Laredo ISD is one Texas district, by the way, that's named in this lawsuit. Go LISD!!! -Angela
by BEN FELLER
AP Education Writer
April 20, 2005
WASHINGTON (AP) _ The nation's largest teachers union and school districts in three states are launching a legal fight over No Child Left Behind, aiming to free schools from complying with any part of the education law not paid for by the federal government. The lawsuit, expected to be filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for eastern Michigan, is the most sweeping challenge to President Bush's signature education policy. The outcome would apply only to the districts involved but could have implications for all schools nationwide. Leading the fight is the National Education Association, a union of 2.7 million members that represents many public educators and is financing the lawsuit. The other plaintiffs are nine school districts in Michigan, Texas and Vermont, plus 10 NEA chapters in those three states and Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Utah. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, as the chief officer of the agency that enforces the law, is the only defendant. The suit centers on a question that has overshadowed the law since Bush signed it in 2002: whether the president and Congress have provided enough money. The challenge is built upon one paragraph in the law that says no state or school district can be forced to spend its money on expenses the federal government has not covered. ``What it means is just what it says _ that you don't have to do anything this law requires unless you receive federal funds to do it,'' said NEA general counsel Bob Chanin. ``We want the Department of Education to simply do what Congress told it to do. There's a promise in that law, it's unambiguous, and it's not being complied with.'' The plaintiffs want a judge to order that states and schools don't have to spend their own money to pay for the law's expenses _ and order the Education Department not to try to yank federal money from a state or school that refuses to comply based on those grounds. Spending on No Child Left Behind programs has increased 40 percent since Bush took office, from $17.4 billion to $24.4 billion, federal figures show. The Bush administration has repeatedly said schools have enough money to make the law work. Yet the suit accuses the government of shortchanging schools by at least $27 billion, the difference between the amount Congress authorized and what it has spent. The shortfall is even larger, the suit says, if the figures include all promised funding for poor children. The suit, citing a series of cost studies, outlines billions of dollars in expenses to meet the law's mandates. They include the costs of adding yearly testing, getting all children up to grade level in reading and math, and ensuring teachers are highly qualified. To cover those costs, the suit says, states have shifted money away from such other priorities as foreign languages, art and smaller classes. The money gap has hurt schools' ability to meet progress goals, which in turn has damaged their reputations, the suit says. Plaintiffs include the Pontiac School District in Michigan, the Laredo Independent School District in Laredo, Texas; the Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union in Brandon, Vt.; and six of the school districts that are part of Rutland Northeast in south central Vermont. The NEA promised to bring the suit almost two years ago and began recruiting states to be plaintiffs. But the union found no takers _ in part because states had no firm cost estimates, and in part because states were wary of the political fallout of suing the federal government. More than a dozen states, however, are considering anti-No Child Left Behind legislation this year. On Tuesday, the Utah Legislature passed a measure giving state education standards priority over federal ones imposed by No Child Left Behind. The school districts involved in the lawsuit give the NEA the diversity it wanted, from rural Vermont students to limited-English learners in Laredo to poor students in Pontiac. In the suit, Spellings is accused of violating both the education law and the spending clause of the U.S. Constitution. The NEA and the Bush administration have had a testy relationship. When the union first promised the lawsuit, then-Education Secretary Rod Paige accused the NEA of putting together a ``coalition of the whining.'' He later referred to the NEA as a ``terrorist organization'' for the way it opposed the law, a comment for which he later apologized.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Texas Taking Its Time with No Child
April 20, 2005, 7:53AM
Texas Taking Its Time with No Child
The state tells feds it will keep defying rule until its Legislature adapts to law
By JUSTIN GEST
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - Texas will continue to buck the federal No Child Left Behind Act until its Legislature changes state law to include the same requirements, state officials told the U.S. Department of Education on Tuesday.
Texas served in large part as President Bush's model for the national law.
But for the last two years, the Texas Education Agency has exceeded the federal cap on how many students with learning disabilities can be exempted from regular state testing. Including them could lower schools' overall passing rates, although officials say that's not the motive.
In a letter to the U.S. Education Department, agency officials told Secretary Margaret Spellings that she will have to wait while the state adapts to national standards at its own pace.
Spellings helped craft No Child Left Behind laws in Texas when she advised then-Gov. George W. Bush.
"Texas school districts may continue ... using alternative assessments, consistent with state law, at a rate that exceeds the cap imposed on the school district," state officials wrote.
The letter also said the Texas Legislature will consider amendments to state education laws to better align them with No Child Left Behind requirements, but no promises were made.
It is unlikely such legislation will be passed during this year's waning legislative session.
The Legislature is scheduled to convene next in 2007.
State law now authorizes a committee of a special-education student's parents, teachers and doctors to decide which test suits the child's needs.
The TEA letter was the agency's first public communication with the federal department since April 8, when Spellings threatened to cut Texas' federal funding for violating the cap. The secretary can cut as much as $11 million from the agency's annual federal allocation.
Education Department representatives declined to comment further until they review the letter.
Texas is the second state to officially declare that state education laws override the department's No Child Left Behind rules.
The Connecticut attorney general has announced plans to sue the Education Department for the right to disregard federal guidelines on grounds that the federal government fails to provide enough money.
Texas has defied the 3 percent federal cap on exemption by allowing 9 percent of its students to take an alternative exam.
TEA officials said they will try to phase into compliance by reducing exemptions to 5 percent, a limit created by the agency.
"Our tests were developed on specific statutes, and you can't change them overnight," said Criss Cloudt, TEA associate commissioner.
"It takes three years to create the assessment programs, and it will require another three years to change them."
Spellings has repeatedly said that the cap is not negotiable, and she has expressed disappointment with the resistance from her home state.
But on Tuesday, Texas Education Commissioner Shirley Neeley said in a private meeting of state education officials in Washington that she had a good relationship with the U.S. Education Department, according to an official who attended the meeting and spoke on the condition of not being identified.
The official said Neeley blamed the news media for exaggerating differences between the state and federal governments.
Neeley plans to meet with Deputy U.S. Education Secretary Raymond Simon today to discuss bringing the Texas plan in line with federal law.
justin.gest@chron.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3143729
Texas Taking Its Time with No Child
The state tells feds it will keep defying rule until its Legislature adapts to law
By JUSTIN GEST
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - Texas will continue to buck the federal No Child Left Behind Act until its Legislature changes state law to include the same requirements, state officials told the U.S. Department of Education on Tuesday.
Texas served in large part as President Bush's model for the national law.
But for the last two years, the Texas Education Agency has exceeded the federal cap on how many students with learning disabilities can be exempted from regular state testing. Including them could lower schools' overall passing rates, although officials say that's not the motive.
In a letter to the U.S. Education Department, agency officials told Secretary Margaret Spellings that she will have to wait while the state adapts to national standards at its own pace.
Spellings helped craft No Child Left Behind laws in Texas when she advised then-Gov. George W. Bush.
"Texas school districts may continue ... using alternative assessments, consistent with state law, at a rate that exceeds the cap imposed on the school district," state officials wrote.
The letter also said the Texas Legislature will consider amendments to state education laws to better align them with No Child Left Behind requirements, but no promises were made.
It is unlikely such legislation will be passed during this year's waning legislative session.
The Legislature is scheduled to convene next in 2007.
State law now authorizes a committee of a special-education student's parents, teachers and doctors to decide which test suits the child's needs.
The TEA letter was the agency's first public communication with the federal department since April 8, when Spellings threatened to cut Texas' federal funding for violating the cap. The secretary can cut as much as $11 million from the agency's annual federal allocation.
Education Department representatives declined to comment further until they review the letter.
Texas is the second state to officially declare that state education laws override the department's No Child Left Behind rules.
The Connecticut attorney general has announced plans to sue the Education Department for the right to disregard federal guidelines on grounds that the federal government fails to provide enough money.
Texas has defied the 3 percent federal cap on exemption by allowing 9 percent of its students to take an alternative exam.
TEA officials said they will try to phase into compliance by reducing exemptions to 5 percent, a limit created by the agency.
"Our tests were developed on specific statutes, and you can't change them overnight," said Criss Cloudt, TEA associate commissioner.
"It takes three years to create the assessment programs, and it will require another three years to change them."
Spellings has repeatedly said that the cap is not negotiable, and she has expressed disappointment with the resistance from her home state.
But on Tuesday, Texas Education Commissioner Shirley Neeley said in a private meeting of state education officials in Washington that she had a good relationship with the U.S. Education Department, according to an official who attended the meeting and spoke on the condition of not being identified.
The official said Neeley blamed the news media for exaggerating differences between the state and federal governments.
Neeley plans to meet with Deputy U.S. Education Secretary Raymond Simon today to discuss bringing the Texas plan in line with federal law.
justin.gest@chron.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3143729
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
States Hit Back on School Reform Law
from the April 19, 2005 edition
Connecticut, Utah, and Texas are either refusing to adopt all of the No Child Left Behind Act or suing the US to block it.
By Alexandra Marks | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
KILLINGWORTH, CONN. - An education rebellion is under way from Utah to Connecticut.
Three years after the passage of President Bush's controversial education reform known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the law is facing its most significant challenges yet - and they're coming in the courts, state legislatures, and local education departments.
Connecticut has announced it's suing the US Department of Education, claiming the law mandates changes without giving the funding to carry them out. The education commissioner in Texas unilaterally decided Washington's requirements were flawed, and she simply disregarded part of them - a kind of civil disobedience.
And Tuesday, Utah, the state that gave Mr. Bush his biggest win last November, is about to provide the most stinging rebuke yet to NCLB. In a special session, the state Senate is expected to pass overwhelmingly a bill to ensure that in a conflict between state and federal education regulations, Utah's rules will trump Washington's dictates. The House has already passed the bill, and if the Senate does as well, Utah is putting at risk $120 million it receives in federal education aid.
"The paramount question is who runs this show: Is it state and local government or Washington?" says state Sen. Thomas Hatch (R). "Are we going to let the federal government contribute a very small percentage of the education budget and dictate what we can or cannot do, or are we going to maintain control at the local level?"
The local rebellions come on the heels of an announcement by US Education Secretary Margaret Spellings that the department intends to exercise more flexibility than under her predecessor in addressing states' concerns about the law. NCLB requires annual testing in Grades 3 to 8 and sets out penalties for schools that fail to show "adequate yearly progress." In making the announcement, however, Secretary Spellings said there were certain "bright lines of the statute," such as reporting annual testing results by student subgroups, that "are not up for negotiation." This led some frustrated state officials like Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to refer to any new flexibility as "more rhetoric than reality."
Historically, there's always been tension between states and federal government on education reform. When President Clinton tried to implement new standards, he also met resistance, often from Democratic governors. Now Bush finds himself facing similar concerns from some Republican governors, including Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell.
Yet the heightened frustrations are also coming at a time when most states are reporting some success in raising test scores. While they insist that's in part because of state reforms put in place before NCLB became law, they do acknowledge it's had some positive effect.
"But they also see two big problems with the law: its rigid rules and lack of help for schools that have been identified as not doing well," says Jack Jennings, executive director of the nonpartisan Center on Education Policy in Washington, which has done the most extensive studies yet of the impact of NCLB. "The law is good at identifying them, but the money isn't there to help them."
That's Connecticut's main concern. It contends that complying with NCLB's testing requirements would cost state taxpayers an additional $8 million annually.
For 20 years, Connecticut has tested in the fourth, sixth, eighth, and 10th grades. Washington wants the state to add tests in the third, fifth, and seventh grades. The state says it would rather use the money to fund problem areas it has identified. "Our children are robbed of the resources they need ... to improve their classrooms and educations," says Mr. Blumenthal.
The state is also arguing that because Washington is not providing enough money to implement its requirements, NCLB is essentially an unfunded mandate and this is in violation of its own law.
The US Department of Education counters that it has provided enough funds, noting that Connecticut has received $750 million to implement NCLB.
Raymond Simon, assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education, says it's "disappointing" that Connecticut chose a legal challenge. "The additional federal funds that have been given to the states have been sufficient and in record amounts," he says.
The department also points out that minorities score significantly lower than whites in the state, and it argues that NCLB could force improvement.
In Texas, the concern is about the federal requirement that children with disabilities and those who are still learning English be tested using the same grade-level standards applied to others. With Spellings's announcement of more flexibility, 3 percent of students will be exempt from the grade-level tests - a percentage decided on by the department, based on nationwide averages. But Texas decided to exempt 9 percent, contending that including the scores of children with disabilities unfairly skews test results.
"In Texas, it's just an out-and-out case of civil disobedience," says David Shreve, an education expert at the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver. "They're saying it just doesn't work here, and we're not going to follow it."
The US Department of Education has given Texas until the end of this week to come up with an alternative that will not exempt so many students. If it doesn't, Spellings has threatened to cut some of Texas' federal funds. Mr. Simon refused to comment on the Texas situation, saying instead he was waiting for its reply.
But he insists that NCLB is working and that this is no time to be talking about fundamental changes. "The achievement gap is narrowing and student achievement is up, so now is not the time to deviate from the mission to weaken or back down on the standards," he says. "We'll work with states to continue to make it less bureaucratic and easier for the states to accomplish the mission."
For their part, the states don't disagree with the law's fundamental mission, just the way the DOE is implementing it.
"NCLB is absolutely desirable in concept and goals. No one disagrees with its objectives," says Blumenthal of Connecticut. "It's the implementation that's so faulty - the one-size-fits-all approach and the inflexibility on unfunded mandates."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0419/p01s02-uspo.html
Connecticut, Utah, and Texas are either refusing to adopt all of the No Child Left Behind Act or suing the US to block it.
By Alexandra Marks | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
KILLINGWORTH, CONN. - An education rebellion is under way from Utah to Connecticut.
Three years after the passage of President Bush's controversial education reform known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the law is facing its most significant challenges yet - and they're coming in the courts, state legislatures, and local education departments.
Connecticut has announced it's suing the US Department of Education, claiming the law mandates changes without giving the funding to carry them out. The education commissioner in Texas unilaterally decided Washington's requirements were flawed, and she simply disregarded part of them - a kind of civil disobedience.
And Tuesday, Utah, the state that gave Mr. Bush his biggest win last November, is about to provide the most stinging rebuke yet to NCLB. In a special session, the state Senate is expected to pass overwhelmingly a bill to ensure that in a conflict between state and federal education regulations, Utah's rules will trump Washington's dictates. The House has already passed the bill, and if the Senate does as well, Utah is putting at risk $120 million it receives in federal education aid.
"The paramount question is who runs this show: Is it state and local government or Washington?" says state Sen. Thomas Hatch (R). "Are we going to let the federal government contribute a very small percentage of the education budget and dictate what we can or cannot do, or are we going to maintain control at the local level?"
The local rebellions come on the heels of an announcement by US Education Secretary Margaret Spellings that the department intends to exercise more flexibility than under her predecessor in addressing states' concerns about the law. NCLB requires annual testing in Grades 3 to 8 and sets out penalties for schools that fail to show "adequate yearly progress." In making the announcement, however, Secretary Spellings said there were certain "bright lines of the statute," such as reporting annual testing results by student subgroups, that "are not up for negotiation." This led some frustrated state officials like Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to refer to any new flexibility as "more rhetoric than reality."
Historically, there's always been tension between states and federal government on education reform. When President Clinton tried to implement new standards, he also met resistance, often from Democratic governors. Now Bush finds himself facing similar concerns from some Republican governors, including Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell.
Yet the heightened frustrations are also coming at a time when most states are reporting some success in raising test scores. While they insist that's in part because of state reforms put in place before NCLB became law, they do acknowledge it's had some positive effect.
"But they also see two big problems with the law: its rigid rules and lack of help for schools that have been identified as not doing well," says Jack Jennings, executive director of the nonpartisan Center on Education Policy in Washington, which has done the most extensive studies yet of the impact of NCLB. "The law is good at identifying them, but the money isn't there to help them."
That's Connecticut's main concern. It contends that complying with NCLB's testing requirements would cost state taxpayers an additional $8 million annually.
For 20 years, Connecticut has tested in the fourth, sixth, eighth, and 10th grades. Washington wants the state to add tests in the third, fifth, and seventh grades. The state says it would rather use the money to fund problem areas it has identified. "Our children are robbed of the resources they need ... to improve their classrooms and educations," says Mr. Blumenthal.
The state is also arguing that because Washington is not providing enough money to implement its requirements, NCLB is essentially an unfunded mandate and this is in violation of its own law.
The US Department of Education counters that it has provided enough funds, noting that Connecticut has received $750 million to implement NCLB.
Raymond Simon, assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education, says it's "disappointing" that Connecticut chose a legal challenge. "The additional federal funds that have been given to the states have been sufficient and in record amounts," he says.
The department also points out that minorities score significantly lower than whites in the state, and it argues that NCLB could force improvement.
In Texas, the concern is about the federal requirement that children with disabilities and those who are still learning English be tested using the same grade-level standards applied to others. With Spellings's announcement of more flexibility, 3 percent of students will be exempt from the grade-level tests - a percentage decided on by the department, based on nationwide averages. But Texas decided to exempt 9 percent, contending that including the scores of children with disabilities unfairly skews test results.
"In Texas, it's just an out-and-out case of civil disobedience," says David Shreve, an education expert at the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver. "They're saying it just doesn't work here, and we're not going to follow it."
The US Department of Education has given Texas until the end of this week to come up with an alternative that will not exempt so many students. If it doesn't, Spellings has threatened to cut some of Texas' federal funds. Mr. Simon refused to comment on the Texas situation, saying instead he was waiting for its reply.
But he insists that NCLB is working and that this is no time to be talking about fundamental changes. "The achievement gap is narrowing and student achievement is up, so now is not the time to deviate from the mission to weaken or back down on the standards," he says. "We'll work with states to continue to make it less bureaucratic and easier for the states to accomplish the mission."
For their part, the states don't disagree with the law's fundamental mission, just the way the DOE is implementing it.
"NCLB is absolutely desirable in concept and goals. No one disagrees with its objectives," says Blumenthal of Connecticut. "It's the implementation that's so faulty - the one-size-fits-all approach and the inflexibility on unfunded mandates."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0419/p01s02-uspo.html
Lawmakers May Tighten Rules on 2 Key College Aid Programs
This is really unfortunate. Check out the link for more information on Texas Grants. Along with tuition increases due to recent deregulation, this is going to hit working families hard.
-Angela
April 11, 2005, 12:06PM
Lawmakers May Tighten Rules on 2 Key College Aid Programs
Bills could make it more difficult to benefit from TEXAS Grant, B-On-Time loans
By JEFFREY GILBERT
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
TUITION OPTIONS
Two bills propose changes to two programs that help students pay for college:
The programs
• TEXAS Grant: Students must take at least nine hours per semester and do not repay the grants.
• B-On-Time: Loans are forgiven for students who graduate with a B average in four years (five years for such programs as architecture) or within six credit hours of what their degree requires. Students who don't must repay loans, interest-free.
• Both programs: Students must take recommended high school curriculum. They receive $3,590 per year for university, $1,980 for technical schools and $1,270 for community colleges.
The bills
• House Bill 3 000: First two years are a TEXAS Grant, and final two years are B-On-Time Loan. If requirements aren't met, loan must be paid back, interest-free.
• Senate Bill 31: Students receiving a TEXAS Grant must take at least 30 hours per year, with exceptions for people who have severe illness or are responsible for the care of a sick, injured or needy personAUSTIN - Houman Hassanpour maintains close to a 3.9 grade-point average at the University of Houston, taking such classes as organic chemistry and participating in many extracurricular activities.
He moved to Houston from Iran five years ago, and lives at home to help his mother raise his two younger brothers. Hassanpour is using a TEXAS Grant to pay for college. Without it, he wouldn't be able to attend.
"I don't have time to work enough to cover tuition," he said. "If I wouldn't have had the grant, I would have either been very, very down on my hours or had to drop out of school because we don't have a good family income."
Lawmakers often wring their hands over the low number of students who attend college — Texas ranks 45th in the number of high schoolers who enroll in college, at just more than 50 percent.
But Texas provides about $120 million less in state financial aid than the other five biggest states in the nation. Georgia, a state one-third the size of Texas, spends $50 million more in direct state financial aid.
Now, the state's most successful college assistance program is in danger of being further eroded by merging with another state scholarship program, and students such as Hassanpour could be left without a way to fund their education.
Created in 1999, the TEXAS Grant program provides tuition and fees for Texas students who take challenging courses in high school and require financial aid in college. Since its inception, about 115,000 students have received more than $600 million in financial aid.
Budget cuts eliminated 22,000 students from the program last session, and more people are set to be cut again. While the current budget allocates $324 million for the program, the proposed Senate fiscal plan gives $294 million over the next biennium and the House version allocates $322 million.
One idea has the program merging with B-On-Time, an initiative that began two years ago and forgives the loans of students who graduate with a B average within four years for a four-year degree or within six credit hours of what their degree requires.
Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, led the effort to create the TEXAS Grant program six years ago, and said the merger is a bad idea.
No other state requires students to meet both the grade and time requirement, Ellis said, and having Texas students do that could cause a hardship. Many scholarship recipients must work to pay for other college costs, such as books and board, Ellis said.
"I want (students) out, and I want them out with a good average, but the first step to getting them out is to get them in," Ellis said. "I can assure you one thing: If you don't get them in, you will not get them out."
Stiff requirements
About 23 percent of all Texas college students and 17 percent of TEXAS Grant students graduate in four years, according to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, meaning a majority wouldn't meet the B-On-Time requirements and could be dropped from the program.
"I think there's a role for the notion of the B-On-Time program, but in today's economy, that's more of a suburban, upper-class program," he said. "Texas is so far behind the national curve already. We've simply got to get more of our young people on the college track."
Already in his third year, Hassanpour, a 21-year-old sophomore, said he will take at least five years to graduate, because of his tougher course load and extra activities.
"I don't think it makes much sense," he said. "You can't graduate in four years unless you take advanced classes in high school, and not everybody can do that."
Time restraints
Rep. Geanie Morrison, R-Victoria, is sponsoring the bill that would merge the two programs. In her plan, the first two years would remain a TEXAS Grant, but the second two would become a B-On-Time loan. Students who don't keep a B average or take more than four years to get out of school would have to pay back the loan, interest-free.
"We are trying to get the most for the money we have," Morrison said. "Students are staying in school for six years to get their degrees, and that's a detriment to the state, to the school and to the citizens. Hopefully this will help."
Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, opposes the merging of the two programs because they have "two totally different purposes." Ellis' program is a grant that doesn't need to be repaid, while B-On-Time is a loan.
Zaffirini is sponsoring a bill that would require TEXAS Grant students to take at least 30 hours per year.
"I think that's very reasonable," she said. "The longer a student takes to get a degree, the more expensive it is. We are trying to do everything we can to motivate students. A typical student should take more (than 30 hours). There's a responsibility associated with receiving scholarships."
Both women said getting students out faster will free up space for more people to get the scholarships, and will get them into the work force earlier, which benefits everyone.
'Pretty tough road'
To fight the plans, Ellis said he is "sounding the alarm." He has written university presidents from around the state, including Jay Gogue, president of UH. He is meeting with student newspapers, editorial boards and has sent information packets to his colleagues.
Public university presidents have been slow to get involved, Ellis said, because they are scared they could lose funding elsewhere. Sometimes it comes down to lobbying for the grants or for a new science building.
"They need to decide what their priorities are," he said, "the students who they are charged with educating, or putting more money into the infrastructure. I'm not all that sure they can't make a case for both."
Gogue said UH students benefit at a far greater rate from TEXAS Grants than they do from the B-On-Time program. He said 82 percent of his students work at least 30 hours a week, and imposing a time restriction for graduation could cause problems.
"That's a pretty tough road for most people," he said.
Gogue said he understands lawmakers are worried about the state's growing population, but if changes have to be made, he would advocate for restrictions on the number of courses a student has to take, rather than the amount of time one has to complete them.
Motives questioned
Ellis also wonders why measures aren't being taken to merge funding for the Tuition Equalization Program with TEXAS Grants and B-On-Time. That program subsidizes Texas students who go to a private college. Zaffirini's bill does require the private school students to take at least 30 hours per year, as well.
Ellis points out that his program carries tougher requirements because students getting Tuition Equalization grants aren't required to take the recommended high school curriculum and only have to take six hours in college.
"What's driving this is not altruism, it's money," he said. "If the goal is flexibility, then put that program in there as well."
Hassanpour said his brother is applying to colleges now, and his family is counting on grants like the one he has.
jeffrey.gilbert@chron.com
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3127778
-Angela
April 11, 2005, 12:06PM
Lawmakers May Tighten Rules on 2 Key College Aid Programs
Bills could make it more difficult to benefit from TEXAS Grant, B-On-Time loans
By JEFFREY GILBERT
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
TUITION OPTIONS
Two bills propose changes to two programs that help students pay for college:
The programs
• TEXAS Grant: Students must take at least nine hours per semester and do not repay the grants.
• B-On-Time: Loans are forgiven for students who graduate with a B average in four years (five years for such programs as architecture) or within six credit hours of what their degree requires. Students who don't must repay loans, interest-free.
• Both programs: Students must take recommended high school curriculum. They receive $3,590 per year for university, $1,980 for technical schools and $1,270 for community colleges.
The bills
• House Bill 3 000: First two years are a TEXAS Grant, and final two years are B-On-Time Loan. If requirements aren't met, loan must be paid back, interest-free.
• Senate Bill 31: Students receiving a TEXAS Grant must take at least 30 hours per year, with exceptions for people who have severe illness or are responsible for the care of a sick, injured or needy personAUSTIN - Houman Hassanpour maintains close to a 3.9 grade-point average at the University of Houston, taking such classes as organic chemistry and participating in many extracurricular activities.
He moved to Houston from Iran five years ago, and lives at home to help his mother raise his two younger brothers. Hassanpour is using a TEXAS Grant to pay for college. Without it, he wouldn't be able to attend.
"I don't have time to work enough to cover tuition," he said. "If I wouldn't have had the grant, I would have either been very, very down on my hours or had to drop out of school because we don't have a good family income."
Lawmakers often wring their hands over the low number of students who attend college — Texas ranks 45th in the number of high schoolers who enroll in college, at just more than 50 percent.
But Texas provides about $120 million less in state financial aid than the other five biggest states in the nation. Georgia, a state one-third the size of Texas, spends $50 million more in direct state financial aid.
Now, the state's most successful college assistance program is in danger of being further eroded by merging with another state scholarship program, and students such as Hassanpour could be left without a way to fund their education.
Created in 1999, the TEXAS Grant program provides tuition and fees for Texas students who take challenging courses in high school and require financial aid in college. Since its inception, about 115,000 students have received more than $600 million in financial aid.
Budget cuts eliminated 22,000 students from the program last session, and more people are set to be cut again. While the current budget allocates $324 million for the program, the proposed Senate fiscal plan gives $294 million over the next biennium and the House version allocates $322 million.
One idea has the program merging with B-On-Time, an initiative that began two years ago and forgives the loans of students who graduate with a B average within four years for a four-year degree or within six credit hours of what their degree requires.
Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, led the effort to create the TEXAS Grant program six years ago, and said the merger is a bad idea.
No other state requires students to meet both the grade and time requirement, Ellis said, and having Texas students do that could cause a hardship. Many scholarship recipients must work to pay for other college costs, such as books and board, Ellis said.
"I want (students) out, and I want them out with a good average, but the first step to getting them out is to get them in," Ellis said. "I can assure you one thing: If you don't get them in, you will not get them out."
Stiff requirements
About 23 percent of all Texas college students and 17 percent of TEXAS Grant students graduate in four years, according to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, meaning a majority wouldn't meet the B-On-Time requirements and could be dropped from the program.
"I think there's a role for the notion of the B-On-Time program, but in today's economy, that's more of a suburban, upper-class program," he said. "Texas is so far behind the national curve already. We've simply got to get more of our young people on the college track."
Already in his third year, Hassanpour, a 21-year-old sophomore, said he will take at least five years to graduate, because of his tougher course load and extra activities.
"I don't think it makes much sense," he said. "You can't graduate in four years unless you take advanced classes in high school, and not everybody can do that."
Time restraints
Rep. Geanie Morrison, R-Victoria, is sponsoring the bill that would merge the two programs. In her plan, the first two years would remain a TEXAS Grant, but the second two would become a B-On-Time loan. Students who don't keep a B average or take more than four years to get out of school would have to pay back the loan, interest-free.
"We are trying to get the most for the money we have," Morrison said. "Students are staying in school for six years to get their degrees, and that's a detriment to the state, to the school and to the citizens. Hopefully this will help."
Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, opposes the merging of the two programs because they have "two totally different purposes." Ellis' program is a grant that doesn't need to be repaid, while B-On-Time is a loan.
Zaffirini is sponsoring a bill that would require TEXAS Grant students to take at least 30 hours per year.
"I think that's very reasonable," she said. "The longer a student takes to get a degree, the more expensive it is. We are trying to do everything we can to motivate students. A typical student should take more (than 30 hours). There's a responsibility associated with receiving scholarships."
Both women said getting students out faster will free up space for more people to get the scholarships, and will get them into the work force earlier, which benefits everyone.
'Pretty tough road'
To fight the plans, Ellis said he is "sounding the alarm." He has written university presidents from around the state, including Jay Gogue, president of UH. He is meeting with student newspapers, editorial boards and has sent information packets to his colleagues.
Public university presidents have been slow to get involved, Ellis said, because they are scared they could lose funding elsewhere. Sometimes it comes down to lobbying for the grants or for a new science building.
"They need to decide what their priorities are," he said, "the students who they are charged with educating, or putting more money into the infrastructure. I'm not all that sure they can't make a case for both."
Gogue said UH students benefit at a far greater rate from TEXAS Grants than they do from the B-On-Time program. He said 82 percent of his students work at least 30 hours a week, and imposing a time restriction for graduation could cause problems.
"That's a pretty tough road for most people," he said.
Gogue said he understands lawmakers are worried about the state's growing population, but if changes have to be made, he would advocate for restrictions on the number of courses a student has to take, rather than the amount of time one has to complete them.
Motives questioned
Ellis also wonders why measures aren't being taken to merge funding for the Tuition Equalization Program with TEXAS Grants and B-On-Time. That program subsidizes Texas students who go to a private college. Zaffirini's bill does require the private school students to take at least 30 hours per year, as well.
Ellis points out that his program carries tougher requirements because students getting Tuition Equalization grants aren't required to take the recommended high school curriculum and only have to take six hours in college.
"What's driving this is not altruism, it's money," he said. "If the goal is flexibility, then put that program in there as well."
Hassanpour said his brother is applying to colleges now, and his family is counting on grants like the one he has.
jeffrey.gilbert@chron.com
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3127778
Monday, April 18, 2005
Study: Teaching Credential Matters
Study: Teaching Credential Matters
by Jill Tucker, STAFF WRITER
4/16/2005
It seems obvious.
Teachers who formally learn how to teach are better for kids than those who don't — was the conclusion reached by an extensive Stanford University study released Friday.
While the concept might seem obvious, the need for a formal teaching credential in the classroom has been hotly debated in recent years.
In 2002, then U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige argued for changes in teacher certification with an emphasis on verbal ability and content knowledge rather than formal training at a university education program.
Stanford professor of education Linda Darling-Hammond, who led the study, said her research settles that debate.
"Unequivocally, certified teachers are more effective in promoting student learning," she said from Montreal, where she was presenting the research.
The study looked at 271,015 students and 15,344 teachers in Houston schools from 1995 to 2002 — and compared performance on three standardized tests.
Teachers with less than a full teaching credential — including those in the Teach for America program — saw "negative effects on student achievement," according to the study.
Darling-Hammond said there is no reason to expect a different result in California.
In fact, she said, the requirements for obtaining a California teaching credential are more rigorous than in Texas. That means the disparity in student achievement depending on teacher qualifications could be even greater, she added.
In California, schools with greater populations of low-income or minority students are more likely to have teachers who don't have a full credential. Many of those schools score at the bottom on state standardized tests. That means those students are more likely to be taught by interns studying for a credential, those with emergency permits, substitutes or participants in the Teach for America program.
Teach for America teachers — typically recent graduates from some of the best universities in the nation — have been touted as examples of good teachers without credentials.
"The young people who go into it are often quite noble and hardworking," Darling-Hammond said. "And they care and they want to do well."
But the reality is, their students perform about the same as those with other uncertified teachers, according to the Stanford research. In short, Darling-Hammond said, we need to get credentialed teachers into classrooms. All classrooms.
She suggested reinstating programs such as California's short-lived Governor's Fellowships, which gave a $20,000 education grant to those who earned a teaching credential and then worked in a low-performing school.
The program, under then Gov. Gray Davis lasted only a couple of years before it was pulled for lack of funds.
The fellowships and other teacher recruitment programs cost the state about $50 million at their peak — a small investment that was making a difference, Darling-Hammond said. "There are some kids who get those untrained and inexperienced teachers year after year," she added.
by Jill Tucker, STAFF WRITER
4/16/2005
It seems obvious.
Teachers who formally learn how to teach are better for kids than those who don't — was the conclusion reached by an extensive Stanford University study released Friday.
While the concept might seem obvious, the need for a formal teaching credential in the classroom has been hotly debated in recent years.
In 2002, then U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige argued for changes in teacher certification with an emphasis on verbal ability and content knowledge rather than formal training at a university education program.
Stanford professor of education Linda Darling-Hammond, who led the study, said her research settles that debate.
"Unequivocally, certified teachers are more effective in promoting student learning," she said from Montreal, where she was presenting the research.
The study looked at 271,015 students and 15,344 teachers in Houston schools from 1995 to 2002 — and compared performance on three standardized tests.
Teachers with less than a full teaching credential — including those in the Teach for America program — saw "negative effects on student achievement," according to the study.
Darling-Hammond said there is no reason to expect a different result in California.
In fact, she said, the requirements for obtaining a California teaching credential are more rigorous than in Texas. That means the disparity in student achievement depending on teacher qualifications could be even greater, she added.
In California, schools with greater populations of low-income or minority students are more likely to have teachers who don't have a full credential. Many of those schools score at the bottom on state standardized tests. That means those students are more likely to be taught by interns studying for a credential, those with emergency permits, substitutes or participants in the Teach for America program.
Teach for America teachers — typically recent graduates from some of the best universities in the nation — have been touted as examples of good teachers without credentials.
"The young people who go into it are often quite noble and hardworking," Darling-Hammond said. "And they care and they want to do well."
But the reality is, their students perform about the same as those with other uncertified teachers, according to the Stanford research. In short, Darling-Hammond said, we need to get credentialed teachers into classrooms. All classrooms.
She suggested reinstating programs such as California's short-lived Governor's Fellowships, which gave a $20,000 education grant to those who earned a teaching credential and then worked in a low-performing school.
The program, under then Gov. Gray Davis lasted only a couple of years before it was pulled for lack of funds.
The fellowships and other teacher recruitment programs cost the state about $50 million at their peak — a small investment that was making a difference, Darling-Hammond said. "There are some kids who get those untrained and inexperienced teachers year after year," she added.
Update on the Private School Voucher Fight
TO: Coalition for Public Schools Organizations
FROM: Carolyn Boyle
The past two weeks have been a whirlwind. I'd like to take a few minutes to reflect on what has happened and tell you what may happen in the next 44 days in the Texas Legislature. First, we'll look back:
Press Conferences: The Coalition for Public Schools held a press conference April 4 on the steps of the Texas Capitol to release financial projections on how much money could be drained from public schools by the three private school voucher bills: H.B. 12, H.B. 1263, and H.B. 3042. The news coverage was terrific, with really good reporting by metropolitan daily newspapers and Austin TV and radio. Newspaper stories were included on all the Austin-based print and electronic clipping services, resulting in widespread readership. The word at the Capitol the following morning was that legislators were "spooked" by the numbers we released. While some of the bill authors questioned the Coalition's financial projections, the numbers are REAL. The projections were prepared by Cindy M. Russell, an experienced school finance consultant who we hired. In the first biennium, H.B. 12 could drain $2.2 billion from public schools and H.B. 1263 could drain $603 million. The cost of H.B. 3042 is inestimable, as every public school student in Texas could receive a private school tuition voucher. Lawmakers must know the worst case financial scenarios about any legislation they are considering. We believe bipartisan opposition to vouchers continues to grow!
On Tuesday, April 5, another anti-voucher press conference was held on the Capitol steps by the League of United Latin American Citizens, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, People for the American Way, and other groups. A major point made was that two recently-created pro-voucher organizations are funded by wealthy special interests and grants from the U.S. Department of Education awarded under former Education Secretary Rod Paige. Hispanic CREO (Hispanic Council for Reform and Educational Options) and BAEO (Black Alliance for Educational Options) don't speak for all minorities, said LULAC, NAACP, and MALDEF. The long-established advocacy organizations for Hispanics and African-Americans oppose private school vouchers.
Public Hearing on Voucher Bills: An 11-hour public hearing on the private school voucher bills was held April 5 before the House Committee on Public Education. As expected, it was a mob scene outside the locked hearing room, with everyone scrambling for seats as soon as the door was unlocked. At least 100 voucher supporters had been bused to the hearing, and they filled a large number of seats in the hearing room. But our side had many assertive seat-grabbers, so voucher opponents had a visible presence. There also was an overflow room with the hearing projected on a large screen. The first 5+ hours (2:15-7:15 p.m.) of the hearing were devoted SOLELY to voucher supporters. We had hoped the chairman would alternate pro and con speakers. The testimony from about 7:15 p.m. to 1 a.m. was by more than 40 voucher opponents, and they did a FANTASTIC job! So authentic, heartfelt, compelling, rational, wise, moving... You may listen to the hearing at this URL:
http://www.house.state.tx.us/committees/broadcasts.php?session=79&cmte=400
The Voucher Bills: At the end of the April 5 public hearing, Chairman Grusendorf left the three voucher bills pending. We thought one bill might be voted out of committee April 12, but it was not. The longer it takes to get a voucher bill out of committee, the harder it becomes to get the bill all the way through the process before the end of the session. May 12 is the last day for the Texas House to consider non-local House bills and joint resolutions on second reading, and that is 25 days away. Our hope is that House members who are not on the Public Education Committee are asking members of that committee not to bring voucher bills to a vote on the House floor. Legislators are being influenced by the large number of phone calls, letters and emails they have been receiving. Your efforts are making a difference!
Also still pending in the House Committee is H.B. 1445, the "virtual vouchers" bill that allows students in home-schools and private schools to receive public funding to take electronic and on-line courses. Rep. Jerry Madden is working on a committee substitute, which may be considered by the committee on Tuesday, April 19.
The three most commonly mentioned scenarios about what could happen with the voucher bills (and there are more than three scenarios) are:
Scenario 1. Voucher bills will be passed out of the House Committee on Public Education this week (either at the Tuesday committee meeting or at a quickie desk meeting on the House floor) and sent to the Calendars Committee and then on to the House floor. Some sources are saying a state leader has promised a key voucher proponent that a voucher bill will make it to the House floor this session.
Scenario 2. The voucher bills will not be passed by the House Committee as stand-alone bills, but in the House committee or on the House or Senate floor vouchers will be amended on to the Texas Education Agency Sunset bill (see below).
Scenario 3. This is always my dream scenario: The wise and fiscally conservative members of the House and Senate will assertively say taxpayers cannot afford private school vouchers. They will drop consideration of any voucher legislation and put all their focus and resources on strengthening every neighborhood public school.
Texas Education Agency Sunset Bill
Background: Under the Texas Sunset law, the Texas Education Agency is set to be abolished on September 1, 2005 unless it is reauthorized by the legislature. (Every state agency is on a 12-year cycle for review and reauthorization. You may read more about the process at www.sunset.state.tx.us ) The Texas Sunset Advisory Commission and its staff reviewed TEA in 2004 and issued a 171-page report and recommendations in November 2004. The proposed agency Sunset bills were based on this report. The two companion bills are S.B. 422 by Sen. Mike Jackson and H.B. 2576 by Rep. Kent Grusendorf. You may read the Senate bill at this URL:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=79&SESS=R&CHAMBER=S&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00422&VERSION=1&TYPE=B
The "Christmas Tree" Phenomenon: The Sunset process as originally envisioned was well-intentioned and in the public interest...but that was before the Christmas tree phenomenon appeared. Today Sunset bills tend to start out as relatively short, well-researched bills; however, then special interests start putting "ornaments" on the "Christmas tree." Sometimes these ornaments are seen as good, sometimes as bad, depending on the perspective. Because the TEA Sunset bill has a broad caption--"relating to the continuation and functions of the Texas Education Agency and regional education service centers"--amendments on myriad functions of the agency are germane for amendments. As a result, many people believe there will be efforts to amend the Sunset bill to include vouchers and "virtual vouchers" for tax-funded home-schooling.
The Schedule: A public hearing on S.B. 422 was held April 4 before the Senate Education Committee, and the bill was left pending. A public hearing on H.B. 2576 before the House Committee in Public Education is scheduled for April 19.
So, that's what's happening--the good, the bad, and the ugly. If you have not yet written or called your state representative, do it now! The address for state representatives is P.O. Box 2910, Austin, TX 78768-2910. It's also very important to be sending letters or calling state senators, because the Texas Education Agency Sunset bill may be passed out of the Senate Education Committee soon. The message to senators is: Keep private school vouchers off the TEA Sunset bill! The address for senators is: Texas Senate, P.O. Box 12068-Capitol Station, Austin 78711. You may find names and phone numbers for your legislators by going to this web site and entering your home address: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/fyi/fyi.htm
Onward!
***********************************************************
Coalition for Public Schools, 1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 550, Austin, Texas 78701-2491, (512) 474-9765, Cell: (512) 470-1215; Fax: (512) 474-2507, Carolyn Boyle, Coordinator
email: cboyleaust@aol.com www.coalition4publicschools.org
The Coalition for Public Schools is comprised of 40 education, child advocacy, community, and religious organizations representing more than 3,000,000 members in Texas. Founded in 1995, CPS opposes expenditure of public funds to support private and religious schools through mechanisms such as tuition vouchers, franchise tax credits, and property tax credits. The Coalition believes public tax dollars should be spent only to improve neighborhood public schools, which serve more than 94 percent of all Texas children.
FROM: Carolyn Boyle
The past two weeks have been a whirlwind. I'd like to take a few minutes to reflect on what has happened and tell you what may happen in the next 44 days in the Texas Legislature. First, we'll look back:
Press Conferences: The Coalition for Public Schools held a press conference April 4 on the steps of the Texas Capitol to release financial projections on how much money could be drained from public schools by the three private school voucher bills: H.B. 12, H.B. 1263, and H.B. 3042. The news coverage was terrific, with really good reporting by metropolitan daily newspapers and Austin TV and radio. Newspaper stories were included on all the Austin-based print and electronic clipping services, resulting in widespread readership. The word at the Capitol the following morning was that legislators were "spooked" by the numbers we released. While some of the bill authors questioned the Coalition's financial projections, the numbers are REAL. The projections were prepared by Cindy M. Russell, an experienced school finance consultant who we hired. In the first biennium, H.B. 12 could drain $2.2 billion from public schools and H.B. 1263 could drain $603 million. The cost of H.B. 3042 is inestimable, as every public school student in Texas could receive a private school tuition voucher. Lawmakers must know the worst case financial scenarios about any legislation they are considering. We believe bipartisan opposition to vouchers continues to grow!
On Tuesday, April 5, another anti-voucher press conference was held on the Capitol steps by the League of United Latin American Citizens, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, People for the American Way, and other groups. A major point made was that two recently-created pro-voucher organizations are funded by wealthy special interests and grants from the U.S. Department of Education awarded under former Education Secretary Rod Paige. Hispanic CREO (Hispanic Council for Reform and Educational Options) and BAEO (Black Alliance for Educational Options) don't speak for all minorities, said LULAC, NAACP, and MALDEF. The long-established advocacy organizations for Hispanics and African-Americans oppose private school vouchers.
Public Hearing on Voucher Bills: An 11-hour public hearing on the private school voucher bills was held April 5 before the House Committee on Public Education. As expected, it was a mob scene outside the locked hearing room, with everyone scrambling for seats as soon as the door was unlocked. At least 100 voucher supporters had been bused to the hearing, and they filled a large number of seats in the hearing room. But our side had many assertive seat-grabbers, so voucher opponents had a visible presence. There also was an overflow room with the hearing projected on a large screen. The first 5+ hours (2:15-7:15 p.m.) of the hearing were devoted SOLELY to voucher supporters. We had hoped the chairman would alternate pro and con speakers. The testimony from about 7:15 p.m. to 1 a.m. was by more than 40 voucher opponents, and they did a FANTASTIC job! So authentic, heartfelt, compelling, rational, wise, moving... You may listen to the hearing at this URL:
http://www.house.state.tx.us/committees/broadcasts.php?session=79&cmte=400
The Voucher Bills: At the end of the April 5 public hearing, Chairman Grusendorf left the three voucher bills pending. We thought one bill might be voted out of committee April 12, but it was not. The longer it takes to get a voucher bill out of committee, the harder it becomes to get the bill all the way through the process before the end of the session. May 12 is the last day for the Texas House to consider non-local House bills and joint resolutions on second reading, and that is 25 days away. Our hope is that House members who are not on the Public Education Committee are asking members of that committee not to bring voucher bills to a vote on the House floor. Legislators are being influenced by the large number of phone calls, letters and emails they have been receiving. Your efforts are making a difference!
Also still pending in the House Committee is H.B. 1445, the "virtual vouchers" bill that allows students in home-schools and private schools to receive public funding to take electronic and on-line courses. Rep. Jerry Madden is working on a committee substitute, which may be considered by the committee on Tuesday, April 19.
The three most commonly mentioned scenarios about what could happen with the voucher bills (and there are more than three scenarios) are:
Scenario 1. Voucher bills will be passed out of the House Committee on Public Education this week (either at the Tuesday committee meeting or at a quickie desk meeting on the House floor) and sent to the Calendars Committee and then on to the House floor. Some sources are saying a state leader has promised a key voucher proponent that a voucher bill will make it to the House floor this session.
Scenario 2. The voucher bills will not be passed by the House Committee as stand-alone bills, but in the House committee or on the House or Senate floor vouchers will be amended on to the Texas Education Agency Sunset bill (see below).
Scenario 3. This is always my dream scenario: The wise and fiscally conservative members of the House and Senate will assertively say taxpayers cannot afford private school vouchers. They will drop consideration of any voucher legislation and put all their focus and resources on strengthening every neighborhood public school.
Texas Education Agency Sunset Bill
Background: Under the Texas Sunset law, the Texas Education Agency is set to be abolished on September 1, 2005 unless it is reauthorized by the legislature. (Every state agency is on a 12-year cycle for review and reauthorization. You may read more about the process at www.sunset.state.tx.us
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=79&SESS=R&CHAMBER=S&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00422&VERSION=1&TYPE=B
The "Christmas Tree" Phenomenon: The Sunset process as originally envisioned was well-intentioned and in the public interest...but that was before the Christmas tree phenomenon appeared. Today Sunset bills tend to start out as relatively short, well-researched bills; however, then special interests start putting "ornaments" on the "Christmas tree." Sometimes these ornaments are seen as good, sometimes as bad, depending on the perspective. Because the TEA Sunset bill has a broad caption--"relating to the continuation and functions of the Texas Education Agency and regional education service centers"--amendments on myriad functions of the agency are germane for amendments. As a result, many people believe there will be efforts to amend the Sunset bill to include vouchers and "virtual vouchers" for tax-funded home-schooling.
The Schedule: A public hearing on S.B. 422 was held April 4 before the Senate Education Committee, and the bill was left pending. A public hearing on H.B. 2576 before the House Committee in Public Education is scheduled for April 19.
So, that's what's happening--the good, the bad, and the ugly. If you have not yet written or called your state representative, do it now! The address for state representatives is P.O. Box 2910, Austin, TX 78768-2910. It's also very important to be sending letters or calling state senators, because the Texas Education Agency Sunset bill may be passed out of the Senate Education Committee soon. The message to senators is: Keep private school vouchers off the TEA Sunset bill! The address for senators is: Texas Senate, P.O. Box 12068-Capitol Station, Austin 78711. You may find names and phone numbers for your legislators by going to this web site and entering your home address: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/fyi/fyi.htm
Onward!
***********************************************************
Coalition for Public Schools, 1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 550, Austin, Texas 78701-2491, (512) 474-9765, Cell: (512) 470-1215; Fax: (512) 474-2507, Carolyn Boyle, Coordinator
email: cboyleaust@aol.com www.coalition4publicschools.org
The Coalition for Public Schools is comprised of 40 education, child advocacy, community, and religious organizations representing more than 3,000,000 members in Texas. Founded in 1995, CPS opposes expenditure of public funds to support private and religious schools through mechanisms such as tuition vouchers, franchise tax credits, and property tax credits. The Coalition believes public tax dollars should be spent only to improve neighborhood public schools, which serve more than 94 percent of all Texas children.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Urgent Message from State Representative Dora Olivo
Public Education continues to be assaulted by the House Leadership. This particular bill has been championed by LULAC for several years. Please read below and take ACTION:
Urgent Action Alert: Transition to Accurate Assessment
April 21st: Statewide Video-conference
April 26th: Day of Action at the Capitol
Dear Friends,
Thank you for your continued support and actions through your phone calls, faxes and e-mails to the members of the Public Education Committee requesting a committee hearing for HB 1612 & HB 1613.
I would also like to recognize those organization who are reaching out to their members with our message to help broaden our base of supporters and encourage the passage of these two pieces of legislation: PTA, National Council of La Raza, the Texas Association for the Education of Young Children, LULAC, NHCSL, IDRA and the Texas Freedom Network.
Recently you might have been notified of a committee hearing on both HB 1612 & 1613 for Tuesday, April 19th. Unfortunately, the chairman of the Public Education Committee decided to take these two bills off of the schedule due to the number of bills on the calendar for that day. I cannot emphasize enough the important role you play in encouraging the chairman to reschedule these two bills as soon as possible. These are important bills that directly affect the lives of our children and could have an impact in providing a more accurate assessment of our student's education.
Our children will begin another round of the TAKS testing next week and it is very important to let everyone know that you support a transition to accurate assessment. Recently Rebecca Coleman, an eighth-grade English teacher for a school district in Dallas, was quoted in the April 14th edition of the Dallas Morning News that "Teaching is more than turning out good test takers. We're creating minds, nourishing souls and contributing to the betterment of our society. Let's not cheapen the importance of education by measuring it based on the results of one bubble-filling day."
CALL TO ACTION
1. Please call the Public Education Chairman Kent Grusendorf's office and urge your support to not delay the discussion of HB 1612 & 1613, a transition to accurate assessment. Request that a committee hearing be set for Tuesday, April 26th for both HB 1612 & 1613. Chairman Grusendorf can be reached through his capitol number: (512) 463-0624.
2. Please plan on attending the "Transition to Accurate Assessment Mobilization Day" at the Capitol on Tuesday, April 26th. This is the day we hope to have HB 1612 & 1613 set for a hearing and we plan on having a number of people to testify and sign witness affirmations. If we are unable to get this hearing on Tuesday we will use this day to break into groups and talk with Senators, Representatives and their staff serving on both the House Public Education Committee and Senate Education Committee in regards to our bills. There will be a press conference on the South steps of the Capitol at noon to draw attention to the need for testing reform. It would be great to get as many people there as possible. Spread the word.
3. This coming week we will be hosting a statewide video-conference on Thursday, April 21st at 6 pm to continue the dialogue on the transition from high stakes testing to an accurate assessment. We will be joined in Austin via video-conference by teachers, parents, students, superintendents, school board members in Dallas, El Paso and the Panhandle. The video-conference will be simulcast on the web and you can watch it live with the link available on my website. I encourage your participation and ask that you sign up at my website www.doraolivo.com.
If you have any input, suggestions and/or questions, please call Joshua Cinelli in the capitol office at 512-463-0494 or toll free 1-888-777-0033.
E-mail is Joshua.Cinelli@house.state.tx.us
Sincerely,
Dora Olivo
District 27 State Representative
Urgent Action Alert: Transition to Accurate Assessment
April 21st: Statewide Video-conference
April 26th: Day of Action at the Capitol
Dear Friends,
Thank you for your continued support and actions through your phone calls, faxes and e-mails to the members of the Public Education Committee requesting a committee hearing for HB 1612 & HB 1613.
I would also like to recognize those organization who are reaching out to their members with our message to help broaden our base of supporters and encourage the passage of these two pieces of legislation: PTA, National Council of La Raza, the Texas Association for the Education of Young Children, LULAC, NHCSL, IDRA and the Texas Freedom Network.
Recently you might have been notified of a committee hearing on both HB 1612 & 1613 for Tuesday, April 19th. Unfortunately, the chairman of the Public Education Committee decided to take these two bills off of the schedule due to the number of bills on the calendar for that day. I cannot emphasize enough the important role you play in encouraging the chairman to reschedule these two bills as soon as possible. These are important bills that directly affect the lives of our children and could have an impact in providing a more accurate assessment of our student's education.
Our children will begin another round of the TAKS testing next week and it is very important to let everyone know that you support a transition to accurate assessment. Recently Rebecca Coleman, an eighth-grade English teacher for a school district in Dallas, was quoted in the April 14th edition of the Dallas Morning News that "Teaching is more than turning out good test takers. We're creating minds, nourishing souls and contributing to the betterment of our society. Let's not cheapen the importance of education by measuring it based on the results of one bubble-filling day."
CALL TO ACTION
1. Please call the Public Education Chairman Kent Grusendorf's office and urge your support to not delay the discussion of HB 1612 & 1613, a transition to accurate assessment. Request that a committee hearing be set for Tuesday, April 26th for both HB 1612 & 1613. Chairman Grusendorf can be reached through his capitol number: (512) 463-0624.
2. Please plan on attending the "Transition to Accurate Assessment Mobilization Day" at the Capitol on Tuesday, April 26th. This is the day we hope to have HB 1612 & 1613 set for a hearing and we plan on having a number of people to testify and sign witness affirmations. If we are unable to get this hearing on Tuesday we will use this day to break into groups and talk with Senators, Representatives and their staff serving on both the House Public Education Committee and Senate Education Committee in regards to our bills. There will be a press conference on the South steps of the Capitol at noon to draw attention to the need for testing reform. It would be great to get as many people there as possible. Spread the word.
3. This coming week we will be hosting a statewide video-conference on Thursday, April 21st at 6 pm to continue the dialogue on the transition from high stakes testing to an accurate assessment. We will be joined in Austin via video-conference by teachers, parents, students, superintendents, school board members in Dallas, El Paso and the Panhandle. The video-conference will be simulcast on the web and you can watch it live with the link available on my website. I encourage your participation and ask that you sign up at my website www.doraolivo.com.
If you have any input, suggestions and/or questions, please call Joshua Cinelli in the capitol office at 512-463-0494 or toll free 1-888-777-0033.
E-mail is Joshua.Cinelli@house.state.tx.us
Sincerely,
Dora Olivo
District 27 State Representative
Report Cites Blunders in Armstrong Deal
OK, Armstrong's activities were unethical but not illegal. What's to stop this then from happening again? Very little, I would say.
What I also find interesting, in a parallel manner how it apparently is not illegal either for groups like Hispanic CREO and the Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO) to take (huge sums) money from the federal government in order to educate parents about school choice which means vouchers in practice. These groups decry big government while profiting from government largesse. Their activities merit further scrutiny as well. -Angela
April 16, 2005
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 9:57 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration's hiring of a pundit to tout its education agenda was not illegal or unethical, but it was a poor decision and continued even after concerns were raised to the White House, an internal investigation found.
The report by the Education Department's inspector general cited a pattern of blunders that led to the $240,000 contract with conservative commentator Armstrong Williams.
Senior officials showed poor management, information didn't get to the right people and the agency paid for work that was poorly produced, Inspector General Jack Higgins said.
The department approved $240,000 for Williams, a commentator with newspaper, television and radio audiences, to promote President Bush's No Child Left Behind law. The deal was part of a $1.3 million contract the department had with Ketchum, a public relations firm.
Williams, who is black, was hired to inform minorities about Bush's law by producing ads with then-Education Secretary Rod Paige. Yet, records show Williams also was hired to provide media time to Paige and to persuade other blacks in the media to talk about the law.
Education Secretary Margaret Spellings acknowledged ''serious lapses in judgment by senior department officials'' but said those directly responsible are no longer at the agency. She pledged to adopt the report's recommendations and restore credibility to the department.
''It think this was wrong,'' said Spellings, who took office in January. ''I think it was stupid. I think it was ill-advised. I think it showed a lack of judgment.''
Paige, who was secretary when the contract was signed, did not reply to a telephone message Friday seeking comment.
The report also said two Education Department officials had warned the White House last summer about concerns, including the ''inherent conflict'' of paying a pundit to endorse the president's education law.
David Dunn, then-special assistant to the president for domestic policy, agreed with the concerns, yet neither the White House nor the department halted the contract until it was disclosed by the news media in January. Dunn is now chief of staff to Spellings, who distanced the White House from any blame for the hiring of Williams.
The episode has proved embarrassing for the administration, which has paid at least two other conservative columnists to promote its agenda and has been criticized for distributing news videos that don't make clear they were produced by the government.
Bush has said the hiring of Williams was wrong and that the White House did not know in advance that a pundit had been hired. Spellings said Friday that description is true.
The inspector general's review dealt only with contract law -- not whether the administration has violated a ban on covert propaganda. That is the subject of a review by congressional investigators at the Government Accountability Office.
''The report paints a picture of a Bush administration that is sloppy and careless with taxpayer funds,'' said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., added: ''I commend the secretary for taking this issue seriously. Whether this activity is legal or not, it is just wrong for the administration to use taxpayer dollars for self-serving propaganda.''
Williams approached Paige about doing work for the department. His company was hired through Ketchum in late 2003 at the direction of the department despite some internal divisions about whether it was a good idea. Those divisions grew deeper.
When Williams' contract came up for renewal in May 2004, Paige's chief of staff and the department's deputy director of communications raised concerns about whether money was being spent wisely -- and whether there was a conflict in hiring a commentator. The concerns were so strong, the report said, that Dunn was told about them at the White House, and he agreed.
Asked Friday why the contract was not stopped at that point, Spellings defended Dunn. She said the White House assumes that the people hired to run federal agencies do so properly.
The report is available at:
Federal Report
What I also find interesting, in a parallel manner how it apparently is not illegal either for groups like Hispanic CREO and the Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO) to take (huge sums) money from the federal government in order to educate parents about school choice which means vouchers in practice. These groups decry big government while profiting from government largesse. Their activities merit further scrutiny as well. -Angela
April 16, 2005
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 9:57 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration's hiring of a pundit to tout its education agenda was not illegal or unethical, but it was a poor decision and continued even after concerns were raised to the White House, an internal investigation found.
The report by the Education Department's inspector general cited a pattern of blunders that led to the $240,000 contract with conservative commentator Armstrong Williams.
Senior officials showed poor management, information didn't get to the right people and the agency paid for work that was poorly produced, Inspector General Jack Higgins said.
The department approved $240,000 for Williams, a commentator with newspaper, television and radio audiences, to promote President Bush's No Child Left Behind law. The deal was part of a $1.3 million contract the department had with Ketchum, a public relations firm.
Williams, who is black, was hired to inform minorities about Bush's law by producing ads with then-Education Secretary Rod Paige. Yet, records show Williams also was hired to provide media time to Paige and to persuade other blacks in the media to talk about the law.
Education Secretary Margaret Spellings acknowledged ''serious lapses in judgment by senior department officials'' but said those directly responsible are no longer at the agency. She pledged to adopt the report's recommendations and restore credibility to the department.
''It think this was wrong,'' said Spellings, who took office in January. ''I think it was stupid. I think it was ill-advised. I think it showed a lack of judgment.''
Paige, who was secretary when the contract was signed, did not reply to a telephone message Friday seeking comment.
The report also said two Education Department officials had warned the White House last summer about concerns, including the ''inherent conflict'' of paying a pundit to endorse the president's education law.
David Dunn, then-special assistant to the president for domestic policy, agreed with the concerns, yet neither the White House nor the department halted the contract until it was disclosed by the news media in January. Dunn is now chief of staff to Spellings, who distanced the White House from any blame for the hiring of Williams.
The episode has proved embarrassing for the administration, which has paid at least two other conservative columnists to promote its agenda and has been criticized for distributing news videos that don't make clear they were produced by the government.
Bush has said the hiring of Williams was wrong and that the White House did not know in advance that a pundit had been hired. Spellings said Friday that description is true.
The inspector general's review dealt only with contract law -- not whether the administration has violated a ban on covert propaganda. That is the subject of a review by congressional investigators at the Government Accountability Office.
''The report paints a picture of a Bush administration that is sloppy and careless with taxpayer funds,'' said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., added: ''I commend the secretary for taking this issue seriously. Whether this activity is legal or not, it is just wrong for the administration to use taxpayer dollars for self-serving propaganda.''
Williams approached Paige about doing work for the department. His company was hired through Ketchum in late 2003 at the direction of the department despite some internal divisions about whether it was a good idea. Those divisions grew deeper.
When Williams' contract came up for renewal in May 2004, Paige's chief of staff and the department's deputy director of communications raised concerns about whether money was being spent wisely -- and whether there was a conflict in hiring a commentator. The concerns were so strong, the report said, that Dunn was told about them at the White House, and he agreed.
Asked Friday why the contract was not stopped at that point, Spellings defended Dunn. She said the White House assumes that the people hired to run federal agencies do so properly.
The report is available at:
Federal Report
Friday, April 15, 2005
Is Top 10% Rule Working? You Might be Surprised
Here's an editorial from today's Statesman that rules on the side of evidence. For your info below, I also provide LULAC's position on the Top Ten Percent Plan. It's unfortunate that such a few wealthy and powerful people in our state can exhibit so much clout and power that they force the whole system to bend in their direction, on the one hand, and also that our universities feel unduly pressured to change, on the other, even against their own interests of devising a process that translates into freeing up spots at the university level. (The Statesman shows that these students have higher retention and graduation rates than non-Top Ten Percenters.) Maybe there should be a cost analysis that shows how much money is actually saved by bringing in TTP-ers. Just a thought. -Angela
EDITORIAL, AUSTIN AM-STATESMAN
Friday, April 15, 2005
We've heard a lot of talk from state leaders about the pressing need to increase minority enrollment at the state's colleges and universities. Ideally, Texas would have an admissions system that rewards effort, doesn't discriminate and gives students from rural areas an equal shot at top universities.
Texas has that kind of system right now. And the facts show that the students who gain admission under the top 10 rule are more competitive than those who are admitted under other criteria. Surprised? We were, too, given critics' statements that the top 10 students are not as "competitive" (you can read that in any number of ways) as students with high SAT scores. The facts demonstrate that the law is doing what it is supposed to do. But the Legislature is considering repealing the law or substantially revising it in an attempt to give preference to students from affluent suburban districts who have lost ground in the competition for seats at the University of Texas at Austin.
There is fierce competition for limited seats, especially at UT-Austin. Unfortunately, Texas public schools are not equal in resources, funding and quality. That is the genius of the top 10 law: it rewards merit and effort. Those who work the hardest earn the prize. The law is fair, and it is working. It shouldn't be repealed, as state. Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, proposes in a bill he filed this session.
Under the 1997 law, students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their high school classes in Texas can attend the state university of their choice. That means that the top 10 percent of seniors in the Del Valle school district with a large number of economically disadvantaged students has the same opportunity to gain admission to UT-Austin or Texas A&M University as the affluent students in the Eanes school district. It means that students at Palmer High School in the small-town district in North Texas have the same shot at UT-Austin as students at Highland Park High in the wealthy Dallas suburb.
The law ignores a student's race, ethnicity, income and geographic origin. Even so, it has significantly boosted minority enrollment at UT-Austin and Texas A&M University. It has also helped many white students from rural communities and small towns gain admission to selective schools.
Critics complain that top 10 students from Brownsville, Dallas or rural East Texas are less deserving than non-top 10 students from Plano, Highland Park or Eanes. Therefore, they argue, Texas is losing its brightest and best students because top 10 students are filling up so many seats that there aren't any left over for other gifted students who don't graduate in the top 10 percent of their class.
But UT-Austin's own figures show that top 10 students stay in college in greater numbers and graduate faster than non-top 10 students. It's true that top 10 students are taking a greater share of seats at UT and A&M. But there still are plenty of seats available at those institutions for others because thousands of students who are admitted don't enroll.
Texas has a fair admissions policy that gives every student the same chance to gain admission. It can be improved, as Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, is proposing with legislation requiring students to take the recommended high school curriculum to be eligible for top 10 admissions. But it shouldn't be repealed or substantially altered to favor those with the greatest influence at the Capitol. Any student who works hard enough to rise to the top of his or her class is treated the same under the law. The top 10 law puts the focus on merit. Wentworth and the Legislature should do that, too.
Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/04/15admissions_edit.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LULAC NATIONAL PRESS RELEASE
2000 L Street, NW, Suite 610; Washington, DC 20036
(202) 833-6130; (202) 833-6135 FAX; www.LULAC.org
For Immediate Release
Contact: Brent Wilkes, (202) 833-6130
March 30, 2005
LULAC CALLS FOR PRESERVATION OF TOP 10% ADMISSIONS RULE
National Board Supports Continuation of Successful Policy
Austin, TX - The National Board of the League of United Latin American
Citizens voted unanimously to support the continuation of a Texas law that
guarantees college admission to students who rank in the top 10 percent of
their high school class. Citing the 10 percent plan's success at increasing
diversity in Texas public universities, LULAC opposes any attempts to
abolish the law.
"It is clear to anyone who looks at enrollment data that the 10% plan has
increased diversity in our colleges and universities," stated Hector M.
Flores, LULAC National President. "If the 10% plan were to be abolished it
would destroy the tremendous opportunity that the program has created and
turn back the clock on diversity in Texas."
The university admissions law was adopted after a 1996 5th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals decision that eliminated affirmative action in Texas
college admissions. Since the 10% law was passed, the number of Hispanic and
black students admitted to Texas universities has more than doubled.
"Texas LULAC is firmly in support of preserving the 10% admissions rule,"
stated Roger C. Rocha, Jr., LULAC Texas State Director. "This rule provides
an equal opportunity for all Texans to receive a good education and achieve
the American dream."
LULAC plans to lobby the Texas legislature to preserve the plan which had
been championed by the late Texas Legislator Irma Rangel.
"Representative Rangel pioneered this landmark legislation and it was
supported by President George W. Bush when he was Governor," stated Flores.
"LULAC commends Texas Senator Royce West from Dallas and other legislators
for their ardent support of the 10% plan. We won't let the opponents of
equal opportunity jettison this plan simply because it has proven to be
effective."
The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) is the oldest and
largest Latino civil rights organization in the United States. LULAC
advances the economic condition, educational attainment, political
influence, health, and civil rights of Hispanic Americans through
community-based programs run by more than 700 LULAC councils nationwide.
EDITORIAL, AUSTIN AM-STATESMAN
Friday, April 15, 2005
We've heard a lot of talk from state leaders about the pressing need to increase minority enrollment at the state's colleges and universities. Ideally, Texas would have an admissions system that rewards effort, doesn't discriminate and gives students from rural areas an equal shot at top universities.
Texas has that kind of system right now. And the facts show that the students who gain admission under the top 10 rule are more competitive than those who are admitted under other criteria. Surprised? We were, too, given critics' statements that the top 10 students are not as "competitive" (you can read that in any number of ways) as students with high SAT scores. The facts demonstrate that the law is doing what it is supposed to do. But the Legislature is considering repealing the law or substantially revising it in an attempt to give preference to students from affluent suburban districts who have lost ground in the competition for seats at the University of Texas at Austin.
There is fierce competition for limited seats, especially at UT-Austin. Unfortunately, Texas public schools are not equal in resources, funding and quality. That is the genius of the top 10 law: it rewards merit and effort. Those who work the hardest earn the prize. The law is fair, and it is working. It shouldn't be repealed, as state. Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, proposes in a bill he filed this session.
Under the 1997 law, students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their high school classes in Texas can attend the state university of their choice. That means that the top 10 percent of seniors in the Del Valle school district with a large number of economically disadvantaged students has the same opportunity to gain admission to UT-Austin or Texas A&M University as the affluent students in the Eanes school district. It means that students at Palmer High School in the small-town district in North Texas have the same shot at UT-Austin as students at Highland Park High in the wealthy Dallas suburb.
The law ignores a student's race, ethnicity, income and geographic origin. Even so, it has significantly boosted minority enrollment at UT-Austin and Texas A&M University. It has also helped many white students from rural communities and small towns gain admission to selective schools.
Critics complain that top 10 students from Brownsville, Dallas or rural East Texas are less deserving than non-top 10 students from Plano, Highland Park or Eanes. Therefore, they argue, Texas is losing its brightest and best students because top 10 students are filling up so many seats that there aren't any left over for other gifted students who don't graduate in the top 10 percent of their class.
But UT-Austin's own figures show that top 10 students stay in college in greater numbers and graduate faster than non-top 10 students. It's true that top 10 students are taking a greater share of seats at UT and A&M. But there still are plenty of seats available at those institutions for others because thousands of students who are admitted don't enroll.
Texas has a fair admissions policy that gives every student the same chance to gain admission. It can be improved, as Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, is proposing with legislation requiring students to take the recommended high school curriculum to be eligible for top 10 admissions. But it shouldn't be repealed or substantially altered to favor those with the greatest influence at the Capitol. Any student who works hard enough to rise to the top of his or her class is treated the same under the law. The top 10 law puts the focus on merit. Wentworth and the Legislature should do that, too.
Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/04/15admissions_edit.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LULAC NATIONAL PRESS RELEASE
2000 L Street, NW, Suite 610; Washington, DC 20036
(202) 833-6130; (202) 833-6135 FAX; www.LULAC.org
For Immediate Release
Contact: Brent Wilkes, (202) 833-6130
March 30, 2005
LULAC CALLS FOR PRESERVATION OF TOP 10% ADMISSIONS RULE
National Board Supports Continuation of Successful Policy
Austin, TX - The National Board of the League of United Latin American
Citizens voted unanimously to support the continuation of a Texas law that
guarantees college admission to students who rank in the top 10 percent of
their high school class. Citing the 10 percent plan's success at increasing
diversity in Texas public universities, LULAC opposes any attempts to
abolish the law.
"It is clear to anyone who looks at enrollment data that the 10% plan has
increased diversity in our colleges and universities," stated Hector M.
Flores, LULAC National President. "If the 10% plan were to be abolished it
would destroy the tremendous opportunity that the program has created and
turn back the clock on diversity in Texas."
The university admissions law was adopted after a 1996 5th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals decision that eliminated affirmative action in Texas
college admissions. Since the 10% law was passed, the number of Hispanic and
black students admitted to Texas universities has more than doubled.
"Texas LULAC is firmly in support of preserving the 10% admissions rule,"
stated Roger C. Rocha, Jr., LULAC Texas State Director. "This rule provides
an equal opportunity for all Texans to receive a good education and achieve
the American dream."
LULAC plans to lobby the Texas legislature to preserve the plan which had
been championed by the late Texas Legislator Irma Rangel.
"Representative Rangel pioneered this landmark legislation and it was
supported by President George W. Bush when he was Governor," stated Flores.
"LULAC commends Texas Senator Royce West from Dallas and other legislators
for their ardent support of the 10% plan. We won't let the opponents of
equal opportunity jettison this plan simply because it has proven to be
effective."
The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) is the oldest and
largest Latino civil rights organization in the United States. LULAC
advances the economic condition, educational attainment, political
influence, health, and civil rights of Hispanic Americans through
community-based programs run by more than 700 LULAC councils nationwide.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Blog Update--from Angela
Hello everybody. I've been out of the country and have had difficulty with computer access and so I'm barely getting back to the blog. I'll post recent developments on Texas shortly as well.
I've been at the American Educational Research Association meetings in Montreal, Canada. The conference has been really interesting and it's been great being in a bilingual, French-English, province where the two languages are in constant negotiation in a very fluid, non-problematic way. You DO have to be bilingual though to hold lots of jobs, especially those that require interactions with the public.
Regarding the panels, session after session expresses great concern with NCLB. If anything is missing though, it's history on standards-based reform as well as analyses of the monied interests behind these reforms. It's dangerous, in my opinion, to not look at this because then one is left with the idea that these state-mandated controls have evolved "naturally" and that real people aren't actually profiting from all of this right now revealing a powerful motive that has nothing to do with children's learning.
Maybe AERA will someday be the organization that makes Karl Rove nervous.
I have good news on my book, LEAVING CHILDREN BEHIND. It--along with my other book--SUBTRACTIVE SCHOOLING--are the top 2 out of 4 best sellers for the State University of New York Press. I've also come across some great reviews of the book. I'm glad it's getting the reception that we all wanted it to get.
This was written by seven Penn State students. I think it's clever and so I thought that I'd share. -Angela
Ten Things I Hate about NCLB
1. One "proficient" standard for all is not very kind
when lots of such words need to be defined.
2. About this bill we need to be critical,
the reasons and arguments have become highly political.
3. The government went all Atilla the Hun
and took away all of our funds.
4. Teaching right now isn't the best
when all that you learn is geared to the test.
5. This policy leaves kids in the dark,
lacking attendance yields a big black mark.
6. We don't like federal mandates on patrol,
when all the states should be in control.
7. This point really is an abomination:
those improving students change stratification.
8. Why start a new controversy
and penalize schools with diversity?
9. Changing the purpose of education is funny;
when you teach to a test just for money.
10. Educators need room to reach
and not be confined when they try to teach.
Dan Oechsner-deo114@psu.edu
Melissa Dangel-mbd5005@psu.edu
Dan Mckee-dmm490@psu.edu
Dan Merrick-djm5007@psu.edu
Steve Jones-drj5007@psu.edu
Tara Scalfani-tes5000@psu.edu
Scott Fura-swf5002@psu.edu
I've been at the American Educational Research Association meetings in Montreal, Canada. The conference has been really interesting and it's been great being in a bilingual, French-English, province where the two languages are in constant negotiation in a very fluid, non-problematic way. You DO have to be bilingual though to hold lots of jobs, especially those that require interactions with the public.
Regarding the panels, session after session expresses great concern with NCLB. If anything is missing though, it's history on standards-based reform as well as analyses of the monied interests behind these reforms. It's dangerous, in my opinion, to not look at this because then one is left with the idea that these state-mandated controls have evolved "naturally" and that real people aren't actually profiting from all of this right now revealing a powerful motive that has nothing to do with children's learning.
Maybe AERA will someday be the organization that makes Karl Rove nervous.
I have good news on my book, LEAVING CHILDREN BEHIND. It--along with my other book--SUBTRACTIVE SCHOOLING--are the top 2 out of 4 best sellers for the State University of New York Press. I've also come across some great reviews of the book. I'm glad it's getting the reception that we all wanted it to get.
This was written by seven Penn State students. I think it's clever and so I thought that I'd share. -Angela
Ten Things I Hate about NCLB
1. One "proficient" standard for all is not very kind
when lots of such words need to be defined.
2. About this bill we need to be critical,
the reasons and arguments have become highly political.
3. The government went all Atilla the Hun
and took away all of our funds.
4. Teaching right now isn't the best
when all that you learn is geared to the test.
5. This policy leaves kids in the dark,
lacking attendance yields a big black mark.
6. We don't like federal mandates on patrol,
when all the states should be in control.
7. This point really is an abomination:
those improving students change stratification.
8. Why start a new controversy
and penalize schools with diversity?
9. Changing the purpose of education is funny;
when you teach to a test just for money.
10. Educators need room to reach
and not be confined when they try to teach.
Dan Oechsner-deo114@psu.edu
Melissa Dangel-mbd5005@psu.edu
Dan Mckee-dmm490@psu.edu
Dan Merrick-djm5007@psu.edu
Steve Jones-drj5007@psu.edu
Tara Scalfani-tes5000@psu.edu
Scott Fura-swf5002@psu.edu
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Power Grab
EDITORIAL
Power grab
Waco Tribune Herald
--------------
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Vast numbers of schools would be taken over by the state and principals would be shown the door under proposals contained in both the Senate and House in Austin.
It is proposed in the name of "accountability" and "setting the bar high." But it has the look of being driven by anti-government ideology and not necessarily the best interests of public schools, their communities or their students.
House Bill 2 and the Senate substitute differ in degree, but both would order state takeover of schools that lag under a certain threshold.
The House bill would allow the state to take over schools that are among the lowest 5 percent in performance standards for two years in a row – even if they were actually rated academically acceptable under state guidelines.
Under the Senate bill, the state would take over schools rated "unacceptable" for two years in a row. That may seem more incremental, but it's not. Education Commissioner Shirley Neeley just announced that the Texas Education Agency will raise test scores schools need to be rated "acceptable." The Austin American-Statesman reports that 1,213 schools would be unacceptable under these criteria.
Two Waco schools, Doris Miller Elementary and G.L.. Wiley Middle, are rated unacceptable. Several others are on the "bubble" and could be turned over to for-profit management firms or other entities such as regional education service centers, univer- sities or charter-school operators.
Authors downplay the prospective role of for-profit management groups. But there seems little likelihood that nonprofit groups will be lining up to manage inner-city schools. Meanwhile, businesses like Edison Schools would line up. The Dallas ISD severed a contract with Edison after two lackluster years. Such a company and its kin covet the chance to get their hands on so many tax dollars.
A state takeover is a valid sanction for the most egregious situations, like Dallas's chronically mismanaged Wilmer-Hutchins ISD. But the matter should not be taken as lightly as either of these bills do. It's as if the authors feel it is an imperative to get for-profit firms into the education business. No, it's not.
Lawmakers who run for office using the phrase "local control" and then support a power grab like this are engaged in false advertising.
Power grab
Waco Tribune Herald
--------------
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Vast numbers of schools would be taken over by the state and principals would be shown the door under proposals contained in both the Senate and House in Austin.
It is proposed in the name of "accountability" and "setting the bar high." But it has the look of being driven by anti-government ideology and not necessarily the best interests of public schools, their communities or their students.
House Bill 2 and the Senate substitute differ in degree, but both would order state takeover of schools that lag under a certain threshold.
The House bill would allow the state to take over schools that are among the lowest 5 percent in performance standards for two years in a row – even if they were actually rated academically acceptable under state guidelines.
Under the Senate bill, the state would take over schools rated "unacceptable" for two years in a row. That may seem more incremental, but it's not. Education Commissioner Shirley Neeley just announced that the Texas Education Agency will raise test scores schools need to be rated "acceptable." The Austin American-Statesman reports that 1,213 schools would be unacceptable under these criteria.
Two Waco schools, Doris Miller Elementary and G.L.. Wiley Middle, are rated unacceptable. Several others are on the "bubble" and could be turned over to for-profit management firms or other entities such as regional education service centers, univer- sities or charter-school operators.
Authors downplay the prospective role of for-profit management groups. But there seems little likelihood that nonprofit groups will be lining up to manage inner-city schools. Meanwhile, businesses like Edison Schools would line up. The Dallas ISD severed a contract with Edison after two lackluster years. Such a company and its kin covet the chance to get their hands on so many tax dollars.
A state takeover is a valid sanction for the most egregious situations, like Dallas's chronically mismanaged Wilmer-Hutchins ISD. But the matter should not be taken as lightly as either of these bills do. It's as if the authors feel it is an imperative to get for-profit firms into the education business. No, it's not.
Lawmakers who run for office using the phrase "local control" and then support a power grab like this are engaged in false advertising.
Study Finds Shortcoming in New Law on Education
When the test IS the reform--rather than, say, used to measure it, diminishing returns as we see here are inevitable. -Angela
By GREG WINTER
New York Times
Published: April 13, 2005
The academic growth that students experience in a given school year has apparently slowed since the passage of No Child Left Behind, the education law that was intended to achieve just the opposite, a new study has found.
In both reading and math, the study determined, test scores have gone up somewhat, as each class of students outdoes its predecessors. But within grades, students have made less academic progress during the school year than they did before No Child Left Behind went into effect in 2002, the researchers said.
That finding casts doubt on whether schools can meet the law's mandate that all students be academically proficient by 2014. In fact, to realize the goal of universal proficiency, the study said, students will have to make as much as three times the progress they are currently making.
The study was conducted by the Northwest Evaluation Association, which develops tests for about 1,500 school districts in 43 states. To complete it, the group drew upon its test data for more than 320,000 students in 23 states, a sample that it calls "broad but not nationally representative," in part because the biggest cities, not being Northwest clients, were not included.
One of the more ominous findings, the researchers said, is that the achievement gap between white and nonwhite students could soon widen. Closing the gap is one of the driving principles of the law, and so far states say they have made strides toward shrinking it.
But minority students with the same test scores as their white counterparts at the beginning of the school year ended up falling behind by the end of it, the study found. Both groups made academic progress, but the minority students did not make as much, it concluded, an outcome suggesting that the gaps in achievement will worsen.
"Right now it's kind of a hidden effect that we would expect to see expressed in the next couple of years," said Gage Kingsbury, Northwest's director of research. "At that point, I think people will be disappointed with what N.C.L.B. has done."
The findings diverge from those of other recent studies, including a survey last month by the Center on Education Policy, a research group. It found that a significant majority of state education officials reported widespread academic progress and a narrowing of the achievement gap.
"This new study should give everybody pause before they run off and say, 'We're marching to victory,' " said Jack Jennings, the center's president. "Maybe we're not."
Kerri Briggs, a senior policy analyst at the Education Department, said the Northwest study had both encouraging and worrisome aspects, but added that she would have to examine it more closely before passing judgment.
Some critics speculated that because the study lacked data from big cities, which have large populations of minority students and have posted significant gains on test scores in recent years, it might have overstated or mischaracterized what was happening with the achievement gap.
"It's hard to know how much you can extrapolate from this study," said Ross Wiener, policy director for the Education Trust, which released its own report in January showing mixed results on student performance and achievement gaps. "I don't think you want to make generalizations about what's going on nationwide."
Still, the Northwest study tracked student performance at a level that others did not, a factor that may help explain why some of its findings appear unorthodox. Rather than relying on test scores at just one point in the year, the Northwest study looked at how students fared in the fall and then again in the spring, in an effort to see how much they had learned during the year.
With this approach, Northwest found that test scores on its exams did, in fact, go up from one year to the next under No Child Left Behind, typically by less than a point. The reason successive classes appear to do a little better than those before them may stem from the fact that younger students have grown up during a time of more regular testing than their immediate predecessors, the researchers said, and are therefore higher achievers.
But rising test scores tend to mask how much progress individual students make as they travel through school, the researchers found. Since No Child Left Behind, that individual growth has slowed, possibly because teachers feel compelled to spend the bulk of their time making sure students who are near proficiency make it over the hurdle.
The practice may leave teachers with less time to focus on students who are either far below or far above the proficiency mark, the researchers said, making it less likely for the whole class to move forward as rapidly as before No Child Left Behind set the agenda.
By GREG WINTER
New York Times
Published: April 13, 2005
The academic growth that students experience in a given school year has apparently slowed since the passage of No Child Left Behind, the education law that was intended to achieve just the opposite, a new study has found.
In both reading and math, the study determined, test scores have gone up somewhat, as each class of students outdoes its predecessors. But within grades, students have made less academic progress during the school year than they did before No Child Left Behind went into effect in 2002, the researchers said.
That finding casts doubt on whether schools can meet the law's mandate that all students be academically proficient by 2014. In fact, to realize the goal of universal proficiency, the study said, students will have to make as much as three times the progress they are currently making.
The study was conducted by the Northwest Evaluation Association, which develops tests for about 1,500 school districts in 43 states. To complete it, the group drew upon its test data for more than 320,000 students in 23 states, a sample that it calls "broad but not nationally representative," in part because the biggest cities, not being Northwest clients, were not included.
One of the more ominous findings, the researchers said, is that the achievement gap between white and nonwhite students could soon widen. Closing the gap is one of the driving principles of the law, and so far states say they have made strides toward shrinking it.
But minority students with the same test scores as their white counterparts at the beginning of the school year ended up falling behind by the end of it, the study found. Both groups made academic progress, but the minority students did not make as much, it concluded, an outcome suggesting that the gaps in achievement will worsen.
"Right now it's kind of a hidden effect that we would expect to see expressed in the next couple of years," said Gage Kingsbury, Northwest's director of research. "At that point, I think people will be disappointed with what N.C.L.B. has done."
The findings diverge from those of other recent studies, including a survey last month by the Center on Education Policy, a research group. It found that a significant majority of state education officials reported widespread academic progress and a narrowing of the achievement gap.
"This new study should give everybody pause before they run off and say, 'We're marching to victory,' " said Jack Jennings, the center's president. "Maybe we're not."
Kerri Briggs, a senior policy analyst at the Education Department, said the Northwest study had both encouraging and worrisome aspects, but added that she would have to examine it more closely before passing judgment.
Some critics speculated that because the study lacked data from big cities, which have large populations of minority students and have posted significant gains on test scores in recent years, it might have overstated or mischaracterized what was happening with the achievement gap.
"It's hard to know how much you can extrapolate from this study," said Ross Wiener, policy director for the Education Trust, which released its own report in January showing mixed results on student performance and achievement gaps. "I don't think you want to make generalizations about what's going on nationwide."
Still, the Northwest study tracked student performance at a level that others did not, a factor that may help explain why some of its findings appear unorthodox. Rather than relying on test scores at just one point in the year, the Northwest study looked at how students fared in the fall and then again in the spring, in an effort to see how much they had learned during the year.
With this approach, Northwest found that test scores on its exams did, in fact, go up from one year to the next under No Child Left Behind, typically by less than a point. The reason successive classes appear to do a little better than those before them may stem from the fact that younger students have grown up during a time of more regular testing than their immediate predecessors, the researchers said, and are therefore higher achievers.
But rising test scores tend to mask how much progress individual students make as they travel through school, the researchers found. Since No Child Left Behind, that individual growth has slowed, possibly because teachers feel compelled to spend the bulk of their time making sure students who are near proficiency make it over the hurdle.
The practice may leave teachers with less time to focus on students who are either far below or far above the proficiency mark, the researchers said, making it less likely for the whole class to move forward as rapidly as before No Child Left Behind set the agenda.
Monday, April 11, 2005
Regulation is too High a Price for Vouchers
Posted on Mon, Apr. 11, 2005
Regulation is too High a Price for Vouchers
By Michele Quinones
Special to the Star-Telegram
During the last election cycle, active Texas Republicans gathered in state Senate district conventions and finally at the Texas Republican State Convention. Appointed committees worked on platform language detailing the beliefs of local or state Republicans on many issues, including educational vouchers or school choice.
In Tarrant County, the platforms for Senate Districts 10 and 12 did not support vouchers, primarily because of the regulation of private schools that would come with government funding.
District 12's platform said: "The Party, an uncompromising supporter of private and home schools and private and home school autonomy, does not recommend vouchers/tax credits (child-centered school funding) for private schools and home schools. Private and home school parents already have the maximum freedom to choose the content and goal of their children's education. Accepting government money will turn private schools into public schools and thus will diminish the parent's freedom to determine the content and goal of their children's education."
District 10's platform plank was very similar.
These Republicans realized that private schools that take government money will become government schools. Many active Republicans from the Tarrant County area do not support vouchers.
The state party platform supports vouchers but includes these words: "This measure could only be considered upon passage of a state constitutional amendment that prohibits imposition of state regulations on private and parochial schools." The Republicans at this convention did not want any of the regulation on private schools that would come with government money.
State Rep. Bob Griggs, R-North Richland Hills, has openly opposed vouchers. Other representatives and senators from District 10 and District 12 back vouchers.
Our legislators must get the message that we do not want the government to regulate our private schools.
Government money always brings uniformity and regimentation, less freedom and less choice. When private or home schools take government money, jurisdiction over children's education is taken out of parents' hands and is placed into those of the government.
In the landmark 2002 decision of Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a voucher program that is neutral in regard to religion would pass constitutional muster. Private schools that accept voucher money must admit students regardless of religious faith.
Schools will not be able to screen students on the basis of criminal activity, truancy or academic ability. This would drastically change the way that private and religious schools handle admissions.
Private schools also would be required to educate handicapped and special-education students. However, without federal assistance, private schools would not have the funds necessary to follow federal rules regarding the education of these students. This assistance would bring more government regulation into private schools.
One of the current voucher bills, House Bill 1263, says that in order to participate in the Texas voucher program, a qualifying school must "not advocate or foster unlawful behavior or teach hatred of any person or group on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion."
How would a parochial school handle this requirement? How would the courts rule regarding offensive teaching? Would the Christian teaching regarding salvation, taken from the Bible, be considered hateful toward other religions?
There is no way to know the answers to these questions until there is a court challenge.
The traditional, classic literature that students in these schools are reading, including the Bible, would offend many students. These religious schools would have to change their reading material, curriculum and goals.
The Texas House is considering four voucher bills and will vote on them very soon. If you are a parent who sends your child to a private or parochial school, or a Republican or citizen who cares about protecting the individual rights and freedoms of private and home school students, you must contact your representative.
Let that person know that you oppose to an educational voucher system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michele Quinones of Haltom City is active in the Republican Party. She teaches sixth- and seventh-grade history and math in a private school.
Regulation is too High a Price for Vouchers
By Michele Quinones
Special to the Star-Telegram
During the last election cycle, active Texas Republicans gathered in state Senate district conventions and finally at the Texas Republican State Convention. Appointed committees worked on platform language detailing the beliefs of local or state Republicans on many issues, including educational vouchers or school choice.
In Tarrant County, the platforms for Senate Districts 10 and 12 did not support vouchers, primarily because of the regulation of private schools that would come with government funding.
District 12's platform said: "The Party, an uncompromising supporter of private and home schools and private and home school autonomy, does not recommend vouchers/tax credits (child-centered school funding) for private schools and home schools. Private and home school parents already have the maximum freedom to choose the content and goal of their children's education. Accepting government money will turn private schools into public schools and thus will diminish the parent's freedom to determine the content and goal of their children's education."
District 10's platform plank was very similar.
These Republicans realized that private schools that take government money will become government schools. Many active Republicans from the Tarrant County area do not support vouchers.
The state party platform supports vouchers but includes these words: "This measure could only be considered upon passage of a state constitutional amendment that prohibits imposition of state regulations on private and parochial schools." The Republicans at this convention did not want any of the regulation on private schools that would come with government money.
State Rep. Bob Griggs, R-North Richland Hills, has openly opposed vouchers. Other representatives and senators from District 10 and District 12 back vouchers.
Our legislators must get the message that we do not want the government to regulate our private schools.
Government money always brings uniformity and regimentation, less freedom and less choice. When private or home schools take government money, jurisdiction over children's education is taken out of parents' hands and is placed into those of the government.
In the landmark 2002 decision of Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a voucher program that is neutral in regard to religion would pass constitutional muster. Private schools that accept voucher money must admit students regardless of religious faith.
Schools will not be able to screen students on the basis of criminal activity, truancy or academic ability. This would drastically change the way that private and religious schools handle admissions.
Private schools also would be required to educate handicapped and special-education students. However, without federal assistance, private schools would not have the funds necessary to follow federal rules regarding the education of these students. This assistance would bring more government regulation into private schools.
One of the current voucher bills, House Bill 1263, says that in order to participate in the Texas voucher program, a qualifying school must "not advocate or foster unlawful behavior or teach hatred of any person or group on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion."
How would a parochial school handle this requirement? How would the courts rule regarding offensive teaching? Would the Christian teaching regarding salvation, taken from the Bible, be considered hateful toward other religions?
There is no way to know the answers to these questions until there is a court challenge.
The traditional, classic literature that students in these schools are reading, including the Bible, would offend many students. These religious schools would have to change their reading material, curriculum and goals.
The Texas House is considering four voucher bills and will vote on them very soon. If you are a parent who sends your child to a private or parochial school, or a Republican or citizen who cares about protecting the individual rights and freedoms of private and home school students, you must contact your representative.
Let that person know that you oppose to an educational voucher system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michele Quinones of Haltom City is active in the Republican Party. She teaches sixth- and seventh-grade history and math in a private school.
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Texas' Rush to Privatize
Texas' Rush to Privatize
JOHN YOUNG Opinion page editor
The Waco Tribune-Herald
Sunday, April 10, 2005
What Texas is doing with Child Protective Services almost reminds one of the serial killer who, with shaky hand, pens, "Stop me before I kill again."
What Texas is writing relative to child protection is, "I've blown it too many times. Take this task off my hands."
There's no question that Texas has blown it – and too many times. The question: Is privatizing the answer?
Republican leaders in Austin surely would like it to be so. They'd like to see as many state operations as possible contracted away, including public schools. You see, we just can't be trusted as a state to manage our own affairs. We must hire a management firm.
A House committee last week voted to put Child Protective Services on a fast track to full privatization. The Senate has passed a more incremental bill. It privatizes recruitment of foster parents and adoptive families, but stops short of contracting out case management on suspected abuse cases. It would try a pilot project to see if the latter works.
It's odd to see the House wanting to rush into privatization, when it is clear that Texas has never given the current system sufficient resources to do what it must.
Texas spends less per capita on child protection than all but two states, an average of $110 per child compared to a national average of $167. Its child abuse caseworkers have an average caseload of 61, twice the national average.
Has CPS done its job sufficiently? A host of high-profile horror stories say no.
But a rush to privatize in Texas is comparable to a baseball team owner saying to the manager, "I realize we could afford only three infielders, and we had to recruit the catcher each game from the stands, but you're the reason why we're losing."
Should the House plan become law, it will be interesting to see how many companies will line up to try to do what the state apparently can't do with available resources. Two years ago the state set in motion the privatization of mental hospitals and group homes. The requirement was that contractors show how they could do the same thing with 25 percent less. Bidders stayed away in droves.
In the last Legislature, a restructuring of mental health-mental retardation services ordered privatization when possible but was careful not to require or assume any cost savings whatsoever.
Of course, privatizing guarantees this: Unlike bodies without a profit motive, businesses will seek to boost their caseloads and trim their costs to pump up their margins. Will this result in better services or just lower-cost services, and higher profits for those involved?
What else will come with the package? Last year an auditor's report cited $20 million in unnecessary payments to an insurance subcontractor for the Children's Health Insurance Program, as well as obscenely excessive payments – $7 million split between four consultants.
And here we were telling CHIP recipients we couldn't afford to check their teeth or provide them with eyeglasses.
Next target: schools
Don't look now, but schools are next up on the to-do list for Privatization Inc. Legislation in both houses would make it possible for private management firms to take over low-performing schools. Authors say that the privatization angle is being overplayed, since regional service centers, universities and others could do the same.
But it isn't these players who are lining up in Brooks Bros. suits. It's for-profit groups like Edison Schools, which flunked its own test run in Dallas. The school district there pulled the plug on its contract with Edison after two years.
Our Legislature seems in much too much of a hurry to abdicate state affairs to something other than the government we've created as a people, including the school boards we elect.
If our leaders lack such confidence in the enterprise of governing, maybe they should abdicate as well.
John Young's column appears Thursday and Sunday. E-mail: jyoung@wacotrib.com. Carlos Sanchez' column will return soon.
JOHN YOUNG Opinion page editor
The Waco Tribune-Herald
Sunday, April 10, 2005
What Texas is doing with Child Protective Services almost reminds one of the serial killer who, with shaky hand, pens, "Stop me before I kill again."
What Texas is writing relative to child protection is, "I've blown it too many times. Take this task off my hands."
There's no question that Texas has blown it – and too many times. The question: Is privatizing the answer?
Republican leaders in Austin surely would like it to be so. They'd like to see as many state operations as possible contracted away, including public schools. You see, we just can't be trusted as a state to manage our own affairs. We must hire a management firm.
A House committee last week voted to put Child Protective Services on a fast track to full privatization. The Senate has passed a more incremental bill. It privatizes recruitment of foster parents and adoptive families, but stops short of contracting out case management on suspected abuse cases. It would try a pilot project to see if the latter works.
It's odd to see the House wanting to rush into privatization, when it is clear that Texas has never given the current system sufficient resources to do what it must.
Texas spends less per capita on child protection than all but two states, an average of $110 per child compared to a national average of $167. Its child abuse caseworkers have an average caseload of 61, twice the national average.
Has CPS done its job sufficiently? A host of high-profile horror stories say no.
But a rush to privatize in Texas is comparable to a baseball team owner saying to the manager, "I realize we could afford only three infielders, and we had to recruit the catcher each game from the stands, but you're the reason why we're losing."
Should the House plan become law, it will be interesting to see how many companies will line up to try to do what the state apparently can't do with available resources. Two years ago the state set in motion the privatization of mental hospitals and group homes. The requirement was that contractors show how they could do the same thing with 25 percent less. Bidders stayed away in droves.
In the last Legislature, a restructuring of mental health-mental retardation services ordered privatization when possible but was careful not to require or assume any cost savings whatsoever.
Of course, privatizing guarantees this: Unlike bodies without a profit motive, businesses will seek to boost their caseloads and trim their costs to pump up their margins. Will this result in better services or just lower-cost services, and higher profits for those involved?
What else will come with the package? Last year an auditor's report cited $20 million in unnecessary payments to an insurance subcontractor for the Children's Health Insurance Program, as well as obscenely excessive payments – $7 million split between four consultants.
And here we were telling CHIP recipients we couldn't afford to check their teeth or provide them with eyeglasses.
Next target: schools
Don't look now, but schools are next up on the to-do list for Privatization Inc. Legislation in both houses would make it possible for private management firms to take over low-performing schools. Authors say that the privatization angle is being overplayed, since regional service centers, universities and others could do the same.
But it isn't these players who are lining up in Brooks Bros. suits. It's for-profit groups like Edison Schools, which flunked its own test run in Dallas. The school district there pulled the plug on its contract with Edison after two years.
Our Legislature seems in much too much of a hurry to abdicate state affairs to something other than the government we've created as a people, including the school boards we elect.
If our leaders lack such confidence in the enterprise of governing, maybe they should abdicate as well.
John Young's column appears Thursday and Sunday. E-mail: jyoung@wacotrib.com. Carlos Sanchez' column will return soon.
Friday, April 08, 2005
The Right and Wrong Way to Pay for Schools
EDITORIAL BOARD
Austin Am-Statesman
Friday, April 08, 2005
There's no question that the state Senate's approach to fixing the school finance crisis is better than the bill passed by the Texas House. House Bill 2 and its financing companion, House Bill 3, are so bad it would have been difficult for senators to do worse.
There are many features worth noting in the Senate bill by state Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano. We like the approach to teachers' pay raises. The bill calls for an across-the-board raise of about $1,500 a year per teacher and sets up a merit system that provides additional pay incentives for teachers in low-performing schools or teachers with certification in certain specialized fields. That approach recognizes the reality of the situation in Texas: Teachers as a group are underpaid; and the demand outstrips the supply for teachers who are certified in secondary math, science and special education. The Senate bill also tightens accountability for failing charter schools and expands pre-kindergarten.
Unfortunately, the Senate suffers from the same obsession as the House in dealing with school financing. Both chambers focused their efforts on reducing local property taxes over financing public schools. Both bills fall short of funding public schools at a level needed to equip Texas' 4.3 million students with the skills needed to graduate, get jobs or go to college.
The Senate plan would generate about $3.2 billion in new money — about the same as the House bill. It doesn't eat those dollars up in new mandates the way that the House plan would. And it creates a statewide property tax of $1 per assessed valuation — a more reliable and equitable method of financing public schools than the House plan, which relies heavily on increases in the sales tax. But the amount of money in the Senate plan falls short of what state District Judge John Dietz ruled was needed for public schools.
Like everything else in life, education costs money. People at the Capitol are fond of saying you can't solve problems by throwing money at them. That's faux folk wisdom because Texas politicians have never really tried throwing money at education. Education gets a lot of lip service but comparatively little cash — certainly not enough to keep pace with population growth and the special needs of modern students and the demands placed on them by modern politicians.
Another troublesome provision shared by the Senate and House versions is one that would privatize hundreds of failing schools. The Senate plan calls for the state education commissioner to replace the principal and management team at any school rated low-performing for two consecutive years. The commissioner could put those schools under management of private firms, a state university or a group of community leaders.
That would be a step backward for schools that desperately need to move forward. Private firms have been fired from several public districts across the United States for failing to improve student performance. Placing schools under the management of "community leaders" is a risky proposition because, however well intended those folks might be, they are no match for trained teachers and administrators. The idea that there is a magic bullet, such as a state university, that can instantly improve schools is flawed.
Private schools excel because they offer smaller classes, discipline, high expectations, a rich curriculum and quality teachers. Give failing schools those same tools and watch them shine.
When the horse trading begins in earnest in conference committee, we're hoping that legislators will face educational reality and commit the money it's going to take to keep the state economically viable.
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/04/8education_edit.html
Austin Am-Statesman
Friday, April 08, 2005
There's no question that the state Senate's approach to fixing the school finance crisis is better than the bill passed by the Texas House. House Bill 2 and its financing companion, House Bill 3, are so bad it would have been difficult for senators to do worse.
There are many features worth noting in the Senate bill by state Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano. We like the approach to teachers' pay raises. The bill calls for an across-the-board raise of about $1,500 a year per teacher and sets up a merit system that provides additional pay incentives for teachers in low-performing schools or teachers with certification in certain specialized fields. That approach recognizes the reality of the situation in Texas: Teachers as a group are underpaid; and the demand outstrips the supply for teachers who are certified in secondary math, science and special education. The Senate bill also tightens accountability for failing charter schools and expands pre-kindergarten.
Unfortunately, the Senate suffers from the same obsession as the House in dealing with school financing. Both chambers focused their efforts on reducing local property taxes over financing public schools. Both bills fall short of funding public schools at a level needed to equip Texas' 4.3 million students with the skills needed to graduate, get jobs or go to college.
The Senate plan would generate about $3.2 billion in new money — about the same as the House bill. It doesn't eat those dollars up in new mandates the way that the House plan would. And it creates a statewide property tax of $1 per assessed valuation — a more reliable and equitable method of financing public schools than the House plan, which relies heavily on increases in the sales tax. But the amount of money in the Senate plan falls short of what state District Judge John Dietz ruled was needed for public schools.
Like everything else in life, education costs money. People at the Capitol are fond of saying you can't solve problems by throwing money at them. That's faux folk wisdom because Texas politicians have never really tried throwing money at education. Education gets a lot of lip service but comparatively little cash — certainly not enough to keep pace with population growth and the special needs of modern students and the demands placed on them by modern politicians.
Another troublesome provision shared by the Senate and House versions is one that would privatize hundreds of failing schools. The Senate plan calls for the state education commissioner to replace the principal and management team at any school rated low-performing for two consecutive years. The commissioner could put those schools under management of private firms, a state university or a group of community leaders.
That would be a step backward for schools that desperately need to move forward. Private firms have been fired from several public districts across the United States for failing to improve student performance. Placing schools under the management of "community leaders" is a risky proposition because, however well intended those folks might be, they are no match for trained teachers and administrators. The idea that there is a magic bullet, such as a state university, that can instantly improve schools is flawed.
Private schools excel because they offer smaller classes, discipline, high expectations, a rich curriculum and quality teachers. Give failing schools those same tools and watch them shine.
When the horse trading begins in earnest in conference committee, we're hoping that legislators will face educational reality and commit the money it's going to take to keep the state economically viable.
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/04/8education_edit.html
Message from Representative Dora Olivo (District 27)
URGENT: Action Plan Attached
April 5, 2005
Dear Friends,
We need your help in getting a hearing set for HB 1612 and 1613 regarding high stakes testing. The bills have been referred to the Public Education Committee, but the bills have not been set for a hearing yet. The deadline to vote a bill out of the Public Education Committee is May 9th and the last day to vote the bills out of the Calendars Committee is May 21st. Senator Leticia Van de Putte is sponsoring these bills on the senate side with SB 1717 and SB 1718.
For those of you who joined us, the conversation and dialogue we had during the video-conference has been the springboard of the legislative action center that you can find on my website, (www.doraolivo.com). I want to thank all who participated in the video-conference. We must continue to strengthen our alliance and continue to broaden the outreach to gain support for passage of these bills. Reforming standardized testing is one of the initiatives outlined by the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators (NHCSL) and the National Black Caucus of State Legislators (NBCSL) in their joint effort entitled "Closing the Gaps." Both Representative Harold Dutton and myself are representing Texas in this national effort.
Also, please sign up at the website to receive e-mail notices of upcoming events and actions. Working together we can achieve a more accurate way of measuring our children's abilities-by the use of multiple criteria instead of just a single test.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or call my legislative aide Joshua Cinelli at 1-888-777-0033. In Austin 512-463-0494. Joshua.Cinelli@house.state.tx.us.
Once again we need your help in getting HB 1612 and HB 1613 set for a hearing and passed out of committee. Please look at attached Action Plan.
Sincerely,
Dora Olivo
Please Note: Urgent Action Plan
Please contact all the Public Education Committees and ask them to please set HB 1612 & HB 1613 for a hearing and to pass bills out committee.
House Public Education Committee
The Honorable Kent Grusendorf-Chair
kent.grusendorf@house.state.tx.us
Phone: 512.463.0624
Members:
Rep. Rene Oliveira (512.463.0640)-Vice Chair
Rep. Dan Branch (512.463.0367)
Rep. Harold Dutton (512.463.0510)
Rep. Anna Mowery (512.463.0608)
Rep. Dianne Delisi(512.463.0630)
Rep. Rob Eissler(512.463.0797)
Rep. Scott Hochberg (512.463.0492)
Rep. Bill. Keffer (512.463.0656)
Senate Education Committee
Chairwoman:The Honorable Florence Shapiro
florence.shapiro@senate.state.tx.us
Phone: 512.463.0108
Members:
Sen. Royce West (512.463.0123)-Vice-Chair
Sen. Kim Averitt (512.463.0122)
Sen. Kyle Janek (512 463-0117)
Sen. Steve Ogden (512.463.0105)
Sen. Todd Staples (512.463.0103)
Sen. Leticia Van de Putte (512.463.0126)
Sen. Tommy Williams (281.364.9426)
Sen. Judith Zaffirini (512.463.0121)
Also Contact your Representative and your Senator and the following state officials listed below to ask for their support and also get them to contact all members of the House Public Education Committee to set bills for HB 1612 and 1613 for a hearing and to get the bills voted favorably out of committee. Also, have them contact the Senate Public Education Committee to set bills for a hearing on SB 1717 and SB 1718 and vote them favorably out of committee.
Office of the Governor
The Honorable Rick Perry
Website: www.governor.state.tx.us
Email: rick.perry@governor.state.tx.us
Phone: 512.463.2000
Citizen's Opinion Hotline: 1-800-252-9600 Office of the Lieutenant Governor
The Honorable David Dewhurst
Website: http://www.ltgov.state.tx.us
Email: david.dewhurst@ltgov.state.tx.us
Phone: 512.463.0001
800-441-0373
Speaker of the House
The Honorable Tom Craddick
Website: www.house.state.tx.us/speaker/welcome
Email: tom.craddick@house.state.tx.us
Phone: 512.463.1000 Texas Education Agency Commissioner
Dr. Shirley Neeley
Website: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/commissioner.html
Email: commissioner@tea.state.tx.us
To Keep things in Perspective:
A part of the poem "Hurry Up, Hurry Up" by Clydia Forehand
There are so many children, from so many places
To test for conformity really erases.
All that they are; all that they dream.
All that they look for and all that they see.
Taught not to question; taught not to ask.
Stay in your seat; stick to the task.
Each one so different; each boy and each girl.
They are lag behind children in a hurry up world.
Please contact Joshua Cinelli ( joshua.cinelli@house.state.tx.us ) or at
1-888-777-0033 and 512.463.0494 for more information.
The standardized testing reform efforts are part of the Texas Campaign to close the achievement gaps.
April 5, 2005
Dear Friends,
We need your help in getting a hearing set for HB 1612 and 1613 regarding high stakes testing. The bills have been referred to the Public Education Committee, but the bills have not been set for a hearing yet. The deadline to vote a bill out of the Public Education Committee is May 9th and the last day to vote the bills out of the Calendars Committee is May 21st. Senator Leticia Van de Putte is sponsoring these bills on the senate side with SB 1717 and SB 1718.
For those of you who joined us, the conversation and dialogue we had during the video-conference has been the springboard of the legislative action center that you can find on my website, (www.doraolivo.com). I want to thank all who participated in the video-conference. We must continue to strengthen our alliance and continue to broaden the outreach to gain support for passage of these bills. Reforming standardized testing is one of the initiatives outlined by the National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators (NHCSL) and the National Black Caucus of State Legislators (NBCSL) in their joint effort entitled "Closing the Gaps." Both Representative Harold Dutton and myself are representing Texas in this national effort.
Also, please sign up at the website to receive e-mail notices of upcoming events and actions. Working together we can achieve a more accurate way of measuring our children's abilities-by the use of multiple criteria instead of just a single test.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or call my legislative aide Joshua Cinelli at 1-888-777-0033. In Austin 512-463-0494. Joshua.Cinelli@house.state.tx.us.
Once again we need your help in getting HB 1612 and HB 1613 set for a hearing and passed out of committee. Please look at attached Action Plan.
Sincerely,
Dora Olivo
Please Note: Urgent Action Plan
Please contact all the Public Education Committees and ask them to please set HB 1612 & HB 1613 for a hearing and to pass bills out committee.
House Public Education Committee
The Honorable Kent Grusendorf-Chair
kent.grusendorf@house.state.tx.us
Phone: 512.463.0624
Members:
Rep. Rene Oliveira (512.463.0640)-Vice Chair
Rep. Dan Branch (512.463.0367)
Rep. Harold Dutton (512.463.0510)
Rep. Anna Mowery (512.463.0608)
Rep. Dianne Delisi(512.463.0630)
Rep. Rob Eissler(512.463.0797)
Rep. Scott Hochberg (512.463.0492)
Rep. Bill. Keffer (512.463.0656)
Senate Education Committee
Chairwoman:The Honorable Florence Shapiro
florence.shapiro@senate.state.tx.us
Phone: 512.463.0108
Members:
Sen. Royce West (512.463.0123)-Vice-Chair
Sen. Kim Averitt (512.463.0122)
Sen. Kyle Janek (512 463-0117)
Sen. Steve Ogden (512.463.0105)
Sen. Todd Staples (512.463.0103)
Sen. Leticia Van de Putte (512.463.0126)
Sen. Tommy Williams (281.364.9426)
Sen. Judith Zaffirini (512.463.0121)
Also Contact your Representative and your Senator and the following state officials listed below to ask for their support and also get them to contact all members of the House Public Education Committee to set bills for HB 1612 and 1613 for a hearing and to get the bills voted favorably out of committee. Also, have them contact the Senate Public Education Committee to set bills for a hearing on SB 1717 and SB 1718 and vote them favorably out of committee.
Office of the Governor
The Honorable Rick Perry
Website: www.governor.state.tx.us
Email: rick.perry@governor.state.tx.us
Phone: 512.463.2000
Citizen's Opinion Hotline: 1-800-252-9600 Office of the Lieutenant Governor
The Honorable David Dewhurst
Website: http://www.ltgov.state.tx.us
Email: david.dewhurst@ltgov.state.tx.us
Phone: 512.463.0001
800-441-0373
Speaker of the House
The Honorable Tom Craddick
Website: www.house.state.tx.us/speaker/welcome
Email: tom.craddick@house.state.tx.us
Phone: 512.463.1000 Texas Education Agency Commissioner
Dr. Shirley Neeley
Website: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/commissioner.html
Email: commissioner@tea.state.tx.us
To Keep things in Perspective:
A part of the poem "Hurry Up, Hurry Up" by Clydia Forehand
There are so many children, from so many places
To test for conformity really erases.
All that they are; all that they dream.
All that they look for and all that they see.
Taught not to question; taught not to ask.
Stay in your seat; stick to the task.
Each one so different; each boy and each girl.
They are lag behind children in a hurry up world.
Please contact Joshua Cinelli ( joshua.cinelli@house.state.tx.us ) or at
1-888-777-0033 and 512.463.0494 for more information.
The standardized testing reform efforts are part of the Texas Campaign to close the achievement gaps.
The Right and Wrong Way to Pay for Schools
EDITORIAL BOARD
Friday, April 08, 2005
There's no question that the state Senate's approach to fixing the school finance crisis is better than the bill passed by the Texas House. House Bill 2 and its financing companion, House Bill 3, are so bad it would have been difficult for senators to do worse.
There are many features worth noting in the Senate bill by state Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano. We like the approach to teachers' pay raises. The bill calls for an across-the-board raise of about $1,500 a year per teacher and sets up a merit system that provides additional pay incentives for teachers in low-performing schools or teachers with certification in certain specialized fields. That approach recognizes the reality of the situation in Texas: Teachers as a group are underpaid; and the demand outstrips the supply for teachers who are certified in secondary math, science and special education. The Senate bill also tightens accountability for failing charter schools and expands pre-kindergarten.
Unfortunately, the Senate suffers from the same obsession as the House in dealing with school financing. Both chambers focused their efforts on reducing local property taxes over financing public schools. Both bills fall short of funding public schools at a level needed to equip Texas' 4.3 million students with the skills needed to graduate, get jobs or go to college.
The Senate plan would generate about $3.2 billion in new money — about the same as the House bill. It doesn't eat those dollars up in new mandates the way that the House plan would. And it creates a statewide property tax of $1 per assessed valuation — a more reliable and equitable method of financing public schools than the House plan, which relies heavily on increases in the sales tax. But the amount of money in the Senate plan falls short of what state District Judge John Dietz ruled was needed for public schools.
Like everything else in life, education costs money. People at the Capitol are fond of saying you can't solve problems by throwing money at them. That's faux folk wisdom because Texas politicians have never really tried throwing money at education. Education gets a lot of lip service but comparatively little cash — certainly not enough to keep pace with population growth and the special needs of modern students and the demands placed on them by modern politicians.
Another troublesome provision shared by the Senate and House versions is one that would privatize hundreds of failing schools. The Senate plan calls for the state education commissioner to replace the principal and management team at any school rated low-performing for two consecutive years. The commissioner could put those schools under management of private firms, a state university or a group of community leaders.
That would be a step backward for schools that desperately need to move forward. Private firms have been fired from several public districts across the United States for failing to improve student performance. Placing schools under the management of "community leaders" is a risky proposition because, however well intended those folks might be, they are no match for trained teachers and administrators. The idea that there is a magic bullet, such as a state university, that can instantly improve schools is flawed.
Private schools excel because they offer smaller classes, discipline, high expectations, a rich curriculum and quality teachers. Give failing schools those same tools and watch them shine.
When the horse trading begins in earnest in conference committee, we're hoping that legislators will face educational reality and commit the money it's going to take to keep the state economically viable.
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/04/8education_edit.html
Friday, April 08, 2005
There's no question that the state Senate's approach to fixing the school finance crisis is better than the bill passed by the Texas House. House Bill 2 and its financing companion, House Bill 3, are so bad it would have been difficult for senators to do worse.
There are many features worth noting in the Senate bill by state Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano. We like the approach to teachers' pay raises. The bill calls for an across-the-board raise of about $1,500 a year per teacher and sets up a merit system that provides additional pay incentives for teachers in low-performing schools or teachers with certification in certain specialized fields. That approach recognizes the reality of the situation in Texas: Teachers as a group are underpaid; and the demand outstrips the supply for teachers who are certified in secondary math, science and special education. The Senate bill also tightens accountability for failing charter schools and expands pre-kindergarten.
Unfortunately, the Senate suffers from the same obsession as the House in dealing with school financing. Both chambers focused their efforts on reducing local property taxes over financing public schools. Both bills fall short of funding public schools at a level needed to equip Texas' 4.3 million students with the skills needed to graduate, get jobs or go to college.
The Senate plan would generate about $3.2 billion in new money — about the same as the House bill. It doesn't eat those dollars up in new mandates the way that the House plan would. And it creates a statewide property tax of $1 per assessed valuation — a more reliable and equitable method of financing public schools than the House plan, which relies heavily on increases in the sales tax. But the amount of money in the Senate plan falls short of what state District Judge John Dietz ruled was needed for public schools.
Like everything else in life, education costs money. People at the Capitol are fond of saying you can't solve problems by throwing money at them. That's faux folk wisdom because Texas politicians have never really tried throwing money at education. Education gets a lot of lip service but comparatively little cash — certainly not enough to keep pace with population growth and the special needs of modern students and the demands placed on them by modern politicians.
Another troublesome provision shared by the Senate and House versions is one that would privatize hundreds of failing schools. The Senate plan calls for the state education commissioner to replace the principal and management team at any school rated low-performing for two consecutive years. The commissioner could put those schools under management of private firms, a state university or a group of community leaders.
That would be a step backward for schools that desperately need to move forward. Private firms have been fired from several public districts across the United States for failing to improve student performance. Placing schools under the management of "community leaders" is a risky proposition because, however well intended those folks might be, they are no match for trained teachers and administrators. The idea that there is a magic bullet, such as a state university, that can instantly improve schools is flawed.
Private schools excel because they offer smaller classes, discipline, high expectations, a rich curriculum and quality teachers. Give failing schools those same tools and watch them shine.
When the horse trading begins in earnest in conference committee, we're hoping that legislators will face educational reality and commit the money it's going to take to keep the state economically viable.
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/04/8education_edit.html
Thursday, April 07, 2005
House Approves $137.5 Billion State Budget
79TH LEGISLATURE
By Jason Embry
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, April 07, 2005
The Texas House overwhelmingly approved a $137.5 billion, two-year state budget early Thursday. Critics said the spending plan would only marginally improve state services.
The House approved the budget with a 105-41 vote after more than 16 hours of debate on state spending. Although more than 100 amendments were offered, the debate lacked the intensity of 2003, when lawmakers passed a bare-bones budget in the face of a $10 billion budget shortfall.
The House also passed a bill Thursday allocating $3.4 billion to pay for shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid and public education this year. That bill also includes some money to spend over the next budget cycle. Between the two measures, the House intends to spend about $139 billion during the next two years, or 10 percent more than in the current budget.
The Senate has passed a $139 billion budget. Lawmakers will write the final budget in a conference committee.
"We feel like we've covered the needs of the State of Texas," House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, said of the two bills. "During the course of the conference committee hopefully we can address some other needs."
But Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, said much of the new money in the budget pays for enrollment growth in programs such as public education or Medicaid, leaving little room to upgrade services for the poor, the elderly and college students.
"If you look at the things where we have an opportunity to make decisions for the state, the decision was made to keep the bad status quo," Coleman said.
The House budget does not restore some services cut in 2003, such as hearing aids, eyeglasses and mental health counseling for adults on Medicaid. It also does not increase the rates paid to doctors who treat patients in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, which were cut in 2003. It also continues to require families to reapply for the children's insurance program every six months instead of once a year.
Thousands of students have qualified over the last two years for the Texas Grant program, which pays college tuition and fees for students who take tough classes in high school and show financial need, but they have not received the grants because of limited funding two years ago. The House budget under consideration Wednesday was not likely to provide a grant for everyone who will qualify over the next two years.
The budget would restore some services cut in 2003, such as dental and vision benefits in the children's health program. It also aims to prevent growth in waiting lists for programs that serve people with disabilities, and it pays for major reforms for the agencies that protect children and the elderly from abuse and neglect.
"Some Texans will think we're not spending enough. Some Texans will think we're spending too much," Pitts said, adding that the plan is "just right, reflecting our priorities, our needs and our revenues."
The House voted down most amendments that Democrats tried to add to the budget. Some of those amendments would have added restrictions to the Texas Enterprise Fund, a deal-closing account used to encourage businesses to expand in Texas, or redirected money from that fund to other programs. Critics say the fund is a boondoggle for big businesses in a state strapped for money to spend on government services.
One amendment that won approval would reduce the advertising budget of the Texas Lottery Commission to increase the allowance given to nursing home residents for personal needs, such as adult diapers.
The supplemental spending bill would pull about $1.9 billion out of the state's so-called rainy day fund, effectively taking all of the money from it. If that measure is in the final budget, this would be the second legislative session in a row that lawmakers have used that fund to balance the budget, causing Rep. Craig Eiland, D-Galveston, to say it should henceforth be called the "Every Day Fund."
The fund consists, in part, of excess oil and gas tax revenue. With oil and gas prices escalating, Pitts said the account would be replenished quickly.
The House would spend less in its budget than the Senate on several areas of government, including higher education and criminal justice.
The House plan includes $3 billion to be spent over two years on education reforms. Senators want to spend about $3.2 billion on school reforms but did not include that money in their budget. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst has said senators will fill that void with what he has described as nontax revenue.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/shared/tx/legislature/stories/04/7statebud.html
By Jason Embry
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, April 07, 2005
The Texas House overwhelmingly approved a $137.5 billion, two-year state budget early Thursday. Critics said the spending plan would only marginally improve state services.
The House approved the budget with a 105-41 vote after more than 16 hours of debate on state spending. Although more than 100 amendments were offered, the debate lacked the intensity of 2003, when lawmakers passed a bare-bones budget in the face of a $10 billion budget shortfall.
The House also passed a bill Thursday allocating $3.4 billion to pay for shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid and public education this year. That bill also includes some money to spend over the next budget cycle. Between the two measures, the House intends to spend about $139 billion during the next two years, or 10 percent more than in the current budget.
The Senate has passed a $139 billion budget. Lawmakers will write the final budget in a conference committee.
"We feel like we've covered the needs of the State of Texas," House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, said of the two bills. "During the course of the conference committee hopefully we can address some other needs."
But Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, said much of the new money in the budget pays for enrollment growth in programs such as public education or Medicaid, leaving little room to upgrade services for the poor, the elderly and college students.
"If you look at the things where we have an opportunity to make decisions for the state, the decision was made to keep the bad status quo," Coleman said.
The House budget does not restore some services cut in 2003, such as hearing aids, eyeglasses and mental health counseling for adults on Medicaid. It also does not increase the rates paid to doctors who treat patients in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, which were cut in 2003. It also continues to require families to reapply for the children's insurance program every six months instead of once a year.
Thousands of students have qualified over the last two years for the Texas Grant program, which pays college tuition and fees for students who take tough classes in high school and show financial need, but they have not received the grants because of limited funding two years ago. The House budget under consideration Wednesday was not likely to provide a grant for everyone who will qualify over the next two years.
The budget would restore some services cut in 2003, such as dental and vision benefits in the children's health program. It also aims to prevent growth in waiting lists for programs that serve people with disabilities, and it pays for major reforms for the agencies that protect children and the elderly from abuse and neglect.
"Some Texans will think we're not spending enough. Some Texans will think we're spending too much," Pitts said, adding that the plan is "just right, reflecting our priorities, our needs and our revenues."
The House voted down most amendments that Democrats tried to add to the budget. Some of those amendments would have added restrictions to the Texas Enterprise Fund, a deal-closing account used to encourage businesses to expand in Texas, or redirected money from that fund to other programs. Critics say the fund is a boondoggle for big businesses in a state strapped for money to spend on government services.
One amendment that won approval would reduce the advertising budget of the Texas Lottery Commission to increase the allowance given to nursing home residents for personal needs, such as adult diapers.
The supplemental spending bill would pull about $1.9 billion out of the state's so-called rainy day fund, effectively taking all of the money from it. If that measure is in the final budget, this would be the second legislative session in a row that lawmakers have used that fund to balance the budget, causing Rep. Craig Eiland, D-Galveston, to say it should henceforth be called the "Every Day Fund."
The fund consists, in part, of excess oil and gas tax revenue. With oil and gas prices escalating, Pitts said the account would be replenished quickly.
The House would spend less in its budget than the Senate on several areas of government, including higher education and criminal justice.
The House plan includes $3 billion to be spent over two years on education reforms. Senators want to spend about $3.2 billion on school reforms but did not include that money in their budget. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst has said senators will fill that void with what he has described as nontax revenue.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/shared/tx/legislature/stories/04/7statebud.html
Texas House Passes State Budget
Thursday, April 7, 2005
By ROBERT T. GARRETT / The Dallas Morning News
AUSTIN – About 6,000 fewer college students would receive financial aid and the state would spend the least it's spent on school textbooks in a decade under a two-year budget plan that passed in the House early Thursday.
Discussions stretched into the wee hours of the night as weary lawmakers labored through a stack of amendments.
Despite surging enrollment in public schools, the House budget, approved by a 105-41 vote, would pay out $336 million for textbooks – $54 million less than lawmakers approved amid a huge shortfall last session and less than half what was spent when the state enjoyed big surpluses a few years back.
In higher education, the House would assist 50,327 students a year from financially strapped families, down from 56,109 students this year and 63,834 last year. In the last two years, some 82,000 freshmen were eligible but denied the aid, called TEXAS Grants.
"Even though we talk about education, we really don't put our money where our mouth is," said Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine. He said the budget would squeeze middle-class Texas families already reeling from recent tuition increases.
Rep. Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said the budget is "sound and responsible" but would spend record amounts on public schools and health care programs for the poor.
Paraphrasing a fairy tale, Mr. Pitts said: "Some Texans will think we're not spending enough. Some Texans will think we're spending too much. The Appropriations Committee believes this budget is just right, reflecting our priorities, our needs and our revenues."
Spending in the next two years would grow by nearly 9 percent, to $137.5 billion in state and federal funds, Mr. Pitts stressed. Earlier, the House passed an emergency appropriation bill, 137-8. It would spend an extra $1.9 billion in 2006-07, for a total of $139.4 billion.
However, while the House would spend some $13 billion more in the next two years, most of the new money would be soaked up by inflation and population growth. Some of the additional expenses:
•Nearly $4 billion more than in the current budget to cover enrollment growth and soaring costs for prescription drugs and medical care in Medicaid, the state-federal health program for the poor, disabled and elderly.
•Some $3 billion to fund an overhaul of school finance that would end Robin Hood transfers of money from property-rich school districts to poor ones. GOP budget writers said it includes some $600 million for school technology, part of which might pay for textbooks, easing pain school districts would feel because a lower amount was earmarked for books.
•About $1.1 billion more for public schools, to catch up with some of the cost of increased enrollment and a payment the state delayed last session.
•An immediate infusion of $300 million to hire new caseworkers and make other improvements at Child Protective Services and Adult Protective Services.
•Hundreds of millions more to cover higher costs of providing health coverage to current and retired public employees, including teachers.
The outlook for social programs was mixed, however.
While poor youngsters in the Children's Health Insurance Program would regain coverage of dental and vision care, the changes in eligibility and enrollment procedures made in 2003 would stand, despite Democrats' attempt to undo them. They helped cause enrollment to dip, by some 179,000 children, to 328,350 as of last month.
Waiting lists would not shrink for respite and community care programs designed to keep the mentally retarded and frail elderly out of institutions that cost more. Adults on Medicaid would not regain coverage of eyeglasses, hearing aids, podiatry services and mental health counseling cut last session.
However, the House approved an amendment that would increase a monthly allowance for impoverished nursing home residents on Medicaid. Last session, lawmakers cut the stipend from $60 to $45. The House would increase it to $75.
The budget now returns to the Senate, which is expected to reject House changes, setting up a showdown in a House-Senate conference committee.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
E-mail rtgarrett@dallasnews.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/040705dntexbudget.114b5.html
By ROBERT T. GARRETT / The Dallas Morning News
AUSTIN – About 6,000 fewer college students would receive financial aid and the state would spend the least it's spent on school textbooks in a decade under a two-year budget plan that passed in the House early Thursday.
Discussions stretched into the wee hours of the night as weary lawmakers labored through a stack of amendments.
Despite surging enrollment in public schools, the House budget, approved by a 105-41 vote, would pay out $336 million for textbooks – $54 million less than lawmakers approved amid a huge shortfall last session and less than half what was spent when the state enjoyed big surpluses a few years back.
In higher education, the House would assist 50,327 students a year from financially strapped families, down from 56,109 students this year and 63,834 last year. In the last two years, some 82,000 freshmen were eligible but denied the aid, called TEXAS Grants.
"Even though we talk about education, we really don't put our money where our mouth is," said Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine. He said the budget would squeeze middle-class Texas families already reeling from recent tuition increases.
Rep. Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said the budget is "sound and responsible" but would spend record amounts on public schools and health care programs for the poor.
Paraphrasing a fairy tale, Mr. Pitts said: "Some Texans will think we're not spending enough. Some Texans will think we're spending too much. The Appropriations Committee believes this budget is just right, reflecting our priorities, our needs and our revenues."
Spending in the next two years would grow by nearly 9 percent, to $137.5 billion in state and federal funds, Mr. Pitts stressed. Earlier, the House passed an emergency appropriation bill, 137-8. It would spend an extra $1.9 billion in 2006-07, for a total of $139.4 billion.
However, while the House would spend some $13 billion more in the next two years, most of the new money would be soaked up by inflation and population growth. Some of the additional expenses:
•Nearly $4 billion more than in the current budget to cover enrollment growth and soaring costs for prescription drugs and medical care in Medicaid, the state-federal health program for the poor, disabled and elderly.
•Some $3 billion to fund an overhaul of school finance that would end Robin Hood transfers of money from property-rich school districts to poor ones. GOP budget writers said it includes some $600 million for school technology, part of which might pay for textbooks, easing pain school districts would feel because a lower amount was earmarked for books.
•About $1.1 billion more for public schools, to catch up with some of the cost of increased enrollment and a payment the state delayed last session.
•An immediate infusion of $300 million to hire new caseworkers and make other improvements at Child Protective Services and Adult Protective Services.
•Hundreds of millions more to cover higher costs of providing health coverage to current and retired public employees, including teachers.
The outlook for social programs was mixed, however.
While poor youngsters in the Children's Health Insurance Program would regain coverage of dental and vision care, the changes in eligibility and enrollment procedures made in 2003 would stand, despite Democrats' attempt to undo them. They helped cause enrollment to dip, by some 179,000 children, to 328,350 as of last month.
Waiting lists would not shrink for respite and community care programs designed to keep the mentally retarded and frail elderly out of institutions that cost more. Adults on Medicaid would not regain coverage of eyeglasses, hearing aids, podiatry services and mental health counseling cut last session.
However, the House approved an amendment that would increase a monthly allowance for impoverished nursing home residents on Medicaid. Last session, lawmakers cut the stipend from $60 to $45. The House would increase it to $75.
The budget now returns to the Senate, which is expected to reject House changes, setting up a showdown in a House-Senate conference committee.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
E-mail rtgarrett@dallasnews.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/040705dntexbudget.114b5.html
Bill Gates, If You’re So Rich, How Come You’re Not Smart?
Point of View Essay
by
Gerald Bracey, Associate Professor of Education
George Mason University
March 9, 2005
______________________________________________________________________________
The “wealth clock” that tracks your net worth currently reads a little over $60 billion, but if you had applied the same level of critical acumen to Microsoft’s 1975 business plan as you recently applied to education while bashing American schools, Microsoft would have gone
belly-up in 1976 (your focus was the high school, but you kept jumping illogically around to
4th graders and 8th graders, too).
You and the governors were quite vague about what makes the schools obsolete or what to
do about it. What is it, exactly, that schools are not teaching that they need to?
Let’s consider reading, math and science. Are schools obsolete because they teach these
topics? International comparisons, I notice, assess…reading, math and science. You and
the governors chose your statistics from these comparisons to put America in the worst
possible light. I can’t imagine leaders of any other country doing that, but you were wrong
in any case.
For instance, in the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, 11 of 24
nations scored significantly higher than the U. S. in math at the fourth grade, but only 3
scored higher in science. At the eighth grade level, only 9 of the 44 countries scored
significantly higher than the U. S. in math and only 7 scored higher in science. If American
schools are obsolete, many other nations’ schools are more archaic.
You claimed that our kids were at the top in fourth grade, but at the bottom by 12th. To
make that statement, you had to uncritically accept one of the worst comparisons in
education history, that from 1995’s Third International Mathematics and Science Study,
Final Year Report. That study took extreme care to point out how very different that final
year of secondary school is in different nations. Alas, the U. S. Department of Education
presented this study as if it were an apples to apples comparison of high school seniors
around the world. Apples to aardvarks is more like it. If you examine the scores of
comparable students, U. S. students are average, as they were in eighth grade.
You said to the governors, “When I compare our high schools to what I see when I’m traveling abroad, I am terrified for our work force of tomorrow.” Really? My guess is that when you travel abroad, your hosts, wishing to impress you, do not take you to average or below average schools. Visit some good schools here and your terror will abate. Schools teach general knowledge and skills. Certainly that’s true in the college preparatory curriculum you and the governors want for all children, but jobs require highly specific skills.
You have to teach these on the job. We often can’t even imagine what those skills will be in
the future. But advances in technology makes life simpler, not more complicated. Think
digital camera vs. the manually operated SLR of 30 years ago. In 1986, my secretary was
ecstatic when I replaced her IBM Selectric III typewriter with a word-processing personal
computer. Imagine being able to revise a manuscript without retyping the whole document!
Of course, for this change to go smoothly, we had to provide our clerical staff on-the-job
training, something that American corporations are loath to do. Research in the Nineties
found that compared to companies in other nations, when it comes to developing employees, American corporations are real cheapskates. And, in contrast to companies abroad, which developed low-skilled and high-skilled employees, American companies invested almost entirely in employees who were already highly skilled.
You say our workforce is at risk. The World Economic Forum, which you have addressed,
doesn’t agree. Among 104 nations, it ranks the United States second in Global Competitiveness and sees no future decline. We used to be number 1, but the WEF has not
been pleased with the Bush tax cuts, our ever-increasing debt, our ever-increasing trade
deficit and the endless parade of indicted CEO’s (lowers our score on the WEF’s “corruption
index”).
I do congratulate you for focusing some attention on economically deprived schools. Alas,
you and the governors appear to think that school reform can, all by itself overcome their
problems. But poor students arrive at school behind their middle class peers. As measured
by tests, they learn the same amount during the school year, but lose the gains over the
summer, leaving them farther behind. You and the governors should look for ways to
eliminate the factors that cause poor children to lose ground during the months when the
schools are closed. Good luck.
Gerald W. Bracey is an educational researcher and writer in Alexandria, VA. He is author of
Setting the Record Straight: Responses to Misconceptions About Public Education in the U.S.
(Heinemann 2004) and On the Death of Childhood and the Destruction of Public Schools
(Heinemann, 2003).
This document is available on the Education Policy Studies Laboratory website at:
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/POV/EPSL-0503-104-EPRU.pdf
by
Gerald Bracey, Associate Professor of Education
George Mason University
March 9, 2005
______________________________________________________________________________
The “wealth clock” that tracks your net worth currently reads a little over $60 billion, but if you had applied the same level of critical acumen to Microsoft’s 1975 business plan as you recently applied to education while bashing American schools, Microsoft would have gone
belly-up in 1976 (your focus was the high school, but you kept jumping illogically around to
4th graders and 8th graders, too).
You and the governors were quite vague about what makes the schools obsolete or what to
do about it. What is it, exactly, that schools are not teaching that they need to?
Let’s consider reading, math and science. Are schools obsolete because they teach these
topics? International comparisons, I notice, assess…reading, math and science. You and
the governors chose your statistics from these comparisons to put America in the worst
possible light. I can’t imagine leaders of any other country doing that, but you were wrong
in any case.
For instance, in the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, 11 of 24
nations scored significantly higher than the U. S. in math at the fourth grade, but only 3
scored higher in science. At the eighth grade level, only 9 of the 44 countries scored
significantly higher than the U. S. in math and only 7 scored higher in science. If American
schools are obsolete, many other nations’ schools are more archaic.
You claimed that our kids were at the top in fourth grade, but at the bottom by 12th. To
make that statement, you had to uncritically accept one of the worst comparisons in
education history, that from 1995’s Third International Mathematics and Science Study,
Final Year Report. That study took extreme care to point out how very different that final
year of secondary school is in different nations. Alas, the U. S. Department of Education
presented this study as if it were an apples to apples comparison of high school seniors
around the world. Apples to aardvarks is more like it. If you examine the scores of
comparable students, U. S. students are average, as they were in eighth grade.
You said to the governors, “When I compare our high schools to what I see when I’m traveling abroad, I am terrified for our work force of tomorrow.” Really? My guess is that when you travel abroad, your hosts, wishing to impress you, do not take you to average or below average schools. Visit some good schools here and your terror will abate. Schools teach general knowledge and skills. Certainly that’s true in the college preparatory curriculum you and the governors want for all children, but jobs require highly specific skills.
You have to teach these on the job. We often can’t even imagine what those skills will be in
the future. But advances in technology makes life simpler, not more complicated. Think
digital camera vs. the manually operated SLR of 30 years ago. In 1986, my secretary was
ecstatic when I replaced her IBM Selectric III typewriter with a word-processing personal
computer. Imagine being able to revise a manuscript without retyping the whole document!
Of course, for this change to go smoothly, we had to provide our clerical staff on-the-job
training, something that American corporations are loath to do. Research in the Nineties
found that compared to companies in other nations, when it comes to developing employees, American corporations are real cheapskates. And, in contrast to companies abroad, which developed low-skilled and high-skilled employees, American companies invested almost entirely in employees who were already highly skilled.
You say our workforce is at risk. The World Economic Forum, which you have addressed,
doesn’t agree. Among 104 nations, it ranks the United States second in Global Competitiveness and sees no future decline. We used to be number 1, but the WEF has not
been pleased with the Bush tax cuts, our ever-increasing debt, our ever-increasing trade
deficit and the endless parade of indicted CEO’s (lowers our score on the WEF’s “corruption
index”).
I do congratulate you for focusing some attention on economically deprived schools. Alas,
you and the governors appear to think that school reform can, all by itself overcome their
problems. But poor students arrive at school behind their middle class peers. As measured
by tests, they learn the same amount during the school year, but lose the gains over the
summer, leaving them farther behind. You and the governors should look for ways to
eliminate the factors that cause poor children to lose ground during the months when the
schools are closed. Good luck.
Gerald W. Bracey is an educational researcher and writer in Alexandria, VA. He is author of
Setting the Record Straight: Responses to Misconceptions About Public Education in the U.S.
(Heinemann 2004) and On the Death of Childhood and the Destruction of Public Schools
(Heinemann, 2003).
This document is available on the Education Policy Studies Laboratory website at:
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/POV/EPSL-0503-104-EPRU.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)