79th LEGISLATURE
Senate Preserves Top 10 Percent Admission Law
Efforts to Curtail, Repeal It Fail Narrowly.
By Ralph K.M. Haurwitz
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Saturday, May 07, 2005
The Texas Senate on Friday narrowly rejected efforts to repeal or curtail a state law guaranteeing public university admission to students graduating in the top 10 percent of their high school classes.
However, senators approved a measure that requires students gaining admission under the law to have taken the recommended or advanced high school curriculum. Current law allows students to take a less stringent curriculum. The measure, Senate Bill 333, now goes to the House.
The Senate's action was a victory for Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, the chairman of the Senate's higher education subcommittee who filibustered two years ago to keep the top 10 percent law intact. He says the law assures that the state's universities, especially the University of Texas, have student bodies that are racially, ethnically and geographically diverse.
UT officials were disappointed by the outcome. They have been urging lawmakers to revise the law, which was enacted in 1997 after a court case involving UT resulted in a ban on affirmative action in admission to the state's public universities and colleges.
UT President Larry Faulkner said he nonetheless remains hopeful about prospects in the House. He argues that it's unwise to accept a large number of students on the basis of a single factor. In addition, UT now considers race and ethnicity because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that colleges may do so.
"I think this is only one step in the Legislature's addressing of this issue," Faulkner said. "I think there will be more to come."
Faulkner contends that some sort of cap on admissions under the top 10 percent law would be the best approach and that repealing the law altogether would be better than no change.
Currently, any student graduat- ing in the top 10 percent of a high school in Texas can attend the public college of his or her choice.
UT, more than any other school in the state, is accepting an increasing portion of its student body under that provision. Seventy-two percent of students admitted from Texas high schools for this summer and fall qualified under the law.
An amendment offered by Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston, to West's SB 333 would have allowed universities to accept no more than half a freshman class on the basis of class rank. The amendment was tabled, 15-13.
Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, offered an amendment that would have essentially repealed the top 10 percent law. The amendment would have required admissions officers to consider 18 factors, including an applicant's academic record and socioeconomic background.
Senators tabled that amendment as well, 16-12.
Wentworth said afterward that two senators — John Carona of Dallas and Chris Harris of Arlington, both Republicans — had been expected to support repeal or a cap but were absent Friday.
Asked whether he would try again this session to repeal or modify the law, Wentworth said it would depend on whether he can line up sufficient support. "If I can't get people to change their mind, I am not going to waste the time of the Senate," he said.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/shared/tx/legislature/stories/05/7topten.html
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Friday, May 06, 2005
CNN on Sunday, 5-8-05, 7PM -- HISD Cheating Scandal Story
Wanted to let everybody know that this Sunday night on CNN at 7PM, the recent HISD Cheating Scandal will be covered.
I am among those interviewed for this story.
Angela
I am among those interviewed for this story.
Angela
Teachers, Some Schools Worried by Privatization Proposals
Teachers, Some Schools Worried by Privatization Proposals
05/06/2005
By LIZ AUSTIN / Associated Press
Chalk in hand, about 15 second-graders line up to go outside and practice their spelling words on the sidewalks under the warm spring sun.
"A-R-E" they shout as assistant superintendent Jo Ann Garrison quizzes them in the hallway of Marlin Elementary School. She beams at their enthusiasm and hugs a boy before sending them out the door with their teacher.
It's easy to see why this small Central Texas town has rallied around Garrison, who has devoted 19 years to Marlin schools. Standardized test scores have risen dramatically in the two years since she and a team of administrators took over the elementary school, one of just four Texas campuses deemed low performing the last three times ratings were issued.
But for-profit companies, universities and other outside groups may replace homegrown reformers in other struggling Texas schools under a plan being pushed in Austin.
A bill approved by the Texas House calls for private management of campuses that, for two straight years, rank in the bottom 5 percent of the state's accountability rating system and fail to show annual improvement as required under the federal No Child Left Behind law.
The Senate is considering a plan that would apply to campuses identified as academically unacceptable by the Texas Education Agency two years in a row.
It's an unpopular idea among teachers' unions and public education advocates, who fear the state's most vulnerable children could be at the mercy of a company's bottom line.
"When you turn a school over to a for-profit company their number one priority is making a profit for their investors. That's not necessarily what it should be when we're talking about educating Texas kids," said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, a public education watchdog group.
But for-profit companies have no chance of making money if they don't do great things for kids and schools, said Adam Tucker, a spokesman for Edison Schools, the nation's largest for-profit school operator.
"Our number one bottom line is academic achievement for kids," he said.
The House bill's author, Republican Rep. Kent Grusendorf of Arlington, also emphasized that nonprofit groups, community organizations and other school districts will be encouraged to apply for management roles.
"I'm not really nearly as interested in who it will be as I am the results that are going to be obtained," Grusendorf said.
Schools around the country have seen mixed results after privatizing low-performing schools.
The Dallas school district ended its 2 1/2-year relationship with Edison Schools after the 2002-03 school year, saying test scores didn't improve enough to justify the expense. The district paid Edison $39 million to manage seven schools in the 2001-02 school year alone.
A 2003 study by the Government Accountability Office found students in privately managed schools in San Francisco and Denver had significantly higher reading and math scores than students at similar traditional public schools. But in Cleveland and St. Paul, Minn., scores were significantly lower in privately run schools.
Philadelphia is in the middle of the nation's largest experiment in privatization. Twenty-three of 45 city schools run by outside managers, including Edison, met requirements under No Child Left Behind last year, up from seven the prior year.
But those improvements largely mirror gains seen in most of Philadelphia's regular schools since the state took over the roughly 270-school district in 2001 after years of low academic achievement and rampant discipline problems.
"The early evidence is (privatized schools) are no better," said Clive Belfield, associate director of the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education at Columbia University. "Certainly they haven't run away with the argument yet."
It's hard to predict how many Texas schools would end up under private management if the proposals become law.
Last year, 92 of Texas' roughly 7,800 schools — or about 2 percent — were rated academically unacceptable, the state's lowest rating. Eighteen schools, including eight charter or other non-traditional schools, have received an unacceptable rating at least two years in a row.
About 400 Texas schools failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress under No Child Left Behind in 2004. Thirty-three were also rated academically unacceptable by the state.
And Texas continues to make it harder to receive an acceptable rating as it works toward No Child Left Behind's goal of getting 100 percent of children proficient in reading and math by 2014.
Starting next school year, 60 percent of a school's students will have to pass the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills in reading/English language arts, writing and social studies. Fifty percent had to pass this year. The passing rate requirement also will jump from 25 to 35 percent in science and from 35 to 40 percent in math.
If those standards had been in place last year, about 1,200 schools would have received an unacceptable rating. But Texas Education Agency spokeswoman DeEtta Culbertson said the agency expects fewer schools to miss the mark. Texas has raised its passing rates several times over the years, and schools have responded with higher scores.
Marlin Elementary's test scores skyrocketed with a restructured curriculum aligned with state guidelines. Administrators also replaced or reassigned about half the school's teachers and reworked the schedule to add time for teaching.
A $1 million state grant helped the impoverished district 30 miles southeast of Waco buy reams of supplies and pay for a teacher trainer, a community liaison and a curriculum expert.
Seventy percent of Marlin Elementary's third-graders passed the math portion of the TAKS last year, up from 29 percent in 2003. Eighty-two percent passed the reading section, compared with 51 percent the year before.
Some scores are still lagging. Only 27 percent of fifth-graders passed the science portion in 2003 and 2004, and the school would have received an acceptable rating last year if two more had passed that part of the test.
But the turnaround was so impressive that the TEA in June pulled the intervention specialist it assigned to the school in 2002.
"Every little face that comes through this door we're glad to see them," Garrison said. "I think that that is now what has been established in the last two years. That we're glad to see them, and we're going to do whatever we can."
Like Marlin, most low-performing schools could improve if given the right resources and advice from the state, Miller said.
"That seems to me to be far more responsible than the state and the Legislature saying, 'We just can't take care of this problem. We want to turn it over to someone else,'" she said.
___
On the Net:
http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D89TP5UO0.html
05/06/2005
By LIZ AUSTIN / Associated Press
Chalk in hand, about 15 second-graders line up to go outside and practice their spelling words on the sidewalks under the warm spring sun.
"A-R-E" they shout as assistant superintendent Jo Ann Garrison quizzes them in the hallway of Marlin Elementary School. She beams at their enthusiasm and hugs a boy before sending them out the door with their teacher.
It's easy to see why this small Central Texas town has rallied around Garrison, who has devoted 19 years to Marlin schools. Standardized test scores have risen dramatically in the two years since she and a team of administrators took over the elementary school, one of just four Texas campuses deemed low performing the last three times ratings were issued.
But for-profit companies, universities and other outside groups may replace homegrown reformers in other struggling Texas schools under a plan being pushed in Austin.
A bill approved by the Texas House calls for private management of campuses that, for two straight years, rank in the bottom 5 percent of the state's accountability rating system and fail to show annual improvement as required under the federal No Child Left Behind law.
The Senate is considering a plan that would apply to campuses identified as academically unacceptable by the Texas Education Agency two years in a row.
It's an unpopular idea among teachers' unions and public education advocates, who fear the state's most vulnerable children could be at the mercy of a company's bottom line.
"When you turn a school over to a for-profit company their number one priority is making a profit for their investors. That's not necessarily what it should be when we're talking about educating Texas kids," said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, a public education watchdog group.
But for-profit companies have no chance of making money if they don't do great things for kids and schools, said Adam Tucker, a spokesman for Edison Schools, the nation's largest for-profit school operator.
"Our number one bottom line is academic achievement for kids," he said.
The House bill's author, Republican Rep. Kent Grusendorf of Arlington, also emphasized that nonprofit groups, community organizations and other school districts will be encouraged to apply for management roles.
"I'm not really nearly as interested in who it will be as I am the results that are going to be obtained," Grusendorf said.
Schools around the country have seen mixed results after privatizing low-performing schools.
The Dallas school district ended its 2 1/2-year relationship with Edison Schools after the 2002-03 school year, saying test scores didn't improve enough to justify the expense. The district paid Edison $39 million to manage seven schools in the 2001-02 school year alone.
A 2003 study by the Government Accountability Office found students in privately managed schools in San Francisco and Denver had significantly higher reading and math scores than students at similar traditional public schools. But in Cleveland and St. Paul, Minn., scores were significantly lower in privately run schools.
Philadelphia is in the middle of the nation's largest experiment in privatization. Twenty-three of 45 city schools run by outside managers, including Edison, met requirements under No Child Left Behind last year, up from seven the prior year.
But those improvements largely mirror gains seen in most of Philadelphia's regular schools since the state took over the roughly 270-school district in 2001 after years of low academic achievement and rampant discipline problems.
"The early evidence is (privatized schools) are no better," said Clive Belfield, associate director of the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education at Columbia University. "Certainly they haven't run away with the argument yet."
It's hard to predict how many Texas schools would end up under private management if the proposals become law.
Last year, 92 of Texas' roughly 7,800 schools — or about 2 percent — were rated academically unacceptable, the state's lowest rating. Eighteen schools, including eight charter or other non-traditional schools, have received an unacceptable rating at least two years in a row.
About 400 Texas schools failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress under No Child Left Behind in 2004. Thirty-three were also rated academically unacceptable by the state.
And Texas continues to make it harder to receive an acceptable rating as it works toward No Child Left Behind's goal of getting 100 percent of children proficient in reading and math by 2014.
Starting next school year, 60 percent of a school's students will have to pass the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills in reading/English language arts, writing and social studies. Fifty percent had to pass this year. The passing rate requirement also will jump from 25 to 35 percent in science and from 35 to 40 percent in math.
If those standards had been in place last year, about 1,200 schools would have received an unacceptable rating. But Texas Education Agency spokeswoman DeEtta Culbertson said the agency expects fewer schools to miss the mark. Texas has raised its passing rates several times over the years, and schools have responded with higher scores.
Marlin Elementary's test scores skyrocketed with a restructured curriculum aligned with state guidelines. Administrators also replaced or reassigned about half the school's teachers and reworked the schedule to add time for teaching.
A $1 million state grant helped the impoverished district 30 miles southeast of Waco buy reams of supplies and pay for a teacher trainer, a community liaison and a curriculum expert.
Seventy percent of Marlin Elementary's third-graders passed the math portion of the TAKS last year, up from 29 percent in 2003. Eighty-two percent passed the reading section, compared with 51 percent the year before.
Some scores are still lagging. Only 27 percent of fifth-graders passed the science portion in 2003 and 2004, and the school would have received an acceptable rating last year if two more had passed that part of the test.
But the turnaround was so impressive that the TEA in June pulled the intervention specialist it assigned to the school in 2002.
"Every little face that comes through this door we're glad to see them," Garrison said. "I think that that is now what has been established in the last two years. That we're glad to see them, and we're going to do whatever we can."
Like Marlin, most low-performing schools could improve if given the right resources and advice from the state, Miller said.
"That seems to me to be far more responsible than the state and the Legislature saying, 'We just can't take care of this problem. We want to turn it over to someone else,'" she said.
___
On the Net:
http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D89TP5UO0.html
Clara V. Zamora's Testimony this week
Late Tuesday evening, members of Texas and National LULAC were at the House
Public Education Committee to testify in favor of real assessment (multiple
criteria) bills sponsored by Rep. Dora Olivo. Texas LULAC has been
supporting these bills since their inception.
Clara Valenzuela Zamora, age 12, refused to take the TAKS exam this year.
She said in the committee hearing that we need to bring fun and teaching
back to the schools. The full text of her testimony can be seen below.
Our Children Are Worth More Than a Single Test - They should be evaluated on
real assessment such as grades and performance. Their needs should be
identified earlier, not when they have failed a test for the third time.
WE NEED YOUR PHONE CALLS!! - SEND TO YOUR FRIENDS.
Angela Valenzuela, TX LULAC Education Chair, says we need to call Chairman
Grusendorf and members of the House Public Education Committee and tell
them to let the full House decide whether to vote for HB 1612 (relating to
promotion of students to certain grade levels in public) and HB 1613
(relating to the requirements for a high school diploma).
House Education Committee Members:
Chairman Grusendorf, R-Arlington, (512) 463-0624,
Vice-Chair Rene Olivera, D-Brownsville, (512) 463-0640,
Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas, (512) 463-0367
Rep. Harold Dutton, D-Houston, (512) 463-0510
Rep. Anna Mowery, R-Fort Worth, (512) 463-0608
Rep. Dianne Delisi, R- Temple, (512) 463-0630
Rep. Rob Eissler, R-The Woodlands, (512) 463-0797
Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, (512) 463-0492
Rep. Bill Keffer, R-Dallas, (512) 463-0244
Clara V. Zamora
May 3, 2005 - Testimony Before the Committee on Public Education
Thank you for allowing me to testify today. First of all, I
want to say that I am a sixth-grade student at Barton Hills Elementary in
the Austin Independent School District. And also, I am refusing to take the
TAKS test at my school because I do not agree with the way that the TAKS is
being used. One of the ways that it is being used in a bad way is that it
is being used to show the students' abilities, when if they want to see that
information, they should look at the rest of the students grades, not just
ONE test. The student could be the brightest kid in the world, but have a
low test score and be categorized in an incorrect way according to the test
score. And this isn't fair.
Another reason why I do not agree with the TAKS test and think
it is wrong is because it is taking up a bunch of the teachers' teaching
time for preparation of the test. It's not fair to the students or the
teachers. We have to spend SO much time to prepare for the test, that the
teachers don't have enough time to make teaching fun! I remember for awhile
we were late on learning some things in math, so we had to skim through the
whole book, just so that we'd know something about what was in the book,
before the test came along. It's not fair that it has to be a drag for the
students to go to math or reading class anymore. I know that if the TAKS
test is not emphasized so much that all the students will enjoy school a lot
more, and all of the teachers, will like teaching more. The ratio of the
hours of school for preparation of the TAKS to the hours of school total is
overwhelming.
Another thing about the TAKS test that troubles me is that we
have taken TAKS tests from the years before, and according to the grade on
those, certain students get pulled out of class at certain times of the day
for tutoring. I don't think there's anything really wrong about that,
except for the fact that those students probably get embarrassed and they
are missing out on important things that they might need to actually know
for the TAKS test while they are in tutoring.
I am not protesting this for my own sake. I am doing this for
all of the students in Texas that have to take the TAKS test every year. I
hope that me doing this will have an effect on them, and show the students
that they don't have to put up with this, and they don't have to take it.
Though their rights aren't shown, all of the students do have rights. I
hope more and more students will protest the test and not take it, to the
point that the government finally realizes that they do have to do
something. The government can start by passing House Bills 1612 and 1613
since they call for a better way to determine students' abilities than the
current way. Thank you very much.
Public Education Committee to testify in favor of real assessment (multiple
criteria) bills sponsored by Rep. Dora Olivo. Texas LULAC has been
supporting these bills since their inception.
Clara Valenzuela Zamora, age 12, refused to take the TAKS exam this year.
She said in the committee hearing that we need to bring fun and teaching
back to the schools. The full text of her testimony can be seen below.
Our Children Are Worth More Than a Single Test - They should be evaluated on
real assessment such as grades and performance. Their needs should be
identified earlier, not when they have failed a test for the third time.
WE NEED YOUR PHONE CALLS!! - SEND TO YOUR FRIENDS.
Angela Valenzuela, TX LULAC Education Chair, says we need to call Chairman
Grusendorf and members of the House Public Education Committee and tell
them to let the full House decide whether to vote for HB 1612 (relating to
promotion of students to certain grade levels in public) and HB 1613
(relating to the requirements for a high school diploma).
House Education Committee Members:
Chairman Grusendorf, R-Arlington, (512) 463-0624,
Vice-Chair Rene Olivera, D-Brownsville, (512) 463-0640,
Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas, (512) 463-0367
Rep. Harold Dutton, D-Houston, (512) 463-0510
Rep. Anna Mowery, R-Fort Worth, (512) 463-0608
Rep. Dianne Delisi, R- Temple, (512) 463-0630
Rep. Rob Eissler, R-The Woodlands, (512) 463-0797
Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, (512) 463-0492
Rep. Bill Keffer, R-Dallas, (512) 463-0244
Clara V. Zamora
May 3, 2005 - Testimony Before the Committee on Public Education
Thank you for allowing me to testify today. First of all, I
want to say that I am a sixth-grade student at Barton Hills Elementary in
the Austin Independent School District. And also, I am refusing to take the
TAKS test at my school because I do not agree with the way that the TAKS is
being used. One of the ways that it is being used in a bad way is that it
is being used to show the students' abilities, when if they want to see that
information, they should look at the rest of the students grades, not just
ONE test. The student could be the brightest kid in the world, but have a
low test score and be categorized in an incorrect way according to the test
score. And this isn't fair.
Another reason why I do not agree with the TAKS test and think
it is wrong is because it is taking up a bunch of the teachers' teaching
time for preparation of the test. It's not fair to the students or the
teachers. We have to spend SO much time to prepare for the test, that the
teachers don't have enough time to make teaching fun! I remember for awhile
we were late on learning some things in math, so we had to skim through the
whole book, just so that we'd know something about what was in the book,
before the test came along. It's not fair that it has to be a drag for the
students to go to math or reading class anymore. I know that if the TAKS
test is not emphasized so much that all the students will enjoy school a lot
more, and all of the teachers, will like teaching more. The ratio of the
hours of school for preparation of the TAKS to the hours of school total is
overwhelming.
Another thing about the TAKS test that troubles me is that we
have taken TAKS tests from the years before, and according to the grade on
those, certain students get pulled out of class at certain times of the day
for tutoring. I don't think there's anything really wrong about that,
except for the fact that those students probably get embarrassed and they
are missing out on important things that they might need to actually know
for the TAKS test while they are in tutoring.
I am not protesting this for my own sake. I am doing this for
all of the students in Texas that have to take the TAKS test every year. I
hope that me doing this will have an effect on them, and show the students
that they don't have to put up with this, and they don't have to take it.
Though their rights aren't shown, all of the students do have rights. I
hope more and more students will protest the test and not take it, to the
point that the government finally realizes that they do have to do
something. The government can start by passing House Bills 1612 and 1613
since they call for a better way to determine students' abilities than the
current way. Thank you very much.
TESTING None of the Above
It's worth looking at this piece. It speaks directly to the validity of the TAKS exam. Can you imagine how much worse this exam is compromised when it gets translated into Spanish for English language learners? -Angela
April 24, 2005
TESTING: None of the Above
By LISA GUERNSEY
O years ago, fifth graders taking Texas's annual standardized science test faced this multiple-choice question: "Which two planets are closest to Earth?" The four choices were "Mercury and Saturn," "Mars and Jupiter," "Mercury and Venus" and "Venus and Mars."
Simple, right? The Texas Education Agency thought so; every fifth grader should know that Venus and Mars orbit on either side of Earth's orbit (remember the mnemonic "My Very Excellent Mother Just Sent Us Nine Pizzas"?). "Venus and Mars," therefore, would have been a good pick.
But wait, said Mark Loewe, a Dallas physicist who was curious about what students are expected to know and so took the test. The question asked which planets - not which planets' orbits - were closest to Earth. So the correct answer depends on when the question is asked.
"Mercury, which orbits closest to the Sun, is closest to Earth most often," Dr. Loewe said, and sure enough, during that test week in spring 2003, Mercury and Mars were the planets closest to Earth, according to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Web site. That pair was not among the possible answers.
So is the question valid? Perhaps, since the problem was written for a typical 10-year-old, not someone with Dr. Loewe's understanding of science. On the other hand, the problem ignores the physical world woven into the question, and that might trip up brighter fifth graders.
Beware the perils of ambiguity. It is a mantra that is increasingly pertinent to tests in mathematics and science. The two fields might seem immune from imprecision. But in mathematics, for example, today's tests assess more than a student's ability to do "naked computation," as Cathy Seeley, president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, puts it. In many places, calculators have rendered meaningless the testing of basic computational tasks. Instead, more questions test students' comprehension in real-world contexts. A triangle is a corner garden bed. A rectangular object intersected by a line is a juice box, with a straw. A sloped line on a graph represents a year's worth of payments to the power company.
With these scenarios come variables, and mathematicians and scientists from British Columbia to Boston spend much time picking apart the questions, particularly in online discussion groups. If students are asked how many seeds can be planted in the surface area of a triangular garden, do you put seeds in the corners where there isn't room for plants to take root? What about relevant considerations like seasonality of utility bills or position of the planets? Multiple-choice questions, with no place to show your work and thinking, make such realities more vexing.
"To the lay eye, it may appear that I am being picky, criticizing the minutest detail of the exam," wrote James A. Middleton, a mathematics education professor at Arizona State University, in an online critique of his state's high school exams. "I am being picky. Any first-semester student of psychometrics (the statistical study of test design, administration and analysis) could tell you that if a test is to provide reliable and valid data, its items must be designed well, reflect the standards of the content, and clearly allow students who understand the content to demonstrate that understanding."
Professor Middleton decided that a quarter of the questions he analyzed had mistakes in content or context (he has just completed an analysis of recently released questions and says there is improvement).
"It's an increasingly severe problem," says Walter M. Haney, a senior researcher at Boston College's Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation and Educational Policy.
The process by which questions are vetted is long and costly. "On most of the tests that are created today, the people who write them and the people who review them do a conscientious and good job," says Gregory Cizek, an education professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who has been an elementary school teacher and a test writer for ACT Inc. But, he adds, "stuff always slips through."
Part of the challenge is writing appropriate questions for a particular grade level while not misleading a student who happens to know more. A 10th grader with a sibling in 12th grade may know some higher-level math; a 12th grader taking a physics course at a local college or online may look at a question differently than another student in the same grade.
Consider, for example, another question critiqued by Dr. Loewe on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills in 2003. Students in 11th grade were asked to calculate how much force a frog would exert against a river bank while leaping off. Dr. Loewe, who has co-written a textbook on quantum mechanics, says that when he worked out the problem, he included the frog's gravitational weight (its force during rest, which he determined by using the formula for acceleration due to gravity, which was provided at the beginning of the test). But the answer key made clear that the question writer did not expect students to consider that.
Dr. Loewe found several other problems and informed the Texas Education Agency. "Texans are ill-served by such incompetence or dishonesty," he wrote. The agency responded by hiring university professors to review exam questions, says Victoria Young, director of instructional coordination in the agency's testing office. The professors review tests that relate to their areas of expertise but are also familiar with what is taught in high school.
Nonetheless, Ms. Young disputes Dr. Loewe's specific complaints. Asked whether the planets question might have led students to Dr. Loewe's answer, she responded, "Not a realistic viewpoint, in my opinion." And of the leaping frog, she says that physics educators have told her that "only if you brought a very advanced level of college physics to the table would you know enough to know that the answer could be arrived at differently."
Not so, says Dr. Haney of Boston College. Students should have known to take the frog's gravitational weight into account, and so argued a few Texans in letters to The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, which reported on the dispute. Dr. Haney says one reason for the problem is that "a lot of the people who may be writing the math and science questions may not have a deep understanding of the math and science that they are trying to test."
In most cases, the people who write the questions are or have been teachers. Often, they are paid to attend summer workshops led by companies that have contracted with the states to develop the tests.
Marilyn Rindfuss, national senior mathematics consultant at Harcourt Assessment, which creates standardized tests for dozens of states, emphasizes a process she calls "tightening up." Ms. Rindfuss asks every question writer to go through a checklist that includes such questions as "Is the fictional information realistic? (no 75-pound housecats)" and "Is there one, and only one, clearly correct answer?" She also rejects questions that ask test takers to extrapolate patterns, because some people see a pattern that a question writer does not, leading the scorer to start "counting answers wrong that are, in fact, correct."
(To get a sense of such patterns, try this question, which has been kicking around New York City high schools for decades: What comes next in this sequence: 28, 23, 18, 14, __? Read on to find the answer.)
Once questions are written, they are typically reviewed by multiple groups that include test writers, teachers, editors, statisticians and content specialists. And then most developers test the questions on real students in real exam settings. In field testing, statisticians may discover that most top-scoring students selected answer "d" when answer "c" was deemed correct. What made "d" so appealing to the advanced students? Could a flaw in the question have led them to arrive at an equally correct answer? In most cases, the incongruity is a red flag, prompting developers to discard the question.
INSUFFICIENT field testing was blamed in part for the controversy in New York high schools in 2003, when two-thirds of test takers failed the Math A exam, which is required for a diploma. As a result, the state Board of Regents overhauled the math curriculum, and last month announced that the state would abandon its approach of integrated mathematics in favor of the old-fashioned curriculum of algebra for freshmen, geometry for sophomores and algebra II and trigonometry for juniors. The first revised exam based on those standards will be given in 2007.
Daniel Jaye, an assistant principal at Stuyvesant High School in Manhattan, served on the panel charged with investigating the troubled exam. He recalls a telling moment during the administration of the test at his school. "One of the kids raised his hand and the proctor called me into the room," Dr. Jaye says. The student was puzzled by a question about a straw that rested diagonally in a rectangular box, 3 by 4 by 8 inches. The question asked for the length of the straw to the nearest 10th of an inch. The answer, according to the Board of Regents, was 9.4 inches.
But, the student asserted, there was not enough information to answer the question correctly. If the question asked about the length of a line, he figured he could solve the problem. But because it asked about the length of a straw, he needed the radius of the straw to determine where it would touch the corner of the juice box.
"How am I expected to come up with an accurate answer?" the student asked.
"I started laughing because he was right," Dr. Jaye recalls. "I said, 'I don't know. I really don't know.' "
Jerry P. Becker, a professor of curriculum and instruction at Southern Illinois University, wrote this in an online discussion about ambiguous math questions: "We're talking about kids who are desperately trying to penetrate the minds of adults and figure out what is 'really' being asked and what 'the trick' is."
Professor Becker particularly dislikes multiple-choice questions. They are inexpensive to score, because they can be run through machines, but they include plausible incorrect choices, he says. Worse yet, many educators and scientists say, the multiple-choice format does not allow for creative, unexpected solutions.
Which brings us to the pattern question posed earlier: What comes next after 28, 23, 18 and 14? Actually, it's a math teacher's idea of a joke.
The answer is Christopher Street, the next stop downtown on the 1 and 9 lines in the New York City subway system.
Lisa Guernsey contributes articles on education and technology for The Times.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/education/edlife/guernsey24.html?ex=1115524800&en=09c10f265b40574f&ei=5070&oref=login
April 24, 2005
TESTING: None of the Above
By LISA GUERNSEY
O years ago, fifth graders taking Texas's annual standardized science test faced this multiple-choice question: "Which two planets are closest to Earth?" The four choices were "Mercury and Saturn," "Mars and Jupiter," "Mercury and Venus" and "Venus and Mars."
Simple, right? The Texas Education Agency thought so; every fifth grader should know that Venus and Mars orbit on either side of Earth's orbit (remember the mnemonic "My Very Excellent Mother Just Sent Us Nine Pizzas"?). "Venus and Mars," therefore, would have been a good pick.
But wait, said Mark Loewe, a Dallas physicist who was curious about what students are expected to know and so took the test. The question asked which planets - not which planets' orbits - were closest to Earth. So the correct answer depends on when the question is asked.
"Mercury, which orbits closest to the Sun, is closest to Earth most often," Dr. Loewe said, and sure enough, during that test week in spring 2003, Mercury and Mars were the planets closest to Earth, according to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Web site. That pair was not among the possible answers.
So is the question valid? Perhaps, since the problem was written for a typical 10-year-old, not someone with Dr. Loewe's understanding of science. On the other hand, the problem ignores the physical world woven into the question, and that might trip up brighter fifth graders.
Beware the perils of ambiguity. It is a mantra that is increasingly pertinent to tests in mathematics and science. The two fields might seem immune from imprecision. But in mathematics, for example, today's tests assess more than a student's ability to do "naked computation," as Cathy Seeley, president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, puts it. In many places, calculators have rendered meaningless the testing of basic computational tasks. Instead, more questions test students' comprehension in real-world contexts. A triangle is a corner garden bed. A rectangular object intersected by a line is a juice box, with a straw. A sloped line on a graph represents a year's worth of payments to the power company.
With these scenarios come variables, and mathematicians and scientists from British Columbia to Boston spend much time picking apart the questions, particularly in online discussion groups. If students are asked how many seeds can be planted in the surface area of a triangular garden, do you put seeds in the corners where there isn't room for plants to take root? What about relevant considerations like seasonality of utility bills or position of the planets? Multiple-choice questions, with no place to show your work and thinking, make such realities more vexing.
"To the lay eye, it may appear that I am being picky, criticizing the minutest detail of the exam," wrote James A. Middleton, a mathematics education professor at Arizona State University, in an online critique of his state's high school exams. "I am being picky. Any first-semester student of psychometrics (the statistical study of test design, administration and analysis) could tell you that if a test is to provide reliable and valid data, its items must be designed well, reflect the standards of the content, and clearly allow students who understand the content to demonstrate that understanding."
Professor Middleton decided that a quarter of the questions he analyzed had mistakes in content or context (he has just completed an analysis of recently released questions and says there is improvement).
"It's an increasingly severe problem," says Walter M. Haney, a senior researcher at Boston College's Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation and Educational Policy.
The process by which questions are vetted is long and costly. "On most of the tests that are created today, the people who write them and the people who review them do a conscientious and good job," says Gregory Cizek, an education professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who has been an elementary school teacher and a test writer for ACT Inc. But, he adds, "stuff always slips through."
Part of the challenge is writing appropriate questions for a particular grade level while not misleading a student who happens to know more. A 10th grader with a sibling in 12th grade may know some higher-level math; a 12th grader taking a physics course at a local college or online may look at a question differently than another student in the same grade.
Consider, for example, another question critiqued by Dr. Loewe on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills in 2003. Students in 11th grade were asked to calculate how much force a frog would exert against a river bank while leaping off. Dr. Loewe, who has co-written a textbook on quantum mechanics, says that when he worked out the problem, he included the frog's gravitational weight (its force during rest, which he determined by using the formula for acceleration due to gravity, which was provided at the beginning of the test). But the answer key made clear that the question writer did not expect students to consider that.
Dr. Loewe found several other problems and informed the Texas Education Agency. "Texans are ill-served by such incompetence or dishonesty," he wrote. The agency responded by hiring university professors to review exam questions, says Victoria Young, director of instructional coordination in the agency's testing office. The professors review tests that relate to their areas of expertise but are also familiar with what is taught in high school.
Nonetheless, Ms. Young disputes Dr. Loewe's specific complaints. Asked whether the planets question might have led students to Dr. Loewe's answer, she responded, "Not a realistic viewpoint, in my opinion." And of the leaping frog, she says that physics educators have told her that "only if you brought a very advanced level of college physics to the table would you know enough to know that the answer could be arrived at differently."
Not so, says Dr. Haney of Boston College. Students should have known to take the frog's gravitational weight into account, and so argued a few Texans in letters to The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, which reported on the dispute. Dr. Haney says one reason for the problem is that "a lot of the people who may be writing the math and science questions may not have a deep understanding of the math and science that they are trying to test."
In most cases, the people who write the questions are or have been teachers. Often, they are paid to attend summer workshops led by companies that have contracted with the states to develop the tests.
Marilyn Rindfuss, national senior mathematics consultant at Harcourt Assessment, which creates standardized tests for dozens of states, emphasizes a process she calls "tightening up." Ms. Rindfuss asks every question writer to go through a checklist that includes such questions as "Is the fictional information realistic? (no 75-pound housecats)" and "Is there one, and only one, clearly correct answer?" She also rejects questions that ask test takers to extrapolate patterns, because some people see a pattern that a question writer does not, leading the scorer to start "counting answers wrong that are, in fact, correct."
(To get a sense of such patterns, try this question, which has been kicking around New York City high schools for decades: What comes next in this sequence: 28, 23, 18, 14, __? Read on to find the answer.)
Once questions are written, they are typically reviewed by multiple groups that include test writers, teachers, editors, statisticians and content specialists. And then most developers test the questions on real students in real exam settings. In field testing, statisticians may discover that most top-scoring students selected answer "d" when answer "c" was deemed correct. What made "d" so appealing to the advanced students? Could a flaw in the question have led them to arrive at an equally correct answer? In most cases, the incongruity is a red flag, prompting developers to discard the question.
INSUFFICIENT field testing was blamed in part for the controversy in New York high schools in 2003, when two-thirds of test takers failed the Math A exam, which is required for a diploma. As a result, the state Board of Regents overhauled the math curriculum, and last month announced that the state would abandon its approach of integrated mathematics in favor of the old-fashioned curriculum of algebra for freshmen, geometry for sophomores and algebra II and trigonometry for juniors. The first revised exam based on those standards will be given in 2007.
Daniel Jaye, an assistant principal at Stuyvesant High School in Manhattan, served on the panel charged with investigating the troubled exam. He recalls a telling moment during the administration of the test at his school. "One of the kids raised his hand and the proctor called me into the room," Dr. Jaye says. The student was puzzled by a question about a straw that rested diagonally in a rectangular box, 3 by 4 by 8 inches. The question asked for the length of the straw to the nearest 10th of an inch. The answer, according to the Board of Regents, was 9.4 inches.
But, the student asserted, there was not enough information to answer the question correctly. If the question asked about the length of a line, he figured he could solve the problem. But because it asked about the length of a straw, he needed the radius of the straw to determine where it would touch the corner of the juice box.
"How am I expected to come up with an accurate answer?" the student asked.
"I started laughing because he was right," Dr. Jaye recalls. "I said, 'I don't know. I really don't know.' "
Jerry P. Becker, a professor of curriculum and instruction at Southern Illinois University, wrote this in an online discussion about ambiguous math questions: "We're talking about kids who are desperately trying to penetrate the minds of adults and figure out what is 'really' being asked and what 'the trick' is."
Professor Becker particularly dislikes multiple-choice questions. They are inexpensive to score, because they can be run through machines, but they include plausible incorrect choices, he says. Worse yet, many educators and scientists say, the multiple-choice format does not allow for creative, unexpected solutions.
Which brings us to the pattern question posed earlier: What comes next after 28, 23, 18 and 14? Actually, it's a math teacher's idea of a joke.
The answer is Christopher Street, the next stop downtown on the 1 and 9 lines in the New York City subway system.
Lisa Guernsey contributes articles on education and technology for The Times.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/education/edlife/guernsey24.html?ex=1115524800&en=09c10f265b40574f&ei=5070&oref=login
House Panel OKs School Voucher Bill
House Panel OKs School Voucher Bill
09:41 PM CDT on Thursday, May 5, 2005
By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News
AUSTIN – Fiercely debated legislation that would allow low-income and at-risk students in Dallas and other urban school districts to transfer to private schools at state expense was approved Thursday by the House Public Education Committee.
The private school voucher bill, passed at a hastily called meeting of the committee, would enable thousands of students in Dallas, Fort Worth and at least five other urban districts to attend private schools as long as those schools satisfy certain requirements, such as annual testing of students.
Committee members approved the measure on a 6-3 vote, with all three Democrats on the panel voting no.
The measure, which faces an uphill battle for passage, now goes to the full House. The Senate has not considered private school vouchers this session.
Rep. Linda Harper-Brown, R-Irving, author of the bill, said that students in greatest need are poor, at risk of dropping out, in special education or victims of school violence.
Further she said, her legislation limits the number of students who would be eligible for vouchers to 5 percent of each district's enrollment through 2008. That figure represents about 30,000 students statewide.
Opponents – including virtually every public-education group in the state – assert that the voucher scheme would deal a huge blow to public schools, depriving them of millions of dollars at a time when many districts are cutting programs and employees to make ends meet.
A Legislative Budget Board fiscal note on the bill indicated that if 15,000 students take advantage of the voucher option, the seven school districts would lose nearly $70 million in funding.
"Legislators need to do the math," said Carolyn Boyle, a spokeswoman for the Coalition for Public Schools, which represents most school districts and education groups in the state. "We can't afford to take away money from public schools to subsidize private schools in Texas."
Another group, Texas Freedom Network, called the legislation a "payback" to wealthy campaign contributors who want to see tax dollars used to fund private schools.
Those groups warned that tax funding for private schools could eventually reach $600 million a year under the bill.
Voucher supporters have been trying for several years to pass legislation setting up a pilot program in Texas, but they have been unsuccessful – even though there were backed by former Gov. George Bush, Gov. Rick Perry and legislative leaders.
Public opinion polls have generally indicated that most Texans are opposed to use of their tax dollars for private school education.
E-mail tstutz@dallasnews.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/050605dntexvouchers.7c8f0808.html
09:41 PM CDT on Thursday, May 5, 2005
By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News
AUSTIN – Fiercely debated legislation that would allow low-income and at-risk students in Dallas and other urban school districts to transfer to private schools at state expense was approved Thursday by the House Public Education Committee.
The private school voucher bill, passed at a hastily called meeting of the committee, would enable thousands of students in Dallas, Fort Worth and at least five other urban districts to attend private schools as long as those schools satisfy certain requirements, such as annual testing of students.
Committee members approved the measure on a 6-3 vote, with all three Democrats on the panel voting no.
The measure, which faces an uphill battle for passage, now goes to the full House. The Senate has not considered private school vouchers this session.
Rep. Linda Harper-Brown, R-Irving, author of the bill, said that students in greatest need are poor, at risk of dropping out, in special education or victims of school violence.
Further she said, her legislation limits the number of students who would be eligible for vouchers to 5 percent of each district's enrollment through 2008. That figure represents about 30,000 students statewide.
Opponents – including virtually every public-education group in the state – assert that the voucher scheme would deal a huge blow to public schools, depriving them of millions of dollars at a time when many districts are cutting programs and employees to make ends meet.
A Legislative Budget Board fiscal note on the bill indicated that if 15,000 students take advantage of the voucher option, the seven school districts would lose nearly $70 million in funding.
"Legislators need to do the math," said Carolyn Boyle, a spokeswoman for the Coalition for Public Schools, which represents most school districts and education groups in the state. "We can't afford to take away money from public schools to subsidize private schools in Texas."
Another group, Texas Freedom Network, called the legislation a "payback" to wealthy campaign contributors who want to see tax dollars used to fund private schools.
Those groups warned that tax funding for private schools could eventually reach $600 million a year under the bill.
Voucher supporters have been trying for several years to pass legislation setting up a pilot program in Texas, but they have been unsuccessful – even though there were backed by former Gov. George Bush, Gov. Rick Perry and legislative leaders.
Public opinion polls have generally indicated that most Texans are opposed to use of their tax dollars for private school education.
E-mail tstutz@dallasnews.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/050605dntexvouchers.7c8f0808.html
No Vales! No Vouchers!
The very latest word on vouchers is that Archbishop Gomez in San Antonio is taking a public stand in support of vouchers as a solution for the financing of Catholic parochial schools. Though a counter-strategy is currently being devised by leadership in San Antonio, this will likely affect a number of parishioner's opinions on vouchers. If 5 % say, at most, 7% of all young people attend Catholic parochial schools in Texas, then this Archbishop is willing to sacrifice the remaining 93%--including the majority of his own parishioners-- so that Catholic schools may benefit. His "leadership" on this issue is extremely unfortunate and unfortunately divisive. -Angela
from Adrian Rodriguez, Texas LULAC
At a press conference on April 4, the Coalition for Public Schools – which
includes the Texas Freedom Network – estimated that the three voucher bills
would drain $600 million to $2.2 billion over a two-year period from our
public schools to pay for tuition at private and religious schools. The next
day, Texas LULAC and the NAACP held another press conference to counter
efforts by other groups to build support for vouchers in the Hispanic and
African-American communities.
The same day, Gov. Perry, Lt. Gov. Dewhurst and House Speaker Craddick
addressed a large pro-voucher rally on the Capitol steps. Hispanic CREO, an
organization funded by the far-right Walton and Friedman foundations and the
U.S. Department of Education to push voucher legislation, sponsored the
rally. None of this was a surprise – too many of our state’s leaders and
wealthy special interests have been conspiring for years to bring vouchers
to Texas. They see this year as their best chance to win.
Refusing to Be Silenced
The House committee’s public hearing on three voucher bills demonstrated the
extreme measures that far-right legislators will take to silence the
opposition to vouchers. For the first five hours, committee Chairman Kent
Grusendorf, R-Arlington, called only pro-voucher testimony. Most of those
speakers came from folks Hispanic CREO and other far-right groups bused to
the Capitol from San Antonio.
Scores of voucher opponents also came, however, many traveling hundreds of
miles on their own to Austin. Shortly before midnight, all who remained in
the committee room were those dedicated supporters of neighborhood public
schools. They were clearly determined to be heard, regardless of the
maneuvering to keep them frustrated and silent as the hours have clicked by.
Fighting for Our Public Schools
The House Public Education Committee has yet to vote out any of the three
voucher bills. Many phone calls, visits and other contact between supporters
of public schools and lawmakers are making a difference. In fact, strong
opposition from across the state has beaten back voucher schemes in every
legislative session since 1995. Polls show that most Texans still strongly
oppose vouchers.
Yet it is hard to overstate the serious challenge facing our public schools
right now. As the end of the session nears, pro-voucher interests may try to
force a bill on to the floor of the House or Senate. Another possibility
would be amending a separate bill with a voucher scheme. Yet we can still
stop this dangerous agenda by keeping the pressure on legislators with calls
and letters. The time to stand up and fight for our public schools is NOW!
_____
Resources
Take Action
Learn More about Vouchers
from Adrian Rodriguez, Texas LULAC
At a press conference on April 4, the Coalition for Public Schools – which
includes the Texas Freedom Network – estimated that the three voucher bills
would drain $600 million to $2.2 billion over a two-year period from our
public schools to pay for tuition at private and religious schools. The next
day, Texas LULAC and the NAACP held another press conference to counter
efforts by other groups to build support for vouchers in the Hispanic and
African-American communities.
The same day, Gov. Perry, Lt. Gov. Dewhurst and House Speaker Craddick
addressed a large pro-voucher rally on the Capitol steps. Hispanic CREO, an
organization funded by the far-right Walton and Friedman foundations and the
U.S. Department of Education to push voucher legislation, sponsored the
rally. None of this was a surprise – too many of our state’s leaders and
wealthy special interests have been conspiring for years to bring vouchers
to Texas. They see this year as their best chance to win.
Refusing to Be Silenced
The House committee’s public hearing on three voucher bills demonstrated the
extreme measures that far-right legislators will take to silence the
opposition to vouchers. For the first five hours, committee Chairman Kent
Grusendorf, R-Arlington, called only pro-voucher testimony. Most of those
speakers came from folks Hispanic CREO and other far-right groups bused to
the Capitol from San Antonio.
Scores of voucher opponents also came, however, many traveling hundreds of
miles on their own to Austin. Shortly before midnight, all who remained in
the committee room were those dedicated supporters of neighborhood public
schools. They were clearly determined to be heard, regardless of the
maneuvering to keep them frustrated and silent as the hours have clicked by.
Fighting for Our Public Schools
The House Public Education Committee has yet to vote out any of the three
voucher bills. Many phone calls, visits and other contact between supporters
of public schools and lawmakers are making a difference. In fact, strong
opposition from across the state has beaten back voucher schemes in every
legislative session since 1995. Polls show that most Texans still strongly
oppose vouchers.
Yet it is hard to overstate the serious challenge facing our public schools
right now. As the end of the session nears, pro-voucher interests may try to
force a bill on to the floor of the House or Senate. Another possibility
would be amending a separate bill with a voucher scheme. Yet we can still
stop this dangerous agenda by keeping the pressure on legislators with calls
and letters. The time to stand up and fight for our public schools is NOW!
_____
Resources
Take Action
Learn More about Vouchers
House Bills Fail to Help Our Disadvantaged Students
COMMENTARY
Gary Bledsoe, Ana Correa and Nelson Linder, LOCAL CONTRIBUTORS
Friday, May 06, 2005
In 2003, the Austin school district joined other plaintiffs in the West Orange Cove case. It led to a decision by state District Judge John Dietz of Travis County that gave constitutional weight to what many of us have been arguing for a long time: that Texas' system of paying for its public schools has become financially inefficient, inadequate and unsuitable. The system has proved particularly onerous for property-poor districts, with their high number of students who speak limited English or are economically disadvantaged.
We say this despite our support of the previous Texas Supreme Court decisions on this topic, although so-called Robin Hood school financing plan, which worked well at the beginning, is no longer very efficient.
Dietz admonished the Texas Legislature to address the many problems uncovered in the West Orange Cove case. So far, the most likely legislative responses are House Bill 2 and House Bill 3, which passed the House and await consideration in the Senate.
Sadly, it appears that the House's school finance legislation is compromised by an overriding concern with lowering property taxes, not with carrying out Dietz's mandate. Austinites should take note of the following:
•The bills' overall funding level is inadequate, with the so-called new money barely covering inflation, much less meeting the system's growing needs.
Under the old system, Austin was one of many districts forced to live on a fixed income. Unable to raise local property taxes above the state's maximum rate of $1.50 per $100 of assessed value, major urban districts — such as Austin — had used 99.5 percent of their capacity to raise revenue. The resulting funding crunch forced the Austin district to cut its budget by $41 million, eliminating 650 positions.
•Austin has experienced substantial growth in the number of students who are poor and who don't speak English — in other words, students who cost more to educate.
Unfortunately, HB 2 eliminates funding weights, which means that funding for low-income students, students with limited English proficiency and special education students will now be fixed. Instead of automatically increasing, schools will be forced to approach the Legislature every two years and ask for more.
•Every child deserves the opportunity to learn in structurally sound, technologically-equipped classrooms. By ignoring the need for renovation and construction to alleviate over-crowded and dilapidated classrooms, and without a permanent annual funding source for facilities, the bills leave intact one of the major forms of inequity addressed in the West Orange Cove case.
•The testing requirements in HB2, along with continued high-stakes testing in general, amount to intentional discrimination against African Americans and Latinos.
The higher failure rates of students who are economically disadvantaged or who lack English proficiency, and the effects of requiring high-stakes tests while also holding back funding, are well-established. The Legislature cannot plead ignorance.
We refer to a recent Texas A&M report, which estimates that it costs $1,960 for an economically disadvantaged student and $1,248 for a limited-English proficiency student to master these tests. The bill would provide only $877 for economically disadvantaged students and $500 for students with limited English. As a result, these students are much more likely to fail these tests and ultimately drop out of school because of it.
•Austin school officials, to their credit, have avoided the temptation to set the district's needs above those of the state's property-poor districts.
But HB2 would allow the wealthiest 10 percent of districts to unhitch their interests from the state's common interest, enshrining an "I got mine" mindset.
With the bill's limit on how much a wealthy district must share with poorer ones, along with the new method of tax increases (2 cents per year, without weights or proportions), wealthy districts essentially will be able to pay what they want to educate their students. And the problem only will be compounded over time.
By whatever standard, be it equity, economic soundness or legality, HB2 fails the test. We hope the state Senate will act more in the interests of all Texas citizens, not just a select few.
Bledsoe is president of the Texas NAACP; Correa is with the Texas chapter of the League of United Latin American Citizens; Lindner is president of the Austin branch of the NAACP.
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/05/6naacp_edit.html
Gary Bledsoe, Ana Correa and Nelson Linder, LOCAL CONTRIBUTORS
Friday, May 06, 2005
In 2003, the Austin school district joined other plaintiffs in the West Orange Cove case. It led to a decision by state District Judge John Dietz of Travis County that gave constitutional weight to what many of us have been arguing for a long time: that Texas' system of paying for its public schools has become financially inefficient, inadequate and unsuitable. The system has proved particularly onerous for property-poor districts, with their high number of students who speak limited English or are economically disadvantaged.
We say this despite our support of the previous Texas Supreme Court decisions on this topic, although so-called Robin Hood school financing plan, which worked well at the beginning, is no longer very efficient.
Dietz admonished the Texas Legislature to address the many problems uncovered in the West Orange Cove case. So far, the most likely legislative responses are House Bill 2 and House Bill 3, which passed the House and await consideration in the Senate.
Sadly, it appears that the House's school finance legislation is compromised by an overriding concern with lowering property taxes, not with carrying out Dietz's mandate. Austinites should take note of the following:
•The bills' overall funding level is inadequate, with the so-called new money barely covering inflation, much less meeting the system's growing needs.
Under the old system, Austin was one of many districts forced to live on a fixed income. Unable to raise local property taxes above the state's maximum rate of $1.50 per $100 of assessed value, major urban districts — such as Austin — had used 99.5 percent of their capacity to raise revenue. The resulting funding crunch forced the Austin district to cut its budget by $41 million, eliminating 650 positions.
•Austin has experienced substantial growth in the number of students who are poor and who don't speak English — in other words, students who cost more to educate.
Unfortunately, HB 2 eliminates funding weights, which means that funding for low-income students, students with limited English proficiency and special education students will now be fixed. Instead of automatically increasing, schools will be forced to approach the Legislature every two years and ask for more.
•Every child deserves the opportunity to learn in structurally sound, technologically-equipped classrooms. By ignoring the need for renovation and construction to alleviate over-crowded and dilapidated classrooms, and without a permanent annual funding source for facilities, the bills leave intact one of the major forms of inequity addressed in the West Orange Cove case.
•The testing requirements in HB2, along with continued high-stakes testing in general, amount to intentional discrimination against African Americans and Latinos.
The higher failure rates of students who are economically disadvantaged or who lack English proficiency, and the effects of requiring high-stakes tests while also holding back funding, are well-established. The Legislature cannot plead ignorance.
We refer to a recent Texas A&M report, which estimates that it costs $1,960 for an economically disadvantaged student and $1,248 for a limited-English proficiency student to master these tests. The bill would provide only $877 for economically disadvantaged students and $500 for students with limited English. As a result, these students are much more likely to fail these tests and ultimately drop out of school because of it.
•Austin school officials, to their credit, have avoided the temptation to set the district's needs above those of the state's property-poor districts.
But HB2 would allow the wealthiest 10 percent of districts to unhitch their interests from the state's common interest, enshrining an "I got mine" mindset.
With the bill's limit on how much a wealthy district must share with poorer ones, along with the new method of tax increases (2 cents per year, without weights or proportions), wealthy districts essentially will be able to pay what they want to educate their students. And the problem only will be compounded over time.
By whatever standard, be it equity, economic soundness or legality, HB2 fails the test. We hope the state Senate will act more in the interests of all Texas citizens, not just a select few.
Bledsoe is president of the Texas NAACP; Correa is with the Texas chapter of the League of United Latin American Citizens; Lindner is president of the Austin branch of the NAACP.
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/05/6naacp_edit.html
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Ignoring Judge Dietz: Dome's school finance plans risk judicial wrath
Editorial / Dallas Morning News
Wednesday, May 4, 2005
Go back to the argument that lawyers representing poor school districts made last year about how Texas funds schools. The attorneys told state District Judge John Dietz that legislators either look into the state's kitty to see what's available or simply ignore schools' needs.
To us, that's what is still wrong with the Legislature's attempt to fund schools. Legislators are funding only the amount that – for political reasons – they can live with, meaning everyone fears raising taxes to improve schools.
Legislators may feel like that's all they can do, but Judge Dietz understood the plaintiffs' point of view. He sided with them, as well as with plaintiffs from rich districts, declaring legislators had until October to adequately fund schools.
Unfortunately, lawmakers are up to their old tricks and not meeting Judge Dietz's admonition. The House has offered about $3 billion extra for the next two years, while the Senate is likely to approve an extra $2.8 billion this week.
The Senate would help with programs like bilingual education, but it won't allow schools to repair the deep cuts they've made recently in their teaching ranks and course offerings. Heck, one superintendent told us he's struggling to pay for maps. It's hard to compete with India and China if your students can't even find them on a map.
Here's another reason to worry about the shortfalls. The state needs to reduce achievement gaps between districts. Judge Dietz argued this point eloquently:
"The key to changing our future is to close the gap in academic achievement between the haves and have-nots," he wrote. "The rub is that it costs money. It doesn't come free. So, are Texans willing to pay the price, to make the sacrifice to close the education gap, to secure their future and their children's future?"
Our hunch is yes, but legislators won't ask them. They want to keep funding schools on the cheap. That's the sad reality, and Texans can only hope the Supreme Court justices who will soon review Judge Dietz's ruling are watching. It's Texas' future we're talking about here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/050405dnedischool.71bbe138.html
Wednesday, May 4, 2005
Go back to the argument that lawyers representing poor school districts made last year about how Texas funds schools. The attorneys told state District Judge John Dietz that legislators either look into the state's kitty to see what's available or simply ignore schools' needs.
To us, that's what is still wrong with the Legislature's attempt to fund schools. Legislators are funding only the amount that – for political reasons – they can live with, meaning everyone fears raising taxes to improve schools.
Legislators may feel like that's all they can do, but Judge Dietz understood the plaintiffs' point of view. He sided with them, as well as with plaintiffs from rich districts, declaring legislators had until October to adequately fund schools.
Unfortunately, lawmakers are up to their old tricks and not meeting Judge Dietz's admonition. The House has offered about $3 billion extra for the next two years, while the Senate is likely to approve an extra $2.8 billion this week.
The Senate would help with programs like bilingual education, but it won't allow schools to repair the deep cuts they've made recently in their teaching ranks and course offerings. Heck, one superintendent told us he's struggling to pay for maps. It's hard to compete with India and China if your students can't even find them on a map.
Here's another reason to worry about the shortfalls. The state needs to reduce achievement gaps between districts. Judge Dietz argued this point eloquently:
"The key to changing our future is to close the gap in academic achievement between the haves and have-nots," he wrote. "The rub is that it costs money. It doesn't come free. So, are Texans willing to pay the price, to make the sacrifice to close the education gap, to secure their future and their children's future?"
Our hunch is yes, but legislators won't ask them. They want to keep funding schools on the cheap. That's the sad reality, and Texans can only hope the Supreme Court justices who will soon review Judge Dietz's ruling are watching. It's Texas' future we're talking about here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/050405dnedischool.71bbe138.html
Perry Praises Home Schoolers
Perry Praises Home Schoolers
By GLENN EVANS
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
BIG SANDY – Gov. Rick Perry opened a nationwide home school seminar here Tuesday by praising about 3,000 parents and children from across the country for seeking a more abundant life than public education delivers.
"Doing well in traditional subjects is important but, you know, scoring high on the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) cannot help a child overcome the moral challenges every young person faces on a daily basis," Perry told the group of Christians who are scheduled for seminars meshing faith and education ending Friday evening.
International Alert Academy is holding its second Advanced Training Institute conference in as many years at the former Ambassador University complex west of Big Sandy.
"Each of you is here not only because you want the best possible education for your children, but because you want the best possible life for your entire family – the ‘life more abundant' promised in John 10:10," Perry said.
The governor referred to a Biblical passage in which Christ contrasts himself with thieves who come to take and kill, whereas he came so his sheep could have abundant life.
Perry spoke perhaps 10 minutes to the appreciative audience, declining afterward to speak to the Longview News-Journal. His topic stayed on praise of the home schoolers' movement and its abundance in Texas.
"I'm proud to be the governor of the state that is home to more home schools than any other state in the nation – over 100,000 of you out there," he said. "You see, in Texas we understand that parents are the most equipped to know the educational needs of their children."
Parents also are in position to know where their children will get those educational needs met, he said, whether that's in public school, private school or home school.
"And for those who choose to teach at home, government regulation must always stop at your door," he said. "Home schools work. They work because of parental involvement. ... Home schools – it also works for another reason, and that's freedom. Home schools work because of that freedom parents have to teach their children according to their values."
Perry was accompanied on the brief visit by Republican state Reps. Dan Flynn of Van and Bryan Hughes of Mineola.
"It's a big deal what you're doing," Hughes said before delivering an opening prayer. "You're honoring the Lord in this."
http://www.news-journal.com/news/content/news/stories/2005/05/04/20050504LNJPerry.html;COXnetJSessionIDbuild74=CC5WTZBThy2mP9HhNA0bQZe0oSgaybWqMA4EkKEu21whR05b5bJV!1925061078?urac=n&urvf=11158798942690.132830739594479
By GLENN EVANS
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
BIG SANDY – Gov. Rick Perry opened a nationwide home school seminar here Tuesday by praising about 3,000 parents and children from across the country for seeking a more abundant life than public education delivers.
"Doing well in traditional subjects is important but, you know, scoring high on the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) cannot help a child overcome the moral challenges every young person faces on a daily basis," Perry told the group of Christians who are scheduled for seminars meshing faith and education ending Friday evening.
International Alert Academy is holding its second Advanced Training Institute conference in as many years at the former Ambassador University complex west of Big Sandy.
"Each of you is here not only because you want the best possible education for your children, but because you want the best possible life for your entire family – the ‘life more abundant' promised in John 10:10," Perry said.
The governor referred to a Biblical passage in which Christ contrasts himself with thieves who come to take and kill, whereas he came so his sheep could have abundant life.
Perry spoke perhaps 10 minutes to the appreciative audience, declining afterward to speak to the Longview News-Journal. His topic stayed on praise of the home schoolers' movement and its abundance in Texas.
"I'm proud to be the governor of the state that is home to more home schools than any other state in the nation – over 100,000 of you out there," he said. "You see, in Texas we understand that parents are the most equipped to know the educational needs of their children."
Parents also are in position to know where their children will get those educational needs met, he said, whether that's in public school, private school or home school.
"And for those who choose to teach at home, government regulation must always stop at your door," he said. "Home schools work. They work because of parental involvement. ... Home schools – it also works for another reason, and that's freedom. Home schools work because of that freedom parents have to teach their children according to their values."
Perry was accompanied on the brief visit by Republican state Reps. Dan Flynn of Van and Bryan Hughes of Mineola.
"It's a big deal what you're doing," Hughes said before delivering an opening prayer. "You're honoring the Lord in this."
http://www.news-journal.com/news/content/news/stories/2005/05/04/20050504LNJPerry.html;COXnetJSessionIDbuild74=CC5WTZBThy2mP9HhNA0bQZe0oSgaybWqMA4EkKEu21whR05b5bJV!1925061078?urac=n&urvf=11158798942690.132830739594479
Education Agency's PR Budget Topped $9M
Education Agency's PR Budget Topped $9M
By BEN FELLER
The Associated Press
Wednesday, May 4, 2005; 3:37 AM
WASHINGTON -- The Education Department has committed more than $9 million to public relations in recent years, from informing people about test scores to touting the school agenda of President Bush, new records show.
The largest share, $5.45 million, went to the Hager Sharp firm for coordination of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the test also known as the nation's report card.
Free E-mail Newsletters
Today's Headlines & Columnists
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
Daily Politics News & Analysis
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
Federal Insider
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
Breaking News Alerts
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
Documents detailing the department's hiring of private firms were released to The Associated Press on Tuesday in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
The department has come under fire for how it promotes its agenda, leading new Education Secretary Margaret Spellings to pledge tighter scrutiny.
The total spending includes a $1.3 million contract with the Ketchum public relations firm _ $240,000 of which went to conservative commentator Armstrong Williams to promote Bush's education law. That hiring proved embarrassing to the administration and Williams.
Most of the newly released records cover spending during 2002, 2003 and 2004, although at least one significant contract, $1.69 million with ZGS Communications, was for 1998-2002. That contract went for audio, video and print materials about department programs.
Overall, most of the money committed for public relations appeared to go toward routine expenses, the documents indicate. Those expenses include public service announcements, materials about financial aid and promotion of the department's Web site.
"There's no point in spending taxpayer money on these programs if we're not going to provide parents with information that they exist," said department spokeswoman Susan Aspey.
More than half of Hager Sharp's total was spent on meetings concerning development of the national achievement test. Those tasks, handled by a subcontractor, were bundled into the testing contract and had nothing to with public relations, said Hager Sharp Vice President Debra Silimeo.
The rest of the Hager Sharp money, roughly $2.2 million, went for public relations, the Education Department records show. That includes the formal release of federal test score results and promotional booths about the voluntary test at education trade shows.
"People need to understand what it is and why it's important, and people who participate in it deserve to know what the results are," Silimeo said about the test.
The records also reveal new detail about the Ketchum contract, outlining how money was committed for aids for teachers, promotion of a science summit and brochures on tutoring.
The Ketchum deal also included an analysis of coverage by education reporters, giving them points if they made the Bush administration and the Republican Party look good. The department has said the ratings had no influence over how it treats reporters.
Beyond hiring Williams through Ketchum, the agency paid for a promotional "video news release" that looked like a real news story, a tactic congressional investigators have called "covert propaganda" in at least two other cases.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/04/AR2005050400300.html
By BEN FELLER
The Associated Press
Wednesday, May 4, 2005; 3:37 AM
WASHINGTON -- The Education Department has committed more than $9 million to public relations in recent years, from informing people about test scores to touting the school agenda of President Bush, new records show.
The largest share, $5.45 million, went to the Hager Sharp firm for coordination of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the test also known as the nation's report card.
Free E-mail Newsletters
Today's Headlines & Columnists
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
Daily Politics News & Analysis
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
Federal Insider
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
Breaking News Alerts
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
Documents detailing the department's hiring of private firms were released to The Associated Press on Tuesday in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
The department has come under fire for how it promotes its agenda, leading new Education Secretary Margaret Spellings to pledge tighter scrutiny.
The total spending includes a $1.3 million contract with the Ketchum public relations firm _ $240,000 of which went to conservative commentator Armstrong Williams to promote Bush's education law. That hiring proved embarrassing to the administration and Williams.
Most of the newly released records cover spending during 2002, 2003 and 2004, although at least one significant contract, $1.69 million with ZGS Communications, was for 1998-2002. That contract went for audio, video and print materials about department programs.
Overall, most of the money committed for public relations appeared to go toward routine expenses, the documents indicate. Those expenses include public service announcements, materials about financial aid and promotion of the department's Web site.
"There's no point in spending taxpayer money on these programs if we're not going to provide parents with information that they exist," said department spokeswoman Susan Aspey.
More than half of Hager Sharp's total was spent on meetings concerning development of the national achievement test. Those tasks, handled by a subcontractor, were bundled into the testing contract and had nothing to with public relations, said Hager Sharp Vice President Debra Silimeo.
The rest of the Hager Sharp money, roughly $2.2 million, went for public relations, the Education Department records show. That includes the formal release of federal test score results and promotional booths about the voluntary test at education trade shows.
"People need to understand what it is and why it's important, and people who participate in it deserve to know what the results are," Silimeo said about the test.
The records also reveal new detail about the Ketchum contract, outlining how money was committed for aids for teachers, promotion of a science summit and brochures on tutoring.
The Ketchum deal also included an analysis of coverage by education reporters, giving them points if they made the Bush administration and the Republican Party look good. The department has said the ratings had no influence over how it treats reporters.
Beyond hiring Williams through Ketchum, the agency paid for a promotional "video news release" that looked like a real news story, a tactic congressional investigators have called "covert propaganda" in at least two other cases.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/04/AR2005050400300.html
SAT Essay Test Rewards Length and Ignores Errors
SAT Essay Test Rewards Length and Ignores Errors
By MICHAEL WINERIP
May 4, 2005
CAMBRIDGE, Mass.
IN March, Les Perelman attended a national college writing conference and sat in on a panel on the new SAT writing test. Dr. Perelman is one of the directors of undergraduate writing at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He did doctoral work on testing and develops writing assessments for entering M.I.T. freshmen. He fears that the new 25-minute SAT essay test that started in March - and will be given for the second time on Saturday - is actually teaching high school students terrible writing habits.
"It appeared to me that regardless of what a student wrote, the longer the essay, the higher the score," Dr. Perelman said. A man on the panel from the College Board disagreed. "He told me I was jumping to conclusions," Dr. Perelman said. "Because M.I.T. is a place where everything is backed by data, I went to my hotel room, counted the words in those essays and put them in an Excel spreadsheet on my laptop."
In the next weeks, Dr. Perelman studied every graded sample SAT essay that the College Board made public. He looked at the 15 samples in the ScoreWrite book that the College Board distributed to high schools nationwide to prepare students for the new writing section. He reviewed the 23 graded essays on the College Board Web site meant as a guide for students and the 16 writing "anchor" samples the College Board used to train graders to properly mark essays.
He was stunned by how complete the correlation was between length and score. "I have never found a quantifiable predictor in 25 years of grading that was anywhere near as strong as this one," he said. "If you just graded them based on length without ever reading them, you'd be right over 90 percent of the time." The shortest essays, typically 100 words, got the lowest grade of one. The longest, about 400 words, got the top grade of six. In between, there was virtually a direct match between length and grade.
He was also struck by all the factual errors in even the top essays. An essay on the Civil War, given a perfect six, describes the nation being changed forever by the "firing of two shots at Fort Sumter in late 1862." (Actually, it was in early 1861, and, according to "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James M. McPherson, it was "33 hours of bombardment by 4,000 shot and shells.")
Dr. Perelman contacted the College Board and was surprised to learn that on the new SAT essay, students are not penalized for incorrect facts. The official guide for scorers explains: "Writers may make errors in facts or information that do not affect the quality of their essays. For example, a writer may state 'The American Revolution began in 1842' or ' "Anna Karenina," a play by the French author Joseph Conrad, was a very upbeat literary work.' " (Actually, that's 1775; a novel by the Russian Leo Tolstoy; and poor Anna hurls herself under a train.) No matter. "You are scoring the writing, and not the correctness of facts."
How to prepare for such an essay? "I would advise writing as long as possible," said Dr. Perelman, "and include lots of facts, even if they're made up." This, of course, is not what he teaches his M.I.T. students. "It's exactly what we don't want to teach our kids," he said.
SAT graders are told to read an essay just once and spend two to three minutes per essay, and Dr. Perelman is now adept at rapid-fire SAT grading. This reporter held up a sample essay far enough away so it could not be read, and he was still able to guess the correct grade by its bulk and shape. "That's a 4," he said. "It looks like a 4."
A report released this week by the National Council of Teachers of English mirrors Dr. Perelman's criticism of the new SAT essay. It cautions that a single, 25-minute writing test ignores the most basic lesson of writing - that good writing is rewriting. It warns that the SAT is pushing schools toward "formulaic" writing instruction.
This is a far cry from all the hoopla when the new SAT was announced two years ago. College Board officials described it as a tool that could transform American education, forcing schools to better teach writing. A "great social experiment," Time magazine said.
In an interview, five top College Board officials strongly defended the writing test but sounded more muted about its usefulness. "The SAT essay should not be the primary way kids learn to write," said Wayne Camara, vice president for research. "It's one basic writing skill. If that's all the writing your high school English department is teaching, you have a problem."
They said that while there was a correlation between writing long and a high score, it was not as significant as Dr. Perelman stated. Graders also reward good short essays, they said, but the College Board erred by failing to release such samples to the public. "We will change that," said Chiara Coletti, a vice president.
As to facts not mattering, they said it was a necessary accommodation on such a short, high-pressure test. "We know students don't write well when they're anxious," said Ed Hardin, a College Board test specialist. "We don't want them not to go forward with that little detail. Our attitude is go right ahead with that missing date or fact and readers should be instructed not to count off for that."
Cynics say the new essay is window dressing added to placate California officials who in 2001 were calling the old SAT outmoded and were threatening to stop requiring it. In a recent paper, Edward White of the University of Arizona notes, "As long ago as 1999, in College Board Report No. 99-3, a research team pointed out that 'writing assessments based on a single essay, even those read and scored twice, have extremely low reliability.' "
Indeed, the College Board's own advanced placement tests require multiple essays, but officials say that is not possible for the SAT, which at nearly four hours, is being criticized as too long.
"You can't base a lot on one essay," Dr. Camara of the College Board admitted. He said that was why the new SAT writing section also included 49 multiple-choice questions on grammar and style. Multiple-choice counts for 75 percent of the new writing grade; the essay 25 percent. "The multiple-choice makes the writing test valid," he says. In short, the most untrustworthy part of the new SAT writing section is the writing sample.
E-mail: edmike@nytimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/04/education/04education.html?ex=1116043200&en=9e9fa7aaa789a096&ei=5070&pagewanted=1
By MICHAEL WINERIP
May 4, 2005
CAMBRIDGE, Mass.
IN March, Les Perelman attended a national college writing conference and sat in on a panel on the new SAT writing test. Dr. Perelman is one of the directors of undergraduate writing at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He did doctoral work on testing and develops writing assessments for entering M.I.T. freshmen. He fears that the new 25-minute SAT essay test that started in March - and will be given for the second time on Saturday - is actually teaching high school students terrible writing habits.
"It appeared to me that regardless of what a student wrote, the longer the essay, the higher the score," Dr. Perelman said. A man on the panel from the College Board disagreed. "He told me I was jumping to conclusions," Dr. Perelman said. "Because M.I.T. is a place where everything is backed by data, I went to my hotel room, counted the words in those essays and put them in an Excel spreadsheet on my laptop."
In the next weeks, Dr. Perelman studied every graded sample SAT essay that the College Board made public. He looked at the 15 samples in the ScoreWrite book that the College Board distributed to high schools nationwide to prepare students for the new writing section. He reviewed the 23 graded essays on the College Board Web site meant as a guide for students and the 16 writing "anchor" samples the College Board used to train graders to properly mark essays.
He was stunned by how complete the correlation was between length and score. "I have never found a quantifiable predictor in 25 years of grading that was anywhere near as strong as this one," he said. "If you just graded them based on length without ever reading them, you'd be right over 90 percent of the time." The shortest essays, typically 100 words, got the lowest grade of one. The longest, about 400 words, got the top grade of six. In between, there was virtually a direct match between length and grade.
He was also struck by all the factual errors in even the top essays. An essay on the Civil War, given a perfect six, describes the nation being changed forever by the "firing of two shots at Fort Sumter in late 1862." (Actually, it was in early 1861, and, according to "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James M. McPherson, it was "33 hours of bombardment by 4,000 shot and shells.")
Dr. Perelman contacted the College Board and was surprised to learn that on the new SAT essay, students are not penalized for incorrect facts. The official guide for scorers explains: "Writers may make errors in facts or information that do not affect the quality of their essays. For example, a writer may state 'The American Revolution began in 1842' or ' "Anna Karenina," a play by the French author Joseph Conrad, was a very upbeat literary work.' " (Actually, that's 1775; a novel by the Russian Leo Tolstoy; and poor Anna hurls herself under a train.) No matter. "You are scoring the writing, and not the correctness of facts."
How to prepare for such an essay? "I would advise writing as long as possible," said Dr. Perelman, "and include lots of facts, even if they're made up." This, of course, is not what he teaches his M.I.T. students. "It's exactly what we don't want to teach our kids," he said.
SAT graders are told to read an essay just once and spend two to three minutes per essay, and Dr. Perelman is now adept at rapid-fire SAT grading. This reporter held up a sample essay far enough away so it could not be read, and he was still able to guess the correct grade by its bulk and shape. "That's a 4," he said. "It looks like a 4."
A report released this week by the National Council of Teachers of English mirrors Dr. Perelman's criticism of the new SAT essay. It cautions that a single, 25-minute writing test ignores the most basic lesson of writing - that good writing is rewriting. It warns that the SAT is pushing schools toward "formulaic" writing instruction.
This is a far cry from all the hoopla when the new SAT was announced two years ago. College Board officials described it as a tool that could transform American education, forcing schools to better teach writing. A "great social experiment," Time magazine said.
In an interview, five top College Board officials strongly defended the writing test but sounded more muted about its usefulness. "The SAT essay should not be the primary way kids learn to write," said Wayne Camara, vice president for research. "It's one basic writing skill. If that's all the writing your high school English department is teaching, you have a problem."
They said that while there was a correlation between writing long and a high score, it was not as significant as Dr. Perelman stated. Graders also reward good short essays, they said, but the College Board erred by failing to release such samples to the public. "We will change that," said Chiara Coletti, a vice president.
As to facts not mattering, they said it was a necessary accommodation on such a short, high-pressure test. "We know students don't write well when they're anxious," said Ed Hardin, a College Board test specialist. "We don't want them not to go forward with that little detail. Our attitude is go right ahead with that missing date or fact and readers should be instructed not to count off for that."
Cynics say the new essay is window dressing added to placate California officials who in 2001 were calling the old SAT outmoded and were threatening to stop requiring it. In a recent paper, Edward White of the University of Arizona notes, "As long ago as 1999, in College Board Report No. 99-3, a research team pointed out that 'writing assessments based on a single essay, even those read and scored twice, have extremely low reliability.' "
Indeed, the College Board's own advanced placement tests require multiple essays, but officials say that is not possible for the SAT, which at nearly four hours, is being criticized as too long.
"You can't base a lot on one essay," Dr. Camara of the College Board admitted. He said that was why the new SAT writing section also included 49 multiple-choice questions on grammar and style. Multiple-choice counts for 75 percent of the new writing grade; the essay 25 percent. "The multiple-choice makes the writing test valid," he says. In short, the most untrustworthy part of the new SAT writing section is the writing sample.
E-mail: edmike@nytimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/04/education/04education.html?ex=1116043200&en=9e9fa7aaa789a096&ei=5070&pagewanted=1
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Utah Governor Snubs 'No Child' Requirements
May 3, 2005
SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- Gov. Jon Huntsman signed a measure Monday defying the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind Act despite a warning from the federal education secretary that it could cost $76 million in federal aid.
The bill represents the strongest stand against the federal law among 15 states considering anti-No Child Left Behind legislation this year. Utah is an overwhelmingly Republican state that strongly supported President Bush.
The legislation, passed during a special session of the Legislature last month, gives Utah's education standards priority over federal requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. It lets education officials ignore provisions of federal law that conflict with the state's program.
Huntsman, a Republican, signed the bill Monday at an elementary school in the legislative district of GOP Rep. Margaret Dayton, who has been leading the fight against what she calls the unfunded mandates of Bush's signature education law.
Huntsman's education deputy said he doubted Utah's stance would cost it any money.
"It empowers decision makers in the state education system, where there is conflict with federal law, to choose to follow the state objective first," Tim Bridgewater said.
Only schools serving low-income populations -- about a third of Utah's -- will have to wrestle over state and federal standards, he said.
Utah plans to obey benchmark No Child requirements, like reporting schools' annual yearly progress toward a goal of having all students excel in reading and math for their grade level, and informing parents when schools fail to measure up.
When schools fail, parents can demand a tutor or send their children to better schools in the same district.
Utah's preferred way of measuring student achievement is called U-PASS, or the Utah Performance Assessment System for Students, which compares achievement as students progress from grade to grade.
No Child Left Behind compares the grade-level test scores of students to the students in the same grade level from previous years.
The office of Education Secretary Margaret Spellings didn't immediately return a call Monday from The Associated Press. In her warning to Huntsman after legislators approved their measure, Spellings said Utah's bill could trigger the loss of funding if state educators strayed from the federal requirements.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/03/no.child.left.behind.ap/index.html
SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- Gov. Jon Huntsman signed a measure Monday defying the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind Act despite a warning from the federal education secretary that it could cost $76 million in federal aid.
The bill represents the strongest stand against the federal law among 15 states considering anti-No Child Left Behind legislation this year. Utah is an overwhelmingly Republican state that strongly supported President Bush.
The legislation, passed during a special session of the Legislature last month, gives Utah's education standards priority over federal requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. It lets education officials ignore provisions of federal law that conflict with the state's program.
Huntsman, a Republican, signed the bill Monday at an elementary school in the legislative district of GOP Rep. Margaret Dayton, who has been leading the fight against what she calls the unfunded mandates of Bush's signature education law.
Huntsman's education deputy said he doubted Utah's stance would cost it any money.
"It empowers decision makers in the state education system, where there is conflict with federal law, to choose to follow the state objective first," Tim Bridgewater said.
Only schools serving low-income populations -- about a third of Utah's -- will have to wrestle over state and federal standards, he said.
Utah plans to obey benchmark No Child requirements, like reporting schools' annual yearly progress toward a goal of having all students excel in reading and math for their grade level, and informing parents when schools fail to measure up.
When schools fail, parents can demand a tutor or send their children to better schools in the same district.
Utah's preferred way of measuring student achievement is called U-PASS, or the Utah Performance Assessment System for Students, which compares achievement as students progress from grade to grade.
No Child Left Behind compares the grade-level test scores of students to the students in the same grade level from previous years.
The office of Education Secretary Margaret Spellings didn't immediately return a call Monday from The Associated Press. In her warning to Huntsman after legislators approved their measure, Spellings said Utah's bill could trigger the loss of funding if state educators strayed from the federal requirements.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/03/no.child.left.behind.ap/index.html
Texas Lawmakers Face a Key Test on Vouchers
COMMENTARY
Texas lawmakers face a key test on vouchers
Kathy Miller, TEXAS FREEDOM NETWORK
Tuesday, May 03, 2005 / Austin American-Statesman
As the 2005 session of the Texas Legislature moves toward its final weeks, lawmakers face a clear and critical choice. They can choose to build on 20 years of reforms and standards that have improved our public schools — or they can let politics and campaign contributions dictate reckless policies such as private school vouchers.
Sadly, too many of our state's leaders have already chosen to abandon their responsibility. House and Senate leaders have been pushing bills that would erode quality education standards and let the education commissioner privatize hundreds of public schools.
Last month, the House Public Education Committee also heard 11 hours of testimony on three proposed voucher bills. Over a two-year period, those voucher schemes could drain $600 million to $2.2 billion from public schools to pay for tuition at private and religious schools.
We have been here before. Opposition to vouchers is so strong that lawmakers have rejected voucher bills in every legislative session since 1995. A recent Texas Poll showed that Texans, by a margin of 55 percent to 39 percent, oppose subsidizing private schools with tax dollars that should be
used to pay for things such as textbooks and teacher salaries at public schools.
Why, then, do voucher supporters think this is finally their year to prevail? One big reason for their optimism is that Gov. Rick Perry and other key officials won elections with millions of dollars supplied by wealthy pro-voucher special interests. This is payback time.
Pro-voucher lobbyists claim that our education system needs their radical "reform." But Texans already know what reforms work, and vouchers aren't part of the mix.
About 20 years ago, Texas embarked on an ambitious program to improve its public schools. It placed limits on class size, strengthened accountability standards, encouraged early reading intervention and moved to equalize funding to make our schools better.
Parents liked the results. A bipartisan poll in January showed that nearly two-thirds of Texans have seen improvement in public schools and want the state to fully finance the reforms that have brought about those improvements.
Some legislators have proposed reinforcing those proven standards to help schools that are still struggling. One proposal, for example, is to lower class sizes even more in such schools. Another is to send SWAT teams of master teachers and administrators from successful schools into struggling schools.
These proposals would build on the successes we have already seen. Vouchers would not.
Voucher students at private schools in other states often do not perform as well as students in public schools. In some states, such as Florida, officials created voucher programs that did not even track the performance of private schools.
Worse, private school voucher programs often don't serve the very students whom the programs were designed to help: low-income, at-risk and special-education students at struggling public schools. A recent study showed that only about 75 of 1,300 voucher students in Washington, D.C., this year came from public schools designated as most in need of improvement. This happened even though the new federal voucher program was designed specifically for students at those struggling schools.
So who used the vouchers? About 200 of the new voucher recipients were already enrolled in private schools.
The truth is hard to escape: wealthy voucher interests are simply looking for a way to use tax dollars to subsidize private schools. But many students then get left behind in public schools that have even fewer resources. That's not just bad public policy. It's plain wrong.
It doesn't have to be this way. Texas legislators can still choose to stand with the vast majority of Texas parents and teachers who want strong public schools. Or they can bow to the demands of wealthy campaign contributors who want vouchers. They can't do both.
Miller is president of the Texas Freedom Network, a group that monitors public education, religious freedom and individual liberties.
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/05/3vouchers_edit.html
Texas lawmakers face a key test on vouchers
Kathy Miller, TEXAS FREEDOM NETWORK
Tuesday, May 03, 2005 / Austin American-Statesman
As the 2005 session of the Texas Legislature moves toward its final weeks, lawmakers face a clear and critical choice. They can choose to build on 20 years of reforms and standards that have improved our public schools — or they can let politics and campaign contributions dictate reckless policies such as private school vouchers.
Sadly, too many of our state's leaders have already chosen to abandon their responsibility. House and Senate leaders have been pushing bills that would erode quality education standards and let the education commissioner privatize hundreds of public schools.
Last month, the House Public Education Committee also heard 11 hours of testimony on three proposed voucher bills. Over a two-year period, those voucher schemes could drain $600 million to $2.2 billion from public schools to pay for tuition at private and religious schools.
We have been here before. Opposition to vouchers is so strong that lawmakers have rejected voucher bills in every legislative session since 1995. A recent Texas Poll showed that Texans, by a margin of 55 percent to 39 percent, oppose subsidizing private schools with tax dollars that should be
used to pay for things such as textbooks and teacher salaries at public schools.
Why, then, do voucher supporters think this is finally their year to prevail? One big reason for their optimism is that Gov. Rick Perry and other key officials won elections with millions of dollars supplied by wealthy pro-voucher special interests. This is payback time.
Pro-voucher lobbyists claim that our education system needs their radical "reform." But Texans already know what reforms work, and vouchers aren't part of the mix.
About 20 years ago, Texas embarked on an ambitious program to improve its public schools. It placed limits on class size, strengthened accountability standards, encouraged early reading intervention and moved to equalize funding to make our schools better.
Parents liked the results. A bipartisan poll in January showed that nearly two-thirds of Texans have seen improvement in public schools and want the state to fully finance the reforms that have brought about those improvements.
Some legislators have proposed reinforcing those proven standards to help schools that are still struggling. One proposal, for example, is to lower class sizes even more in such schools. Another is to send SWAT teams of master teachers and administrators from successful schools into struggling schools.
These proposals would build on the successes we have already seen. Vouchers would not.
Voucher students at private schools in other states often do not perform as well as students in public schools. In some states, such as Florida, officials created voucher programs that did not even track the performance of private schools.
Worse, private school voucher programs often don't serve the very students whom the programs were designed to help: low-income, at-risk and special-education students at struggling public schools. A recent study showed that only about 75 of 1,300 voucher students in Washington, D.C., this year came from public schools designated as most in need of improvement. This happened even though the new federal voucher program was designed specifically for students at those struggling schools.
So who used the vouchers? About 200 of the new voucher recipients were already enrolled in private schools.
The truth is hard to escape: wealthy voucher interests are simply looking for a way to use tax dollars to subsidize private schools. But many students then get left behind in public schools that have even fewer resources. That's not just bad public policy. It's plain wrong.
It doesn't have to be this way. Texas legislators can still choose to stand with the vast majority of Texas parents and teachers who want strong public schools. Or they can bow to the demands of wealthy campaign contributors who want vouchers. They can't do both.
Miller is president of the Texas Freedom Network, a group that monitors public education, religious freedom and individual liberties.
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/05/3vouchers_edit.html
Monday, May 02, 2005
Don't Open School Doors
Interesting take on the homeschool bill being proposed this session. -
Angela
Bill benefits public system, not Texas home-schoolers
by Stephen Lunsford
10:01 PM CDT on Sunday, May 1, 2005
State Rep. Brian McCall's proposal to open public school classes and extracurricular activities to home-schooled students in Texas, while it looks good on the surface, could backfire in a big way on the same people it purports to help.
Mr. McCall's proposed legislation, House Bill 368, would blur the well-defined line between public schools and home schools. Under current Texas law, children taught at home are considered private school students, so their instructors, usually their parents, have much more leeway in how to teach them.
Mr. McCall's legislation would create a whole new legal definition of home-schoolers, which could put at risk the private school designation as confirmed by the Texas Supreme Court in its June 18, 1994, unanimous decision.
By taking certain classes in public schools, such as foreign language or chemistry, or participating in public school activities, such as band or a sport, home-schooled students would, of course, become part of the public school system. Currently, public schools have no authority over home-schooled students, but once the home-schooled student enrolls in even one public school class, that question of authority becomes much less clear.
Not to be alarmist, but home-school families should realize that once a public system has some authority over home-schooling families, there is a strong probability that more authority and control will follow.
While the McCall bill purports to offer benefits to home-schoolers, we at the North Texas Home Educators' Network believe that its primary purpose is, first and foremost, to benefit public school districts, which would be able to count those part-time students in their enrollment figures and claim additional state funds.
Home education is clearly a lost revenue stream for the Plano Independent School District, and it is obvious that the recouping of that lost revenue is the driving force behind this legislation.
Most home-schooling families either left the public system or never became part of it for very good reasons of their own, and this legislation would do nothing in terms of addressing those reasons.
Many home-schooling parents disdain the atmosphere of the public school system, with its greater risk of physical harm, its false sense of true socialization and its inability to use teaching methods based on the learning style that is best for the student rather than the instructor. Others want to be able to reflect their own values and religious beliefs in their teaching, which the public schools could never do.
We also doubt that a significant number of home-schooling parents see a real need to take part in specialized classes or extracurricular activities. With the large number of home-schooled students throughout North Texas, there are already home-school cooperatives and enrichment programs that share teaching responsibilities to leverage instructors' expertise, and these same groups offer many extracurricular activities as well.
Yes, a few parents might take the chance and put their child into one or two public school classes, but we don't believe many will be interested. Plano schools would be better served by focusing on other revenue enhancements and leaving the home education community alone. We're doing just fine.
Stephen Lunsford is vice president of administration for the North Texas Home Educators' Network. His e-mail address is administration@nthen.org.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/050205dnedilunsford.6752415d.html
Angela
Bill benefits public system, not Texas home-schoolers
by Stephen Lunsford
10:01 PM CDT on Sunday, May 1, 2005
State Rep. Brian McCall's proposal to open public school classes and extracurricular activities to home-schooled students in Texas, while it looks good on the surface, could backfire in a big way on the same people it purports to help.
Mr. McCall's proposed legislation, House Bill 368, would blur the well-defined line between public schools and home schools. Under current Texas law, children taught at home are considered private school students, so their instructors, usually their parents, have much more leeway in how to teach them.
Mr. McCall's legislation would create a whole new legal definition of home-schoolers, which could put at risk the private school designation as confirmed by the Texas Supreme Court in its June 18, 1994, unanimous decision.
By taking certain classes in public schools, such as foreign language or chemistry, or participating in public school activities, such as band or a sport, home-schooled students would, of course, become part of the public school system. Currently, public schools have no authority over home-schooled students, but once the home-schooled student enrolls in even one public school class, that question of authority becomes much less clear.
Not to be alarmist, but home-school families should realize that once a public system has some authority over home-schooling families, there is a strong probability that more authority and control will follow.
While the McCall bill purports to offer benefits to home-schoolers, we at the North Texas Home Educators' Network believe that its primary purpose is, first and foremost, to benefit public school districts, which would be able to count those part-time students in their enrollment figures and claim additional state funds.
Home education is clearly a lost revenue stream for the Plano Independent School District, and it is obvious that the recouping of that lost revenue is the driving force behind this legislation.
Most home-schooling families either left the public system or never became part of it for very good reasons of their own, and this legislation would do nothing in terms of addressing those reasons.
Many home-schooling parents disdain the atmosphere of the public school system, with its greater risk of physical harm, its false sense of true socialization and its inability to use teaching methods based on the learning style that is best for the student rather than the instructor. Others want to be able to reflect their own values and religious beliefs in their teaching, which the public schools could never do.
We also doubt that a significant number of home-schooling parents see a real need to take part in specialized classes or extracurricular activities. With the large number of home-schooled students throughout North Texas, there are already home-school cooperatives and enrichment programs that share teaching responsibilities to leverage instructors' expertise, and these same groups offer many extracurricular activities as well.
Yes, a few parents might take the chance and put their child into one or two public school classes, but we don't believe many will be interested. Plano schools would be better served by focusing on other revenue enhancements and leaving the home education community alone. We're doing just fine.
Stephen Lunsford is vice president of administration for the North Texas Home Educators' Network. His e-mail address is administration@nthen.org.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/050205dnedilunsford.6752415d.html
Education Personal for Some Politicos
Peggy Fikac
Chief, Express-News Austin bureau
05/02/2005
AUSTIN — As lawmakers battle over education issues ranging from public school finance to tax-funded private school tuition, some have a very personal stake in the fight — their own children.
A survey of the 181 state lawmakers by the San Antonio Express-News found that nearly a third have children in kindergarten through the 12th grade. Only one lawmaker didn't answer the survey.
Of the 59 with school-age children, 35 chose public schools and 16 picked private schools — including some of the strongest opponents of tax-financed vouchers for private-school tuition.
"My children started the day every day praying to the Virgin Mary. We wanted them to," said Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, who has six children, including two school-age youths who attend a Catholic high school. "That's not appropriate for public dollars."
Some who send their children to private schools disagree, saying other parents should be empowered to make that choice through vouchers.
Seven lawmakers have children in both public and private schools, while one said he uses a combination of private, public and home schooling.
"Home-schooling has never been my legislative agenda. It's just my life," said Rep. Carl Isett, R-Lubbock, four of whose seven children are school age. "I do, however, believe that every family should have that right to do what's best for their family."
The 27 percent of lawmakers with children solely in private schools represents a bigger chunk than the general private-school population.
According to the latest figures available from the National Center for Education Statistics, when looking at students who attend public and private schools, 5.5 percent in Texas and 10.1 percent nationally were privately educated in 2001-2002.
Also, the Texas Home School Coalition estimates 250,000 to 300,000 Texas children are home-schooled, said its president, Tim Lambert.
Lawmakers say they make policy decisions for the good of the state regardless of their personal circumstances, although some add that their views are shaped by their experiences.
Those who pick private schools give reasons ranging from the desire for a religious education to a youngsters' individual needs.
But they say that in policy decisions, their personal choice doesn't detract from their attention to the public schools that educate most children.
"You could say, 'Well, he's paying to have his kids in private school. He doesn't care about the public schools.' That's not true," said Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston, whose 5-year-old attends a religious school.
"You could also say, maybe he's going to work like the dickens to get the public schools even better and save himself a bundle of money," he said.
Among other points, Janek said the private-school experience makes him attuned to the value of smaller classes.
Some who send their children to public school say they feel the effects of policy decisions every day.
"I have daily experience with my kids coming home from public school," said Rep. Jim Dunnam, D-Waco.
"I see everything from my boy saying his book's old and tearing apart to the fact that they're doing TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) worksheets more often than I like," he said. "It's not just money. It's what's going on in the school."
Some lawmakers cite their ability to make a choice about schools in touting their desire to give other parents the financial means to choose.
"I support empowering parents," said Rep. Frank Corte, R-San Antonio, sponsor of a bill to create a pilot voucher program for economically disadvantaged youngsters. "Under the current situation, the only folks who get to enjoy that empowerment are people who have the resources."
Corte's children attend a First Baptist school, and he, like others making a similar choice, said he considers the religious environment important.
"We want them to attend a school where they can study the Bible and be able to pray," he said, stressing that he also supports public education.
Among voucher opponents' concerns is that such a program would hurt students by draining needed money from public schools, while voucher supporters say competition would improve schools.
For Rep. Robert Puente, D-San Antonio, the voucher issue is clear-cut and separate from his personal decision to send his children to Catholic school.
"I'm going to vote how I think my district is best-served," Puente he said. "And I think my district is best-served by voting against vouchers."
Somewhere in the middle is Rep. Joe Straus, R-San Antonio. He has one child in public school, one in private school and an open mind on vouchers. He said he'd need to see bill details before deciding how he'd vote.
As for his personal experiences bearing on policy decisions, Straus said, "I really do see both sides.
"To represent my district, I think I need to be especially attuned to the public school system. But I understand the benefits of a private school education," he said. "Every child is different. It's that way in my house."
Several lawmakers with children in public or private schools have moved them between the two in the past — or plan to do so in the future — based on their needs.
Rep. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham, has a daughter in kindergarten at a church school where her sister-in-law is superintendent, and a toddler son right behind.
"With the demands of my job, I feel so secure being able to drop her off where there is a family member," she said.
But the school only goes through second grade, so both children will move later to public school, she said, adding that she's fortunate because the children have an aunt who is a public school teacher.
"I want my children to go to public school. I believe public school is in many ways the great melting pot of many, many facets of life," she said. "I think as (my children) progress, Mama will progress with them on thinking how good we're doing on policies."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
pfikac@express-news.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/stategov/stories/MYSA050205.01A.schoolsurvey.232998142.html
Chief, Express-News Austin bureau
05/02/2005
AUSTIN — As lawmakers battle over education issues ranging from public school finance to tax-funded private school tuition, some have a very personal stake in the fight — their own children.
A survey of the 181 state lawmakers by the San Antonio Express-News found that nearly a third have children in kindergarten through the 12th grade. Only one lawmaker didn't answer the survey.
Of the 59 with school-age children, 35 chose public schools and 16 picked private schools — including some of the strongest opponents of tax-financed vouchers for private-school tuition.
"My children started the day every day praying to the Virgin Mary. We wanted them to," said Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, who has six children, including two school-age youths who attend a Catholic high school. "That's not appropriate for public dollars."
Some who send their children to private schools disagree, saying other parents should be empowered to make that choice through vouchers.
Seven lawmakers have children in both public and private schools, while one said he uses a combination of private, public and home schooling.
"Home-schooling has never been my legislative agenda. It's just my life," said Rep. Carl Isett, R-Lubbock, four of whose seven children are school age. "I do, however, believe that every family should have that right to do what's best for their family."
The 27 percent of lawmakers with children solely in private schools represents a bigger chunk than the general private-school population.
According to the latest figures available from the National Center for Education Statistics, when looking at students who attend public and private schools, 5.5 percent in Texas and 10.1 percent nationally were privately educated in 2001-2002.
Also, the Texas Home School Coalition estimates 250,000 to 300,000 Texas children are home-schooled, said its president, Tim Lambert.
Lawmakers say they make policy decisions for the good of the state regardless of their personal circumstances, although some add that their views are shaped by their experiences.
Those who pick private schools give reasons ranging from the desire for a religious education to a youngsters' individual needs.
But they say that in policy decisions, their personal choice doesn't detract from their attention to the public schools that educate most children.
"You could say, 'Well, he's paying to have his kids in private school. He doesn't care about the public schools.' That's not true," said Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston, whose 5-year-old attends a religious school.
"You could also say, maybe he's going to work like the dickens to get the public schools even better and save himself a bundle of money," he said.
Among other points, Janek said the private-school experience makes him attuned to the value of smaller classes.
Some who send their children to public school say they feel the effects of policy decisions every day.
"I have daily experience with my kids coming home from public school," said Rep. Jim Dunnam, D-Waco.
"I see everything from my boy saying his book's old and tearing apart to the fact that they're doing TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) worksheets more often than I like," he said. "It's not just money. It's what's going on in the school."
Some lawmakers cite their ability to make a choice about schools in touting their desire to give other parents the financial means to choose.
"I support empowering parents," said Rep. Frank Corte, R-San Antonio, sponsor of a bill to create a pilot voucher program for economically disadvantaged youngsters. "Under the current situation, the only folks who get to enjoy that empowerment are people who have the resources."
Corte's children attend a First Baptist school, and he, like others making a similar choice, said he considers the religious environment important.
"We want them to attend a school where they can study the Bible and be able to pray," he said, stressing that he also supports public education.
Among voucher opponents' concerns is that such a program would hurt students by draining needed money from public schools, while voucher supporters say competition would improve schools.
For Rep. Robert Puente, D-San Antonio, the voucher issue is clear-cut and separate from his personal decision to send his children to Catholic school.
"I'm going to vote how I think my district is best-served," Puente he said. "And I think my district is best-served by voting against vouchers."
Somewhere in the middle is Rep. Joe Straus, R-San Antonio. He has one child in public school, one in private school and an open mind on vouchers. He said he'd need to see bill details before deciding how he'd vote.
As for his personal experiences bearing on policy decisions, Straus said, "I really do see both sides.
"To represent my district, I think I need to be especially attuned to the public school system. But I understand the benefits of a private school education," he said. "Every child is different. It's that way in my house."
Several lawmakers with children in public or private schools have moved them between the two in the past — or plan to do so in the future — based on their needs.
Rep. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham, has a daughter in kindergarten at a church school where her sister-in-law is superintendent, and a toddler son right behind.
"With the demands of my job, I feel so secure being able to drop her off where there is a family member," she said.
But the school only goes through second grade, so both children will move later to public school, she said, adding that she's fortunate because the children have an aunt who is a public school teacher.
"I want my children to go to public school. I believe public school is in many ways the great melting pot of many, many facets of life," she said. "I think as (my children) progress, Mama will progress with them on thinking how good we're doing on policies."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
pfikac@express-news.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/stategov/stories/MYSA050205.01A.schoolsurvey.232998142.html
Higher Taxes in School Finance Plan
Proposal would increase sales, cigarette and alcohol taxes; businesses could see state tax
Monday, May 2, 2005
Associated Press
AUSTIN — Texans would pay higher sales, cigarette and alcohol taxes and more businesses would be forced to pay a state tax under a school finance proposal put forth Monday by a Senate committee.
The plan is designed to offset school property tax cuts and generate more money for public education. It attempts to reduce property taxes by $6 billion over the next two years, if a proposed constitutional amendment is passed allowing a statewide property tax.
The Senate Finance Committee plan differs in key areas from a House school finance tax plan approved last month.
Alcohol excise taxes would go up by 25 percent from existing rates under the Senate proposal. The House plan did not include an alcohol tax increase.
Businesses under the Senate proposal would pay a 2.5 percent tax on earned surplus, which is lower than the existing franchise tax. But more businesses would have to pay. The Senate proposal would cover all businesses except sole proprietorships.
The state sales tax would go up from the current 6.25 percent to 6.75 percent. That would include taxes paid on motor vehicles and boats.
Under the Senate plan, the cigarette tax would be increased by 60 cents per pack, up to $1.01 per pack. The current rate is 41 cents a pack.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/050205dnpoltex.235a2492a.html
Monday, May 2, 2005
Associated Press
AUSTIN — Texans would pay higher sales, cigarette and alcohol taxes and more businesses would be forced to pay a state tax under a school finance proposal put forth Monday by a Senate committee.
The plan is designed to offset school property tax cuts and generate more money for public education. It attempts to reduce property taxes by $6 billion over the next two years, if a proposed constitutional amendment is passed allowing a statewide property tax.
The Senate Finance Committee plan differs in key areas from a House school finance tax plan approved last month.
Alcohol excise taxes would go up by 25 percent from existing rates under the Senate proposal. The House plan did not include an alcohol tax increase.
Businesses under the Senate proposal would pay a 2.5 percent tax on earned surplus, which is lower than the existing franchise tax. But more businesses would have to pay. The Senate proposal would cover all businesses except sole proprietorships.
The state sales tax would go up from the current 6.25 percent to 6.75 percent. That would include taxes paid on motor vehicles and boats.
Under the Senate plan, the cigarette tax would be increased by 60 cents per pack, up to $1.01 per pack. The current rate is 41 cents a pack.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/050205dnpoltex.235a2492a.html
Sunday, May 01, 2005
High Court to Hear School Case in July
Based on the info below, one possible scenario is no decision on school finance will be made this session since the high court still has to hear the court case and with a special session on school finance happening sometime during the biennium (this fall?). This despite the present consolidation of power and a strong desire on the governor to make it all happen this time around. We’ll see what happens. -Angela
High Court to Hear School Case in July
08:09 PM CDT on Friday, April 22, 2005
From Staff Reports
AUSTIN – The Texas Supreme Court said Friday that it will hear oral arguments in the state's appeal of a district court ruling that found the school finance system unconstitutional and ordered billions more in funding for schools.
Justices agreed to hear the case on July 6, more than a month after the legislative session ends. A top priority of lawmakers this session is to fix the troubled funding system without court intervention.
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst predicted Friday that legislators will act independently of the courts. "We don't believe the courts ought to be drawing our school finance plan," he said. "It is out the question for the Senate to punt this important issue to the courts."
But House and Senate members are still far from agreement on a new funding plan with just over five weeks left in the session. They are under an Oct. 1 deadline to come up with a new system or state District Judge John Dietz will issue an injunction to cut off all funding for public schools ú about $30 billion a year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/legislature/schoolfinance/stories/042205dntexschool.201f1924d.html
High Court to Hear School Case in July
08:09 PM CDT on Friday, April 22, 2005
From Staff Reports
AUSTIN – The Texas Supreme Court said Friday that it will hear oral arguments in the state's appeal of a district court ruling that found the school finance system unconstitutional and ordered billions more in funding for schools.
Justices agreed to hear the case on July 6, more than a month after the legislative session ends. A top priority of lawmakers this session is to fix the troubled funding system without court intervention.
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst predicted Friday that legislators will act independently of the courts. "We don't believe the courts ought to be drawing our school finance plan," he said. "It is out the question for the Senate to punt this important issue to the courts."
But House and Senate members are still far from agreement on a new funding plan with just over five weeks left in the session. They are under an Oct. 1 deadline to come up with a new system or state District Judge John Dietz will issue an injunction to cut off all funding for public schools ú about $30 billion a year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/legislature/schoolfinance/stories/042205dntexschool.201f1924d.html
School Finance Bill: Take Two
Revision lighter on tax relief, funding; teachers could get bigger raises
11:14 PM CDT on Monday, April 25, 2005
By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News
AUSTIN – Senate leaders revised their school finance and education reform plan Monday, offering slightly less property tax relief and new funding for education – but proposing a bigger raise for teachers if a new statewide property tax is created.
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, say the revised school finance bill addresses concerns about taxes and adequate funding and teacher salaries. Teachers would receive a $3,000 increase by fall 2006 if the bill passed.
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Sen. Florence Shapiro, who heads the Senate Education Committee, said the rewritten plan would still accomplish Senate leaders' goals: overhauling the troubled finance system and paying for needed reforms to improve student achievement.
"This is a permanent bill that would have lasting effect," Mr. Dewhurst said. "It provides broad reform and raises standards."
Mr. Dewhurst also emphasized that the legislation is a "work in progress" and could be revised further in the next week or two. The bill is supposed to go before the full Senate next week.
Details of the plan outlined by the Senate diverge widely from a bill passed by the House in March, meaning lawmakers face the prospect of tough negotiations in the final month of the legislative session. A state judge has ordered that the $30 billion-a-year school finance system be retooled this year; the state has appealed that ruling to the Texas Supreme Court.
The pay boost for teachers is among the most significant changes in the Senate bill, although the extra money is contingent on passage of a constitutional amendment to create the statewide tax. Approval would require a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate and voter approval in a statewide election.
By fall 2006, teachers would receive a total increase of $3,000; the earlier version of the Senate plan included a $1,500 raise for teachers this fall. Teachers could earn more if they qualify for bonuses under a new incentive pay program based mostly on student test scores.
"This puts Texas on the map of the national average for teacher compensation," Ms. Shapiro said.
Teacher groups were skeptical.
"We're still not happy with the salary plan in this bill," said Richard Kouri of the Texas State Teachers Association, citing the contingencies for the raises and teacher opposition to the merit play plan.
In terms of funding, the bill is scaled back slightly to $2.8 billion in new money over the next two years. The earlier version of the measure called for additional funding of $3.2 billion; the House approved $3 billion. Those amounts are far less than what a state judge indicated was necessary to fix the school finance system.
Further, senators trimmed the amount of proposed school property tax relief. While the Senate for several months stood behind a 33 percent cut in the maximum school property tax rate – from $1.50 to $1 per $100 valuation – the new plan envisions a two-step reduction of 20 cents next year and 20 cents the following year – down to a new maximum rate of $1.10.
Mr. Dewhurst said the $1 tax rate will be reached, but it may require a third or fourth year.
In addition, the property tax rate would be split between a statewide rate of 85 cents and a local rate of 25 cents. Previously, the Senate plan proposed only a state property tax for funding of schools.
"Many school superintendents and school board members feared a full-blown state property tax, so we are proposing a mix" of state and local taxes, Ms. Shapiro said. The practical effect is negligible, as the state would guarantee that all districts would still receive the same basic level of funding per student at the combined rate of $1.10.
Districts could also add another 5 cents every two years – or up to 15 cents over six years – for local programs. The extra levy could not be imposed before the 2006-07 school year, however.
E-mail tstutz@dallasnews.com
HOW BILLS DIFFER
Property Taxes
HOUSE: Would cut tax rate a third in 2006-07 and retain local property tax for schools with rate of $1 per $100 valuation
SENATE: Would cut tax rate by 27 percent and shift to combined local and state property tax of $1.10, but would give an initial 20-cent tax reduction this fall.
Teacher Pay
HOUSE: Would raise pay $2,500 and create a $385 million incentive pay program.
SENATE: Pay raise of $3,000 over two years – contingent on a new state property tax – and create a $100 million merit pay program.
Starting Date
HOUSE: Classes begn in all schools the Tuesday after Labor Day.
SENATE: Leaves current optional starting date in the third week of August.
Student Testing
HOUSE: Elminate Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills for high school students and switch to end-of-course exams in core subject areas.
SENATE: Retain the current TAKS test for high school students in grades nine to 11.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/legislature/schoolfinance/stories/042605dntexschoolfinance.48f8a787.html
11:14 PM CDT on Monday, April 25, 2005
By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News
AUSTIN – Senate leaders revised their school finance and education reform plan Monday, offering slightly less property tax relief and new funding for education – but proposing a bigger raise for teachers if a new statewide property tax is created.
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, say the revised school finance bill addresses concerns about taxes and adequate funding and teacher salaries. Teachers would receive a $3,000 increase by fall 2006 if the bill passed.
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Sen. Florence Shapiro, who heads the Senate Education Committee, said the rewritten plan would still accomplish Senate leaders' goals: overhauling the troubled finance system and paying for needed reforms to improve student achievement.
"This is a permanent bill that would have lasting effect," Mr. Dewhurst said. "It provides broad reform and raises standards."
Mr. Dewhurst also emphasized that the legislation is a "work in progress" and could be revised further in the next week or two. The bill is supposed to go before the full Senate next week.
Details of the plan outlined by the Senate diverge widely from a bill passed by the House in March, meaning lawmakers face the prospect of tough negotiations in the final month of the legislative session. A state judge has ordered that the $30 billion-a-year school finance system be retooled this year; the state has appealed that ruling to the Texas Supreme Court.
The pay boost for teachers is among the most significant changes in the Senate bill, although the extra money is contingent on passage of a constitutional amendment to create the statewide tax. Approval would require a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate and voter approval in a statewide election.
By fall 2006, teachers would receive a total increase of $3,000; the earlier version of the Senate plan included a $1,500 raise for teachers this fall. Teachers could earn more if they qualify for bonuses under a new incentive pay program based mostly on student test scores.
"This puts Texas on the map of the national average for teacher compensation," Ms. Shapiro said.
Teacher groups were skeptical.
"We're still not happy with the salary plan in this bill," said Richard Kouri of the Texas State Teachers Association, citing the contingencies for the raises and teacher opposition to the merit play plan.
In terms of funding, the bill is scaled back slightly to $2.8 billion in new money over the next two years. The earlier version of the measure called for additional funding of $3.2 billion; the House approved $3 billion. Those amounts are far less than what a state judge indicated was necessary to fix the school finance system.
Further, senators trimmed the amount of proposed school property tax relief. While the Senate for several months stood behind a 33 percent cut in the maximum school property tax rate – from $1.50 to $1 per $100 valuation – the new plan envisions a two-step reduction of 20 cents next year and 20 cents the following year – down to a new maximum rate of $1.10.
Mr. Dewhurst said the $1 tax rate will be reached, but it may require a third or fourth year.
In addition, the property tax rate would be split between a statewide rate of 85 cents and a local rate of 25 cents. Previously, the Senate plan proposed only a state property tax for funding of schools.
"Many school superintendents and school board members feared a full-blown state property tax, so we are proposing a mix" of state and local taxes, Ms. Shapiro said. The practical effect is negligible, as the state would guarantee that all districts would still receive the same basic level of funding per student at the combined rate of $1.10.
Districts could also add another 5 cents every two years – or up to 15 cents over six years – for local programs. The extra levy could not be imposed before the 2006-07 school year, however.
E-mail tstutz@dallasnews.com
HOW BILLS DIFFER
Property Taxes
HOUSE: Would cut tax rate a third in 2006-07 and retain local property tax for schools with rate of $1 per $100 valuation
SENATE: Would cut tax rate by 27 percent and shift to combined local and state property tax of $1.10, but would give an initial 20-cent tax reduction this fall.
Teacher Pay
HOUSE: Would raise pay $2,500 and create a $385 million incentive pay program.
SENATE: Pay raise of $3,000 over two years – contingent on a new state property tax – and create a $100 million merit pay program.
Starting Date
HOUSE: Classes begn in all schools the Tuesday after Labor Day.
SENATE: Leaves current optional starting date in the third week of August.
Student Testing
HOUSE: Elminate Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills for high school students and switch to end-of-course exams in core subject areas.
SENATE: Retain the current TAKS test for high school students in grades nine to 11.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/legislature/schoolfinance/stories/042605dntexschoolfinance.48f8a787.html
Home-Schooling Drawing More Evangelical Christians
Home-Schooling Drawing More Evangelical Christians
May 1, 2005
NEW HARTFORD, Conn. --Charlie Marsh's home-schooling has included reading, writing and creationism.
The New Hartford boy, who will graduate high school May 21 in a small ceremony at his family's church, is one of a growing number of evangelical Christian students to be home-schooled.
Educated at home by his born-again Christian parents since he was 8, he was taught science from a creationist point of view and history from a Christian perspective.
The Home School Legal Defense Association, an advocacy group, estimates that American home-schooling is a $750 million dollar industry that could hit $1 billion in the next few years. The Virginia-based group says evangelical Christians account for 70 percent of that market.
"The curriculum market even 10 years ago was not that large," said Ian Slatter, a spokesman for the group. "What we have seen is an explosion with the Internet."
There also are more formalized hands-on programs for home-schooling families than were first available to the Marsh family.
One of them, Connecticut's TeenPact -- which gives home-schooled Christian students the chance to spend a week at the state Capitol learning about the political process -- did not exist. The national TeenPact program begun in Georgia in the 1990s and established in Connecticut last year, gave Charlie Marsh a chance to experience the lessons and mock debates -- and to pray for lawmakers.
He said he learned a lot from the experience, as one of 44 students who participated in the program's debut.
The students started each day with a prayer walk on Capitol grounds. Ruth Martin, 16, a participant from Glastonbury, said that she disagrees with the state granting civil unions to same-sex couples, and that TeenPact reaffirms what she can do about it.
"We can pray about it and hope that God can change people's hearts," she said.
Nationwide, about 1.1 million children are educated at home for a variety of reasons, according to the most recent figures available from the federal Department of Education. That survey found that 16 percent of home-schooling parents were dissatisfied with public schools. And 30 percent said they kept their children home to provide religious or moral instruction.
The Education Association of Christian Homeschoolers of Connecticut estimates that there are 3,000 to 5,000 home-schooled children in the state.
Charlie Marsh's mother, Barbara Marsh, said she and her husband made the decision 11 years ago to home-school their children when Charlie was attending the Bakerville Consolidated School down the street.
"We are born-again Christians, and I figured I'd be beating my head against the wall for the next 12 years trying to debrief them," she said.
Mother and son recalled the time when Charlie was very young and challenged what his teacher had said about the development of turtle shells.
"How do you know the turtle wasn't always that way?" he asked the teacher. He remembers the response: "That's your religion, and this is science."
Barbara Marsh has been her son's teacher, curriculum coordinator, field trip planner, and guidance counselor for the last decade. She estimates he will have a high school grade point average of about 3.0, but she can't finalize the transcript until he finishes his last class, chemistry.
Most of his high school classes have been in traditional subjects -- English grammar, earth science, early American literature. He also had a course called study of intelligent design. He also received credit for a course in puppetry and production for his work with shows put on by his church.
All he has left to worry about between now and the start of the fall term is finishing up chemistry and completing his graduation speech. He will be one of three home-schooled students honored in a graduation ceremony at Faith Bible Church in Winsted.
He knows he will get as much time as he wants for his speech.
"I should make it a little bit longer," he joked. "I have to make up for about 100 people."
------
Information from: The Hartford Courant, http://www.courant.com/
http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2005/05/01/home_schooling_drawing_more_evangelical_christians/
May 1, 2005
NEW HARTFORD, Conn. --Charlie Marsh's home-schooling has included reading, writing and creationism.
The New Hartford boy, who will graduate high school May 21 in a small ceremony at his family's church, is one of a growing number of evangelical Christian students to be home-schooled.
Educated at home by his born-again Christian parents since he was 8, he was taught science from a creationist point of view and history from a Christian perspective.
The Home School Legal Defense Association, an advocacy group, estimates that American home-schooling is a $750 million dollar industry that could hit $1 billion in the next few years. The Virginia-based group says evangelical Christians account for 70 percent of that market.
"The curriculum market even 10 years ago was not that large," said Ian Slatter, a spokesman for the group. "What we have seen is an explosion with the Internet."
There also are more formalized hands-on programs for home-schooling families than were first available to the Marsh family.
One of them, Connecticut's TeenPact -- which gives home-schooled Christian students the chance to spend a week at the state Capitol learning about the political process -- did not exist. The national TeenPact program begun in Georgia in the 1990s and established in Connecticut last year, gave Charlie Marsh a chance to experience the lessons and mock debates -- and to pray for lawmakers.
He said he learned a lot from the experience, as one of 44 students who participated in the program's debut.
The students started each day with a prayer walk on Capitol grounds. Ruth Martin, 16, a participant from Glastonbury, said that she disagrees with the state granting civil unions to same-sex couples, and that TeenPact reaffirms what she can do about it.
"We can pray about it and hope that God can change people's hearts," she said.
Nationwide, about 1.1 million children are educated at home for a variety of reasons, according to the most recent figures available from the federal Department of Education. That survey found that 16 percent of home-schooling parents were dissatisfied with public schools. And 30 percent said they kept their children home to provide religious or moral instruction.
The Education Association of Christian Homeschoolers of Connecticut estimates that there are 3,000 to 5,000 home-schooled children in the state.
Charlie Marsh's mother, Barbara Marsh, said she and her husband made the decision 11 years ago to home-school their children when Charlie was attending the Bakerville Consolidated School down the street.
"We are born-again Christians, and I figured I'd be beating my head against the wall for the next 12 years trying to debrief them," she said.
Mother and son recalled the time when Charlie was very young and challenged what his teacher had said about the development of turtle shells.
"How do you know the turtle wasn't always that way?" he asked the teacher. He remembers the response: "That's your religion, and this is science."
Barbara Marsh has been her son's teacher, curriculum coordinator, field trip planner, and guidance counselor for the last decade. She estimates he will have a high school grade point average of about 3.0, but she can't finalize the transcript until he finishes his last class, chemistry.
Most of his high school classes have been in traditional subjects -- English grammar, earth science, early American literature. He also had a course called study of intelligent design. He also received credit for a course in puppetry and production for his work with shows put on by his church.
All he has left to worry about between now and the start of the fall term is finishing up chemistry and completing his graduation speech. He will be one of three home-schooled students honored in a graduation ceremony at Faith Bible Church in Winsted.
He knows he will get as much time as he wants for his speech.
"I should make it a little bit longer," he joked. "I have to make up for about 100 people."
------
Information from: The Hartford Courant, http://www.courant.com/
http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2005/05/01/home_schooling_drawing_more_evangelical_christians/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)