs.

The incentive pay plan would earmark 1 percent of state and local funds ˆ
about $270 million ˆ to reward teachers for gains in student achievement and
pay stipends to teacher mentors who work with less experienced educators.
Criteria would be developed by the Texas Education Agency, but school
districts would be allowed to design their own programs.

Student gains would be primarily measured by year-to-year scores on the
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills.

"It is very critical we reward our best teachers," Mr. Grusendorf explained,
acknowledging that his bill does not call for a pay raise for all teachers.

Teacher groups blasted the incentive pay proposal.

As far as student testing, the bill would convert the TAKS to an online
program by the spring of 2006, and also scrap the TAKS exams now used in
high school and replace them with end-of-course tests in core academic
subjects.

E-mail tstutz@dallasnews.com

Thursday, February 03, 2005

Legislative Budget Writers Urge Probation Programs, Not More Prisons

Note: It would be great if this problem were further conceptualized as related to the under-education of poor people of color. This is what Rep. Dora Olivo's recent summit at the Capitol on Schools to Prisons demonstrated. -Angela

79th LEGISLATURE
State's prison population, costs growing

By Mike Ward
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, February 03, 2005

Facing a looming shortage of prison beds and a huge price tag to build more prisons, legislative budget writers today advocated new funding for probation and rehabilitation programs as a way to diffuse what could soon become an even bigger budget-breaking crisis.

Bottom line: Local probation programs will have to be bolstered so that more judges can sentence nonviolent offenders there.

"We're going to have to increase the emphasis on probation. There's no question about it," said Appropriations Committee Chairman Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie. "We simply can't afford to build a bunch of new prisons, much less pay to operate them."

In testimony this morning, committee members were told by state budget analysts and prison officials that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice could be out of beds to house new convicts as early as March. It will then have to lease jail beds from counties, at an estimated cost of more than $12 million for the rest of the budget year, which ends Aug. 31.

During the next two years, prison officials say they will need an additional $51 million to lease 3,500 beds. And in five years, official projections show, the system will be 15,000 beds short.

While prisons will need tens of millions more to maintain the current system, Pitt said other agencies are also seeking increases. In all, he said today he expects there will be $10 billion worth of needs on the table — including school finance reform — beyond what the state needs to maintain current services..

"Obviously, that's a lot more than we have available — so you can see that we're going to have to look at alternatives," Pitt said. "Increasing probation programs is one of the places I think we'll start."

Committee members questioned why so many offenders, who are filling up the prison beds — 15,000 during the last year alone — are there for technical violations of their probation, many for minor infractions such as not paying their probation fees on time. In all, officials said 70,000 convicts in prison today are there because their parole or probation was revoked.

Texas prisons hold a little more than 150,000 people.

State Rep. Pat Haggerty, R-El Paso, a former chairman of the House Corrections Committee that oversees the prison system, said the probation rate has declined while the prison rate is up. That should be no surprise, he said.

Two years ago, officials said, the state cut funding for some probation programs. Others were never fully funded.

"We'd better get it now or we're going to have to build new prisons," Haggerty said.

Like others, state Reps. Al Edwards, D-Houston, and Peggy Hamric, R-Houston, recalled the building boom that Texas undertook just a decade ago to solve prison crowding: More than $1 billion was spent to triple the size of the prison system, in what was touted as the largest public works program in U.S. history.

"This sounds like the same old soup, just warmed over," Edwards said. "We're going to have to make changes so we don't continue doing the same thing over and over."

And if the bed space costs seem high, the related costs are up, as well. Prison officials say they need an additional $75 million to cover skyrocketing medical costs, plus other multimillion-dollar increases to properly supervise, feed and care for the growing numbers of convicts. Five additional prisons will be needed in the next five years just to keep up with the growth, they said, unless new programs are launched to divert nonviolent and minor offenders from prison.

"It concerns me that we thought we were going to have capacity for the future — and we don't," Hamric said. "It's distressing."

Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/shared/tx/legislature/stories/02/4prisons.html
 

House Education Plan Calls for Online Tests, $3 billion

79th LEGISLATURE
Bill sends students back to school after Labor Day as well.

by Jason Embry
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, February 03, 2005

Texas House leaders filed a sweeping education bill today that would require schools to start after Labor Day, students to take state tests online and school board members to run for office in November instead of May.

The plan calls for the state to increase education spending by more than $3 billion over two years, on top of new money it will spend to support student enrollment growth. It also calls for an initial one-third reduction in school property taxes for maintenance and operation.

It does not, however, prescribe how lawmakers will make up for the property tax cut or pay for the new spending.

The bill is the House's first substantive effort on school finance reform, the dominant issue of the young legislative session. It is similar to the goals for education reform that every senator endorsed last month.

The House plan would give school districts at least a 3 percent increase in state money this fall, said Rep. Kent Grusendorf, R-Arlington, the chairman of the Public Education Committee. It also would set aside about $270 million per year for districts to use in locally developed incentive or mentoring programs for teachers.

It does not call for an across-the-board pay increase for teachers.

The bill would make it easier for students to transfer out of schools that receive low ratings over two years. It also would expand the ratings system to measure how quickly students who do not speak English learn the language.

It also would require schools to begin the year after Labor Day, a change that is estimated to save $85 million a year but is likely to draw heavy criticism from some local districts. It also requires school trustees to run for office in November, every four years, so that school districts do not bear as much of the cost of a May election.

The bill would move toward the online administration of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills test.

Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/shared/tx/legislature/stories/02/4edreform.html

HOUSTON—Mom Says Girl's Arrest at School Went too Far

Feb. 3, 2005, 6:28AM

The fifth-grader was handcuffed and charged with assault in incident
By ROBERT CROWE
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

The mother of an 11-year-old girl arrested after an incident at a Cypress-Fairbanks elementary said authorities went too far when they escorted her daughter off campus in handcuffs.

This article is: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3021984

Speaker Craddick and Vouchers

Houston Rep Would Hand Vouchers to All

Web Posted: 02/03/2005 12:00 AM CST

W. Gardner Selby
Express-News Austin Bureau

AUSTIN — Nearly every Texas child, including those taught at home, would qualify for school vouchers if a Houston legislator has her way, though House and Senate leaders have yet to insert money for private school options into major education reform proposals.

Rep. Debbie Riddle has been drafting a proposal authorizing school vouchers for all children who are legal residents of Texas, starting at $5,500 a year.

A yet-to-be determined amount of funding would come from the state or other unspecified sources, according to a summary, and parents could bank unspent money in a state account in their child's name.

Some 4.3 million children attend the state's public schools, 241,000 are privately schooled and more than 100,000 taught at home, according to government estimates.

Riddle, a Republican who partly home-schooled two of her three children, said Wednesday: "God gave the children to the parents, not to the state. Parents have every right to make the choice as to what is best for their children — and not just parents who can write a check."

School voucher proposals have been lofted in Texas for at least a decade, though none has been written into law. Observers say the idea likely will be debated afresh, though neither a House leadership plan expected today nor an outline of a Senate package includes the option.

Bill Ratliff, a lobbyist and former acting lieutenant governor, attempted to authorize a pilot program as a senator in 1995.

Ratliff said he would advise education groups not to take Riddle's proposal "too seriously, because there's no way (lawmakers) can pay for it."

Carolyn Boyle of the Coalition for Public Schools, which opposes spending public funds to support private and religious schools, called the summary "radical, irresponsible and unaffordable" and a "good indication of how extreme some people are."

Riddle later replied: "It's outrageous and extreme to say parents don't have the right to have a choice regarding their children's education."

Riddle has been assisted by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a "free market" think tank supported by school choice advocate James Leininger of San Antonio. She said she also appreciated Gov. Rick Perry's remarks last week.

"Every child is entitled to a public education, but public education is not entitled to every child," Perry told lawmakers. "Let's give children who need a second chance new choices that can forever change their future. Let's give them school choice."

Perry favors a pilot program enabling children in failing schools to attend private schools with state aid. He would consider Riddle's ideas if they clear the House and Senate, a spokeswoman said.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who presides over the Senate, sees school choice as an option only "if other efforts fail," an aide said.

House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, supports vouchers, but said they aren't in the leadership proposal because they are "very controversial. There's a lot of pro and con. And our idea is to lay out a base bill that basically we hope the House will embrace."

Rep. Frank Corte, R-San Antonio, has filed a proposal for low-income children in the state's six largest school districts, including San Antonio's Northside School District, to attend private schools with a voucher.

Corte said Riddle's approach could pass the House, "but by the time we get to it, there will be a lot of demonizing and a lot of people will flake off and it may not pass. The education establishment wants to protect their monopoly."

"A pilot program would work," Corte said. "Once we show the value, we can have a broader program."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
wselby@express-news.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA020305.1A.voucher_plan.6da3841e.html

Rep. Debbie Riddle Proposes Vouchers for All

TO: Coalition for Public Schools Organizations
FROM: Carolyn Boyle

Rep. Debbie Riddle Proposes Vouchers for All

Most children in Texas, including home-schooled children, would be eligible to receive a $5,500 publicly-funded school voucher under a proposal being circulated by Rep. Debbie Riddle (R-Houston). The proposal is attached. This could cost up to $2 billion in the first year just for students currently in private schools and home-schools. Some highlights of the proposal include:

-- All Texas children could receive a voucher for elementary and secondary education if they are legal residents of the state and are eligible to attend public school. (from pre-kindergarten for eligible students through age 21)
-- Private schools can reject students who are not "academically eligible" and can exclude student applicants who do not share their religious beliefs. Private schools could not discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, or ethnicity.
-- The voucher would initially be in the amount of $5,500 and would be adjusted yearly using the average of the Consumer Price Index.
-- Parents have to make sure their child takes some kind of norm-referenced test and the results are sent to the commissioner. (But there are no consequences for poor academic achievement by children or high failure rates by all children at a private school or home school.)
-- The commissioner may adopt rules to implement the program but none of those rules can regulate private schools.

Chairman Grusendorf to Hold Press Conference on HB 2
House Public Education Committee Chairman Kent Grusendorf will hold a press conference today (February 3) at 11 a.m. in the Speaker’s Committee Room, 2W.6, to announce House Bill 2, the "school reform" bill. The press conference will be video streamed on the Internet via the House of Representatives television system channel. Please check the House of Representatives Broadcast Schedule at this link http://www.house.state.tx.us/media/welcome.php and then click on the appropriate link to the video coverage of the press conference.

In a Houston Chronicle story today, House Speaker Tom Craddick said "that the 'very controversial' issue of state-funded private school vouchers will not be in HB 2 but is expected to be debated as an amendment when the bill reaches the House in March."

So what to do? If you have not yet written your state representative or state senator a letter in opposition to vouchers, do so today! Urge him or her to vote against any floor amendment that would use public money to fund private schooling and home-schooling via a pilot program or vouchers for every child. Taxpayers cannot afford vouchers! Every minute legislators spend talking about private school vouchers is a minute they are not talking about strengthening our neighborhood public schools.

If you do not know who represents you in the Texas Legislature, go to http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/fyi/fyi.htm

Addresses are:
Representatives: Texas House of Representatives, P.O. Box 2910, Austin, Texas 78768-2910
Senators: Texas Senate, P.O. Box 12068-Capitol Station, Austin, Texas 78711

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Lawmakers Again Study 10 Percent Admission Rule

By JEFFREY GILBERT
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau

AUSTIN - Legislators are again looking at ways to modify Texas' controversial top 10 percent automatic admission law for state universities.

Citing the unfairness of the law and the way it forces some students to take a lighter course load or even transfer to a different high school, Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, filed a bill this week to eliminate the rule altogether.

"The top 10 percent law is inherently unfair because it uses only one criteria on which to either accept or reject applicants to institutions of higher education in Texas," Wentworth said. "It would be like saying, 'We are not going to consider anything but your SAT score,' and that would be wrong, too."

The top 10 percent rule was enacted after a 1996 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision made affirmative action illegal in Texas. But last year, a U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, saying race could be used as a factor in admissions for public universities.

Since then, officials at the University of Texas at Austin have said they will consider race, while Texas A&M University officials said they will not.

"The reason we passed the top 10 percent rule in 1997 was in reaction to a federal judge's order," Wentworth said. "But that federal judge's order was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, so we don't need this anymore."

Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and UT President Larry Faulkner have all called for revisions to the law. Past legislative attempts to change the law have failed.

While Wentworth's bill would eliminate the law altogether, Rep. Tony Goolsby, R-Dallas, has filed a bill that would reduce the enrollment requirement to the top 5 percent. He said eliminating the rule would not be effective at this point.

"After the Hopwood decision, we felt like there needed to be something to help minorities get into the flagship universities," Goolsby said. "But as time went on, it has gotten out of control, and we need to start phasing it out."

Rep. Rob Eissler, R-The Woodlands, has filed a bill that would allow UT and A&M officials to choose what campus to place a top 10 percent student in. For example, instead of being guaranteed admittance to the flagship in Austin, UT officials could admit a student to the San Antonio campus.

The three legislators who filed the bills agreed that one problem with the current law is that it punishes students who take tougher classes at tougher schools.

Wentworth said it is unfair for a student who takes chemistry, trigonometry and an extra year of foreign language to lose a spot to someone who takes less demanding courses just to raise their grade point average.

Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, said he does not support eliminating or changing the rule. He said without it, there would be no affirmative action program in Texas.

"It is very important that we have diversity in our institutions, and this law has provided that," he said.

jeffrey.gilbert@chron.com

OPINION: Our School Performance Matters

February 2, 2005
EDUCATION WEEK

Eric A. Hanushek writes that the performance of our students now will influence the pattern of our nation's future economic success.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/02/02/21hanushek.h24.html

Education and the Economy: If We’re So Dumb, Why Are We So Rich?

February 2, 2005
EDUCATION WEEK
by Anthony P. Carnevale

OPINION: If We're So Dumb, Why Are We So Rich?
At some point, if we are to retain the lead in the global economic race, we will have to rely on our homegrown and homebound human capital for our competitive edge, writes Anthony P. Carnevale.

States Revive Efforts to Coax NCLB Changes

Published: February 2, 2005

Some Legislators Seek Waivers Under Law
By Lynn Olson

Even before U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings was confirmed in her job on Inauguration Day, a few states began testing her pledge, made during Senate hearings, to work with them in carrying out the No Child Left Behind Act in a “sensible and workable” way.

In a letter to Ms. Spellings dated Jan. 14, Betty J. Sternberg, Connecticut’s commissioner of education, asked for greater flexibility in six areas of the law—including the ability to continue testing only in grades 4, 6, 8, and 10, instead of annually in grades 3-8 and once in high school as the federal law requires.


“I was really only reacting to her comments and taking them at face value,” Ms. Sternberg said in an interview last week. “I wanted to let her know that I’m very interested in continuing to work toward the goals of NCLB and, given her comments, hope that she might be open to considering some of the requests that we have made heretofore which were not approved.”

The Virginia board of education voted Jan. 19, the day before the secretary’s confirmation, to ask Ms. Spellings to exercise her authority to waive the law’s statutory and regulatory requirements in 10 central areas. Many of those requests had been rejected by Department of Education officials in the past.

Since legislatures in most states convened last month, lawmakers in at least nine states—Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Virginia, Vermont, and Utah—have introduced bills challenging various aspects of the law. And those measures are likely to mount. Last year, legislators in 31 states introduced bills seeking greater flexibility or more funding under the law, or limiting state participation in it, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.


Jo Lynne DeMary, Virginia’s state superintendent of education, said the waiver requests from her state are based on two years’ worth of data about what is working—and not working—in carrying out the federal legislation. While state legislators are willing to give the board a chance to negotiate with federal officials about minimizing some of the law’s unintended consequences, she added, “we have a General Assembly, right now, that’s in session and that is looking at some rather drastic measures.”

At least eight bills have been introduced in the Republican-controlled Virginia legislature regarding the federal law. Six of them would direct the state board of education to seek a waiver from complying with specified provisions of the act.

One measure, Senate Joint Resolution No. 437, would ask Congress to amend the law to provide an automatic waiver of its school accountability provisions for states that have successfully increased student achievement through their own standards and accountability policies. Another would direct the legislature’s audit and review commission to examine the capacity of the state to meet the federal requirements.

Meanwhile, the Education Department has urged states that want to amend their accountability plans in time to affect the use of 2004-05 test data to submit those proposals by April 1.

“I know a lot of states are probably going to be submitting additional amendments and proposals,” said Scott Palmer, a partner with the Washington law firm of Holland & Knight who works with a number of states on education policy.
‘A Fairer Approach’

This school year marks the first time that states must raise the targets that schools must reach to make “adequate yearly progress” under the law. So far, only Missouri has asked for and received permission to lower its 2004-05 targets from what it had requested originally. The state has lowered its targets for the percent of students who must score at the “proficient” or “advanced” level on this spring’s tests from 38.8 percent to 26.6 percent in communication arts, and from 31.1 percent to 17.5 percent in mathematics. Commissioner of Education D. Kent King said the changes were made “to limit the negative consequences for schools across the state.”

Stan H. Johnson, Missouri’s assistant commissioner for school improvement, noted that the state has a high standard of proficiency. The same percent of 4th graders scored at the proficient level on the state reading test in 2003 as on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the federal testing program. The state will now raise the targets in equal increments over 10 years, rather than having a big jump once every three years.

“We thought that this was a fairer approach to our school districts,” Mr. Johnson said.

Many of the bills introduced in statehouses so far this session challenge what lawmakers see as the federal government’s intrusion into state and local policymaking, particularly in states that were already making progress with their own school improvement plans.

“Vermont has worked hard to craft an education system that fits our unique circumstance and that has resulted in an excellent education system,” says House Bill 59. That proposal would order the state not to comply with the federal law’s provisions for more student testing, imposing consequences on schools that fall short of performance targets, and ensuring that teachers are “highly qualified.”
Local-Control Issue

“The No Child Left Behind Act not only changes our education policies,” the Vermont measure says, “it encourages us to redirect funds from programs that we have built over the years toward a few items that the No Child Left Behind Act uses to measure a successful school.”

In Colorado, Senate Bill 50 would permit a district to ignore the law and seek voter approval of a tax increase to replace the amount of federal money that would be withheld as a result of noncompliance. In North Dakota, House Bill 1365 would prevent the state schools chief from imposing any financial penalty or other punishment on a school or district whose board chooses not to follow the federal law.

And in Utah, where legislators last year threatened to opt out of the federal mandates, House Joint Resolution 3 asserts that Utah should use its own “proven system of student accountability” until and unless the federal government substantially amends the act, provides funding commensurate with its costs, and extends the waiver authority now granted under the legislation.

“The trend last year to try to get out of the No Child Left Behind Act fully wasn’t that successful,” said Scott Young, a senior policy analyst with the Denver-based NCSL, because states were unwilling to turn down “a big chunk of money, regardless of what percentage of the overall education funding it is.”

The new trend for 2005, he predicted, “is really going to be to work within the language of the law and use some of these tools, like the waiver provision and Section 9527, to really put an emphasis on the state accountability system as an alternative to No Child Left Behind.”
Waiver Provision

Section 9527 of the NCLB law says that nothing in the act authorizes the federal government “to mandate, direct, or control a state, local education agency, or school’s curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of state or local resources, or mandate a state or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this act.”

Section 9401 says that the U.S. secretary of education “may waive any statutory or regulatory requirement” of the act for states or districts that request such waivers, provided they show how the waivers would increase the quality of instruction for students or improve their academic achievement. (There are a few exceptions related to civil rights and funding provisions.)

Former Secretary of Education Rod Paige had made it clear that he wasn’t interested in granting waivers, and the federal department has made few attempts to encourage or allow states to use those provisions. Now, states are testing the waters to see whether Secretary Spellings shares his views. Virginia specifically cites the secretary’s waiver authority under Section 9401 in its request.

“We have never asked for anything under the waiver provision under Section 9401,” said Superintendent DeMary. “We felt that now that we have a better understanding of what the authority of the [federal] department actually is, that we needed to do that.”

But many of the changes requested by Connecticut and Virginia have been rejected by the Education Department in the past as undercutting fundamental provisions of the law. In addition to testing in alternate grades, Connecticut wants to track gains in individual students’ performance over time to judge schools, rather than relying on the percent of youngsters who score “proficient” or better on state tests in any given year.

Both Connecticut and Virginia also are seeking greater flexibility in how they test students with disabilities or those learning English. And both are looking for more leeway in the law’s accountability provisions for schools.

Connecticut, for example, wants to focus on supports—rather than penalties—for schools in the fourth year of being deemed in need of improvement.

Virginia wants to provide school choice and supplemental services only to individual students or subgroups in a school that did not meet performance targets, rather than to the entire school population. The state also wants to switch the order of the NCLB-prescribed penalties by allowing schools to offer supplemental services before giving parents the option of moving their children to other schools.

And it wants to identify schools for improvement only if they’ve missed their targets in the same subject and subgroup for two years in a row.

Ms. DeMary, the state schools chief, said she understands the need to be hard-nosed during the first few years after a law is passed, “because you’ve got to signal early on that this is real; it’s not going to go away.” But after two years of experience and data, she argued, Virginia agreed to tweak its reform measures to make them more meaningful and lasting, and the federal government should do the same.

Last week, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Education said it is unlikely to reverse its stance on previously rejected requests, and that Secretary Spellings takes the same position on waivers as did Mr. Paige.
Peer Reviews Planned

The law also requires the federal Education Department to review and approve each state’s standards and assessment system. The first such peer reviews—scheduled for Feb. 16-19—could provide another sign of how flexible the department will be under Ms. Spellings’ leadership. Five states—Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia—are scheduled to take part in the first round.

In a letter to state schools chiefs last month, Assistant Secretary of Education Raymond J. Simon cautioned that if a state does not receive “full approval” or “full approval with recommendations” for its testing system by July 1, the department will place conditions on its receipt of fiscal 2006 Title I money, the largest source of federal funding for elementary and secondary education.
Vol. 24, Issue 21, Pages 1,29



My Account

Log Out
Advertisement

“Va. Board Seeks Waivers From Provisions of NCLB,” January 26, 2005.
“Spellings Promises a Bipartisan Approach,” January 12, 2005.
“N.D., Utah Dispute Federal Findings on Teacher Quality,” January 12, 2005.
“Taking Root,” December 8, 2004.
“Groups Offer Changes for School Law,” October 27, 2004.
“States Given More Leeway On Test Rule,” April 7, 2004.
“Utah Panel Votes to Quit No Child Left Behind Act,” February 11, 2004.
“Anniversary Brings Fresh Scrutiny Of Federal School Law,” January 7, 2004.
For background, previous stories, and Web links, read No Child Left Behind.



The Department of Education's No Child Left Behind site posts information on flexibility and waivers, as well as policy letters to states regarding flexibility in implementing NCLB. See also more information on Section 9401 of the law, regarding waiver provisions.
Read letters from Assistant Secretary of Education Raymond J. Simon to state schools chiefs on the process and possible outcomes of the department's review system of state accountability plans. Such reviews are scheduled to begin in February 2005. ()
The National Education Association posts a list of state legislative action calling for changes or waivers to the federal law.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/02/02/21nclb.h24.html

Will Teacher Merit Pay Make the Grade?

$5,000 or not, groups hate Perry's proposed incentive plan

Wednesday, February 2, 2005

By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News


AUSTIN – Would the promise of an extra $5,000 a year spur teachers to get more out of their students on testing day?

The DeSoto district, where science teacher Robyn Rumsey (left) works, has had bonuses linked to grades for several years.

Gov. Rick Perry and legislative leaders think they know the answer. They're poised to create one of the few state merit pay programs for teachers as part of a big education package to be considered in the next few months. They would make millions of dollars in bonuses available to the state's 300,000 classroom teachers, to be doled out based on students' standardized test scores.

It's an idea without much of a track record – education analysts say no state has a comprehensive merit pay program, though several are exploring the concept. In Texas, less than 4 percent of districts in a recent survey said they have performance-based incentives.

What's more, the few districts and states that have tried it have often scaled back or abandoned it because of cost constraints and mixed results.

The idea is anathema to Texas teacher organizations, which say that all teachers – not just a select few – need a pay raise. They also fear adding a temptation to cheat on standardized tests. But Mr. Perry said the way to encourage strong teachers is to reward their work.

"Excellence should not be rewarded the same as mediocrity," he said in his State of the State address last week. "Otherwise, mediocrity becomes its own incentive. When money follows results, we will get more results for our money."

In Texas and most other states, salaries are based primarily on years of experience. The longer a teacher works, the more he or she is paid.

Legislative leaders haven't fleshed out their plan. But part of the governor's $500 million proposal last year would have allowed teachers to compete for annual bonuses of $5,000, a tidy sum in a state where the average salary is around $41,000. In his State of the State address, he raised that to $7,500.
Your Turn

Tell Us: Can cash incentives for teachers improve student test scores?

Texans in poll think highly of local schools, teachers

En español: Piensan recompensar a maestros


In fighting merit pay, teacher organizations point to the lack of research showing that bonuses motivate teachers to get more out of their students.

"The assumption is that most teachers are lazy, that if you suddenly offer them extra money, they will teach better," said John Cole, president of the Texas Federation of Teachers. "It's a ridiculous assumption."

Mr. Cole said that while his group backs financial incentives to help fill teacher shortages – such as in math and science – and for teachers who agree to work in low-performing schools, the federation draws the line at using test results to distribute bonuses.

"This is just another scheme to deflect attention from the Legislature's failure to provide proper funding for Texas schools," he said.

Mr. Cole also raised concern that linking pay to standardized test results might increase cheating on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills.

Legislative backers of merit pay dismissed the concern. Cheating on the TAKS carries too many risks for teachers, they say, such as loss of their state certification and possible jail sentences.


Checkered past

The idea of incentives, while never widely tested, is not new. California's once heralded merit pay program was discontinued in 2001 after more than $800 million in bonuses were paid out over two years. The program fell victim to the state's budget crisis before it showed any impact on student achievement.

Texas had a "career ladder" for teachers for nearly a decade, allowing them to earn extra pay based on performance appraisals and professional development. Teachers complained, though, that the administrators handing out the funds weren't impartial, and state and local funds fell short. The program was abolished in 1993.

Legislative leaders such as Senate Education Committee Chairwoman Florence Shapiro say such pitfalls can be avoided. And she insisted the climate has changed.

"It has worked in other states and even in several districts in Texas," the Plano Republican said. "The only people who truly disagree with this concept are the teacher unions themselves. Individual teachers have told me it would be a great opportunity for them."

Senate leaders included incentive pay in the school finance plan they unveiled this month. Initially, they would like to see about $150 million a year earmarked for merit pay.

"We'd like to see a program that is campus-based," Ms. Shapiro said. "If a campus is doing a really great job ... we want to reward the whole teaching team."

A recent survey of school districts in the state found that about 11 percent have some type of incentive pay plan, said Mary Regan of the Texas Association of School Boards. Most are based on teacher attendance.

Just under 4 percent of districts in the survey – 26 districts – indicated they had a group bonus program based on student performance. One of those is the DeSoto district, which pays bonuses to all employees, not just teachers, when students meet certain performance goals.

"Not many districts have true performance pay, linking test scores to bonuses," Ms. Regan said. By contrast, she noted, about half of the 1,040 school districts in Texas offer cash stipends for teachers certified in shortage areas.

DeSoto paid bonuses of nearly 1.5 percent in each of the program's first four years. This year, though, TAKS passing rates fell – as they did in many districts because the test was made more rigorous.

Robyn Rumsey, a science teacher at the DeSoto High School freshman campus, said the program has been very popular among teachers.

"It hasn't been a huge amount of money, but it was a nice check that most of us appreciated," said Ms. Rumsey, who has taught in DeSoto for 12 years.

But one of the keys to that popularity, she said, is that all employees benefit from success, not just a few.

"Everybody on campus contributes to the success of students," she said. "If you give out rewards for individual effort, I think you'd see teachers competing to get the students most likely to succeed. I'm not sure there's a fair way to do that."

Jennifer Azordegan, a policy analyst with the Education Commission of the States, agreed that one of the problems with merit pay is determining how much influence a teacher's style and practices have on student growth. Too many other factors, such as family background and previous educational experiences, are at work, she explained.

"There's no doubt that a teacher has a huge impact on a student's performance. But when you get to defining how much that really is and whether it can be affected by the level of pay – that's where people get a little uncomfortable," said Ms. Azordegan, whose organization is a national clearinghouse for education policy and school reform.

North Carolina has a limited merit pay plan that rewards all teachers in each school rated "exemplary" under the state's accountability system. The $1 million program pays bonuses of $1,500 to those teachers and $750 to teachers in schools that meet projected academic growth, based on test scores.


All eyes on Denver



An incentive pay plan in the Denver public school system is perhaps the most closely watched program of its type in the nation. Voters are being asked this fall to approve a $25 million property tax increase to fund the program.

A pilot program involving 12 campuses resulted in student achievement gains at most of the schools. But the program is voluntary for teachers and was created only after the Denver Classroom Teachers Association signed on.

Texas lawmakers should not expect similar enthusiasm here, said Donna New Haschke, president of the Texas State Teachers Association. Too many teachers would be left out of a merit pay plan that relies mostly on TAKS scores, she said.

More than half of Texas educators teach subjects not measured on the TAKS. That includes groups not tested, such as students in pre-kindergarten, kindergarten and the first, second and 12th grades. Many subjects – foreign languages, physical education, vocational education, music, art, speech and drivers education – are not tested.

Merit pay supporters said they would include teachers of untested subjects in their program, probably by rewarding all teachers at a campus that shows achievement gains from one year to the next. Senate leaders have also said they would support an across-the-board pay hike for all teachers as part of their school improvement package.

E-mail tstutz@dallasnews.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/020205dntexmeritpay.c4ac.html

Vouchers are a Distraction

by Mary Duty Guest column

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Gov. Rick Perry's charge to the Legislature is to come up with a fair funding plan for all public schools, regardless of property wealth.

These neighborhood public schools educate over 95 percent of all the children in Texas. Current Republican proposals before the Texas Legislature all contain some form of tuition voucher program. Not only would that be a distraction from the issue at hand, it could make our school finance problems worse.

Law-

makers should develop a public school finance program that is fair to all before experimenting again with costly education reforms.

The Legislature's most visible experiment is the charter school program. In Waco we have seen the best and the worst of these schools. The critically acclaimed Rapoport Academy is an example of how a charter can succeed. The Emma Harrison Charter School was a grim reminder of what can go wrong. Charter schools account for 21 of the 26 academically unacceptable districts statewide. We in Waco have learned the hard way that educational entrepreneurs must give an accounting of how their funds are spent.

Recently an Austin charter school was asked by the Texas Education Agency to explain why a $57,000 SUV was purchased with school funds. TEA had additional questions about the school credit card being used to pay for hotel rooms in England, Kenya and Nigeria.

If TEA doesn't have the staff to effectively monitor the charter program, how can the Texas Legislature justify another entitlement program like vouchers?

One of the proposed laws is a "pilot" voucher program for urban school districts. There is no need to spend our money to see how vouchers work. Milwaukee has had a voucher program in place for over 20 years. Lawmakers should study the mountains of data available from it.

Texas families already enjoy meaningful school choice with magnet schools, PEG grants and transfer options available through the No Child Left Behind Act. Magnet schools exist alongside schools with standard attendance zones. Magnet schools develop innovative curriculum, and provide programs that are unique to that school. They compete for students. The PEG (Public Education Grant) program has been in place for years. It lets a child attending a public school ranked low-performing transfer to another school in the district.

The No Child Left Behind Act requires that students be allowed to transfer if their local school is rated as low-performing.

As for these options, Waco ISD has over 15,000 students - with 2,540 eligible (those at Waco High and Brazos Middle) to transfer under NCLB. Ninety two students chose to move to another school this year. Fifteen of those students have since returned to their home campuses.

Using this sort of market-economy model, there seems to be no market in Waco for another school-choice plan like vouchers.

Four years ago in my work with the PTA as a legislative liaison, I polled all of Waco's private and parochial schools about vouchers. With the exception of one, administrators said that they would not accept tuition vouchers if they had to fill out government paperwork or change their admission standards.

Private, parochial and home schools have a distinct and sacred mission in our community. That mission is compromised when they take vouchers.

Simply put, when a private school accepts government money it becomes a public school. Public schools need a fair school finance plan. Taxpayers need to know where their tax dollars are being spent.

Our lawmakers should reject any proposals that allow tax dollars to fund private and parochial education. They should put together a plan that will adequately fund the public schools that are charged with educating 95 percent of our children.

Mary Duty is a Waco businesswoman and schoolteacher.
http://www.wacotrib.com/opin/content/news/opinion/stories/2005/02/02/20050202wacduty_guest.html;COXnetJSessionID=CEeRz4PS6BqHYpx6bETyr2ppVrZ4BzD1dqGeI42Y2UuaJrihSgl0!-1482639327?urac=n&urvf=11075825451110.003491237605814379

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

Basics Bumping the Extras at School

Posted on Sun, Dec. 26, 2004

MIAMI HERALD

In Miami-Dade County's poorest neighborhoods, high schools offer students far fewer choices of arts, elective and advanced classes, a Herald analysis found.


BY MATTHEW I. PINZUR
mpinzur@herald.com


High school students at Killian Senior in Kendall could study seven foreign languages last spring, including Hebrew, Japanese, Latin and Italian.

At Booker T. Washington Senior in Overtown, their peers could study only one -- Spanish.

Students at Michael Krop Senior near Aventura had a menu of 31 different Advanced Placement classes, which can lead to college credit.

At Edison Senior in Little Haiti, there were seven.

The arts curriculum at Palmetto Senior in Pinecrest included nearly 90 different classes.

At Jackson Senior in Allapattah, there were 20.

Across Miami-Dade County, high schools in high-poverty, inner-city neighborhoods have far smaller selections of electives, arts and advanced classes than those in wealthier suburban areas, according to a Herald analysis of the nearly 18,000 courses offered last semester -- the latest data available.

The findings raise questions about the equity of education in the nation's fourth-largest school system, as well as broader issues regarding testing, education standards and the best way to prepare urban students who for years were advanced to the next grade regardless of academic performance.

Intensive-care programs in many cities around the country have concentrated on reading and mathematics by eliminating more esoteric classes that were seen as enriching but less vital.

Increasingly, though, education experts -- including new Miami-Dade Superintendent Rudy Crew -- question whether that practice robs poor and minority students of exposure to well-rounded educations that prepare students in more affluent areas for a wide range of career and college options.

''They have college prep; we have FCAT prep,'' said Edwin Baptiste, a senior at Edison, referring to the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, which has become the academic priority at many schools.

The statewide test, which determines everything from a student's graduation to the school's funding and public image, is one of the key factors in the course disparity.

Four of the district's lowest-performing schools -- Jackson, Booker T., Edison and Northwestern -- are required by School Board policy to assign low-scoring students to two daily sessions of math and reading. The controversial practice, known as double-dosing, is also used voluntarily at other low-performing schools.

Scores increased at those four schools, sometimes dramatically. The measures used to calculate school grades jumped nearly 25 percent at Edison. But the test measures only reading, writing and math. Some education experts said it gauges success too narrowly and ignores the cost of eliminating other kinds of classes.

''It denies a kid a horizon of human development,'' said William Blanton, a professor at the University of Miami's School of Education. ``Things that you can see in front of you create a trajectory for your future.''

In schools and districts that have tried other ways to boost test scores, double-dosing is seen as a last-ditch effort to ensure that students meet basic academic requirements and earn diplomas.

`NECESSARY EVILS'

''With our students, it's one of those necessary evils,'' said Samuel Johnson, principal at Miami Central Senior, an F-rated school where 60 percent of sophomores failed last year's reading FCAT. ``We have to provide them with every opportunity possible to earn that high school diploma.''

As a result, arts and elective courses have been pushed to the margins. Lower enrollment at many inner-city schools is part of the problem -- a school with 1,000 students usually cannot offer as many electives as one with 3,000.

But even when schools have comparable numbers of students, the inner-city ones offered far fewer choices than their suburban counterparts. Central High, for example, offered 104 different courses in the arts and core curriculum last spring, while Palmetto, with roughly the same enrollment, offered 222.

''They're going to kill us with this double-dosing,'' said Anthony Seraphin, a senior at Edison. ``When you take a double dose of drugs, what happens?''

The Florida Board of Education has embraced double-dosing by approving district-written plans that mandate it, but state education officials insist that it is only a triage measure.

''If you've got a really serious injury, you've got to stop the bleeding before you treat the wound,'' said Jim Warford, state chancellor for K-12 education.

Low-income students, especially, might have no exposure to fields such as psychology, economics and stagecraft if they are not exposed to it in school, said Crew, who said he intends to return arts and electives to all high schools over the next few years.

''We've dumbed down the notion of being smart,'' Crew said. Americans ``are particularly ambivalent about whether poor children, children of color and children whose first language is not English can be smart at a 21st century level.''

CHANGES PLANNED

The district will continue to use double-dosing in some situations, Crew said, but will find other ways to expand arts and electives.

The D- and F-graded schools in the School Improvement Zone -- an intensive-care program that Crew designed this year -- will have extended days, opening time for an additional class.

Across the county, high school teachers will receive additional training to incorporate reading, writing and math skills into more exotic classes.

A music class might study the mathematical underpinnings of rhythm and time in music, for example, and social studies classes could require more essay writing.

''You've got to go beyond double-dosing into incorporating that rigorous academics into the hands-on application: career academies, arts, music, history,'' Warford said.

Crew also plans to put some limits on principals' authority to choose which classes are offered.

Principals have had almost unfettered authority to choose which state-approved courses to offer. The district's central administration and six regional superintendents have done little more than rubber-stamp a principal's plan.

The decisions are supposed to be based on student interest and staff qualifications, but internal school politics often played a major role.

A zealous English chair might have campaigned for a wide assortment of options at one school while an apathetic counterpart in social studies did little to move beyond the basic options.

''Under previous administrations, we started talking to the principals and department chairs about it,'' said Lourdes Rovira, assistant superintendent for curriculum development and instructional support. ``There was no enforcement, no directive from the superintendent saying you shall do this or not do that.''

CREW: CHANGE COMING

That, Crew said, is going to change.

Regional superintendents will be more involved in drafting schedules, he said, and will require coordination between high schools and the middle schools that feed students to them. If French is offered at a middle school, for example, advanced French classes should be available at the neighborhood high school.

''I expect that within 36 months, this [disparity] is going to flatten out,'' Crew said.

That disparity is even larger for accelerated classes and its explanations more complicated.

Eligibility is part of the problem. Honors classes are open to anyone, but gifted classes are restricted to students who have passed a battery of district tests.

For a variety of reasons -- lower parent demand for testing, the quality of the neighborhood's elementary and middle schools, the attitudes of principals -- inner-city high schools have far fewer gifted students.

Last spring, for example, Booker T. Washington had two gifted students in a school of 1,482, and Edison had none. But at Palmetto, nearly 500 students -- 14 percent -- were classified as gifted.

''Because they are black and Haitian, nobody has expected anything from them,'' Rovira said. ``It's been pounded into those kids that they can't.''

Staffing is another factor. More experienced teachers tend to request transfers to higher-performing schools, leaving schools like Edison and Jackson with few faculty members with the expertise to teach high-end courses.

Even when inner-city schools have qualified teachers, assigning them to underenrolled Advanced Placement classes is often considered inefficient because only a small number of students are seen as qualified for the heavy workload.

''When you pay one teacher to teach eight kids, there's an overload somewhere else,'' said Gloria Evans, principal at Booker T. Washington from 1999 until last summer, who nonetheless kept advanced classes with as few as five students.

Advanced Placement classes are also open to all, but they are designed as college-level courses with massive reading loads. A number of suburban schools have embraced them as part of the culture, but they are still intimidating and foreign at places like Edison and Central.

'We try to encourage them to take the AP courses, but their mind-set is `Why take a harder course if I can take a middle-of-the-road course and get an A?' '' said Johnson, who offered 10 different Advanced Placement courses last spring. ``They feel it's not worth the extra work.''

On the contrary, numerous recent studies identified vast benefits for even marginal students who enroll in the most challenging courses.

According to a 1999 study by the U.S. Department of Education, students who took advanced classes were more likely to graduate from college -- regardless of whether they actually passed an Advanced Placement exam.

''If you expect very little, then you get very little,'' Crew said.

By offering extra pay and training for teachers in the School Improvement Zone, he hopes to attract more of the veteran teachers who are qualified to teach advanced classes.

In many ways, Crew said the disparity has been incubating for years, a result of an outdated idea of what high school should be.

The modern version of high school, developed largely after World War II, was designed to prepare society's brightest children. Others were screened out to the agricultural, manufacturing and public-service jobs that never required a diploma, said Warford, the Florida K-12 official.

''The problem with our high schools is not that they aren't what they used to be,'' Warford said. ``The problem with our high schools is that they are exactly what they used to be and the world has changed.''

Campus culture, however, has not changed as quickly. The attitude that poor urban children cannot be expected to excel lingers at many schools, Warford said.

''You just put your finger on the 1,200-pound gorilla standing in the corner,'' Warford said. ``That's why it's absolutely essential that we invest in training our principals and our teachers. If we're going to change the culture, that's the only way we're going to do it.''

The situation has been exacerbated because, after so many consecutive years of D and F grades from the state, some schools were infused with a defeatist attitude that presumed that a more robust course catalog would be wasted on their students.

''I've been told I'm wasting my talent here, that these kids aren't worth it,'' said Dannielle Boyer, who teaches honors American government, one of the few honors classes offered at Edison. ``I have to change people's minds.''

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/education/10499688.htm

Texans in Poll Think Highly of Local Schools, Teachers

Tuesday, February 1, 2005

AUSTIN – Most Texans give high marks to their local schools and the teachers in those schools, according to a poll released Tuesday by the Texas State Teachers Association.

The random poll of Texas voters, conducted jointly by a leading Republican pollster and a top Democratic pollster in early January, found that 66 percent of all respondents gave schools in their community a grade of A or B. Among public school parents, 77 percent gave their schools an A or B.

Among parents who had children in school, 89 percent rated their school's teachers as excellent or good. That is an increase from a similar poll one year ago.

Public education was identified as the state's top priority by 42 percent of poll respondents. Health care ranked second, at 30 percent, while 13 percent said holding the line on taxes was most important. Also, 72 percent said state funding for education should be increased this year.

The poll of 802 registered voters, taken the week of Jan. 6 to 12, has an error margin of plus or minus 3.5 percetage points.

Terrence Stutz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/020205dntexschoolpoll.1b33b.html

Bilingualism Persists, But English Still Dominates

February 1, 2005

http://www.hispanicvista.com/HVC/Opinion/Guest_Columns/020705alba.htm

By Richard Alba
February 1, 2005

Because of renewed immigration, fears about English no longer being the linguistic "glue" holding America together are common. Some commentators envision speakers of other languages seizing economic and political power in large regions of the United States, creating disadvantages for English-speaking Americans.

In a very different vein, multiculturalists hope new immigrants' native languages will persist. They believe bilingualism and language pluralism could usher in a new era that breaks the hegemony of Anglo-American culture.

The underlying claim of both viewpoints is that the past pattern – children and grandchildren of immigrants who rapidly accept English – may be breaking down. Although some changes have occurred, testing this claim using Census data reveals that such beliefs are greatly exaggerated.

English is almost universally accepted by the children and grandchildren of the immigrants who have come to the US in great numbers since the 1960s, which means these children have high levels of linguistic assimilation. Moreover, by the third generation (grandchildren of immigrants), only a minority in any group maintains bilingualism.

Among Asian groups, these minorities are so small that the levels of linguistic assimilation are scarcely different from those of the past. Among Spanish-speaking groups, the bilingual minorities are larger than was the case among most European immigrant groups.

Nevertheless, speaking only English is the predominant pattern by the third generation, except for Dominicans, who are known for frequent back-and-forth travel between their homeland and the US.

For rest of the article, go to: http://www.hispanicvista.com/HVC/Opinion/Guest_Columns/020705alba.htm