Critique of the Sam Dillon Piece, 'Students Ace State Tests, but Earn D's From U.S.'

Check out Jerry Bracey's critique of the recent Sam Dillon piece on testing that appeared in the NYTimes titled, 'Students Ace State Tests, but Earn D's From U.S.' on November 26, 2005.

Also, check out other critical writings by him at his official website, EDDRA.

-Angela



From: GERALD BRACEY
To: letters@nytimes.com
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 8:36 AM
Subject: NAEP achievement levels

Sam Dillon makes a fundamental error in his article about discrepancies between state tests and NAEP. He assumes the NAEP achievement levels are valid. They are not. Ideologues who wished to sustain the sense of crisis created by "A Nation At Risk" created them in the 1980's.

The NAEP levels are impossibly high. For example, In the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, American 4th graders finished 3rd among 26 nations in science. Yet NAEP said only 30 percent of them were proficient or better in science. Similar results occurred in math. Little wonder, then, that the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Education, the Government Accounting Office and the Center for Research in Evaluation, Student Standards and Testing have all rejected the NAEP levels. They continue to exist only because there is so much political hay to be made from saying that American schools and students stink.

Sincerely,

Gerald W. Bracey
1797 Duffield Lane
Alexandria, VA 22307
703-317-1716
gbracey1@verizon.net

The Wall Street Journal: A lesson for Texas schools

This is nonsensical. If money didn't matter you wouldn't have the richest districts in the state fighting tooth and nail to hold onto more of their wealth. This court decision callously disregards the utter poverty manifest in decaying, outdated and thus costly infrastructure that so many of our schools are in. Privatization is hardly a policy solution since the quality of private education a parent or community can pay still tracks back to the the amount they possess in the first place. Middle class folks can purchase much more education with their voucher receipt than lower class families. Such proposals thus promise to exacerbate our already gross inequities statewide. Our court is clearly pro-voucher and anti public schools. We already knew this about our present legislative leadership.

-Angela

Thursday, December 01, 2005

The Texas Supreme Court did the expected recently and struck down the statewide property tax for funding public schools. But what was surprising and welcome was the court's unanimous ruling that the Texas school system, which spends nearly $10,000 per student, satisfies the funding "adequacy" requirements of the state constitution. Most remarkable of all was the court's declaration that "more money does not guarantee better schools or more educated students."

Think about that one for a second. To our knowledge, this is the first time anywhere in the country that the judiciary has flatly rejected the core doctrine of the education establishment that more dollars equal better classroom performance. And it is potentially very good news for students, especially those from the poorest neighborhoods, because it shifts the policy emphasis from money to achievement. Better send the paramedics to check for heart failure at National Education Association headquarters.

Even more encouraging, the court endorsed more choices for parents and the state's 4.3 million school kids. It said flatly: "Public education could benefit from more competition."

The Texas Public Policy Foundation, which provided much of the academic research for the court, looked at the Edgewood school district in San Antonio, where donors started a privately financed voucher program. The results indicate that not only have the kids with the vouchers benefited, but so have kids in the public schools that are now forced to compete for students.

We hope courts and school boards across the country study the Texas decision — including its comments on school financing: "The Constitution does not require a particular solution," Judge Nathan Hecht wrote for the majority. "We leave such matters to the discretion of the Legislature." In other words, it's not the proper role of the judiciary to intervene in the operation or financing of the public schools.

That kind of judicial thinking tends to be the exception these days. Over the past two decades, courts in more than 30 states have intervened in education policy and ordered billions of dollars spent on schools in the name of boosting student performance and ensuring equitable financing. The result has been an avalanche of new spending on inner-city and rural schools, but, alas, not much measurable achievement by the kids who were supposed to be helped.

In one of the most notorious cases, in Kansas City, Missouri, in the 1980s, a judge issued an edict requiring a $1 billion tax hike to help the failing inner-city schools. This raised expenditures to about $14,000 per student, or double the national average, but test scores continued to decline. Even the judge later admitted that he had blundered.

The hope now is that, as Republican Gov. Rick Perry and the state Legislature search for a new school financing mechanism next year, they will accept the court's invitation to open up the school system to a wide range of options, including charters, vouchers, scholarships and rewards for quality, such as teacher pay for performance.

If so, the Lone Star State, once the home of some of the worst public schools in the country, could become the national model for educational excellence.

Reprinted with permission of The Wall Street Journal © 2005 Dow Jones & Company. All rights reserved.

GOP ideas to reignite school finance battle

Check out the report by the Texans for Public Justice watchdog organization. -Angela


GOP ideas to reignite school finance battle
Vouchers, district mergers opposed by many educators
09:30 AM CST on Thursday, December 1, 2005

By TERRENCE STUTZ and CHRISTY HOPPE / The Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN – House Republican leaders, emboldened by the Texas Supreme Court's school finance order, spelled out a broad agenda Tuesday that will probably stir strong opposition from education groups and local school officials – including a study on whether districts should be merged to save money.

Rep. Kent Grusendorf, the Arlington Republican who leads the House education committee, said his panel will look at consolidation of school districts, school choice options such as vouchers, merit pay for teachers and use of tax dollars by school boards to lobby the Legislature, along with other sensitive topics.

"We have a lot of work to do over the next few months," said Mr. Grusendorf as he outlined the education agenda approved by Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland. The committee's recommendations will be forwarded to the Legislature.

Mr. Grusendorf and other GOP leaders have cited last week's Supreme Court order as lending support to initiatives they pushed all year – ideas that put them at odds with virtually every education group and school district in the state. Those heated battles are expected to continue in a special session next spring on school taxes and spending and in the next regular session in 2007.

In its lengthy ruling, the high court emphasized the need for "fundamental changes" in the public school system while declaring the state's school property tax system unconstitutional. Justices also rejected a bid by hundreds of school districts for billions in new state aid.

That finding was seized on by GOP leaders who have adamantly opposed a big funding increase for public education because it would require a tax hike.

Some lawmakers, still smarting from school districts' unified opposition to their proposals, also indicated they wanted to tighten laws and scale back on the ability of school districts and education associations to hire lobbyists. The House education committee held a joint meeting with another panel Tuesday on the issue.

Consolidating districts

On the issue of merging school districts, Mr. Grusendorf said lawmakers have to consider the idea because it was raised in the Supreme Court order.

"I know it's not a politically popular issue to talk about ... but we need to be talking about it," he said. "The court has hit us over the head with a sledgehammer on that issue. We've got to take it head on and deal with it."

Mr. Grusendorf added that whatever plan is considered, it will keep school campuses in local communities even if school boards and administrative offices are consolidated to make districts more efficient.

Clayton Downing, director of the Texas School Coalition and former superintendent of Lewisville schools, said lawmakers should be prepared for a "political firestorm" if they embark on a plan to merge dozens of districts.

"The school district is the heart of many of our local communities, and people are not going to give that up without a fight," Dr. Downing said. "I don't know why they [lawmakers] don't just try to solve our funding dilemma rather than pick new battles."

Dr. Downing said some studies have indicated that even a massive consolidation effort would save less than 5 percent of education spending.

"The savings are not that significant if you consider the battles that would have to be fought to do it," he said.

Rep. Harold Dutton, D-Houston, who will lead the subcommittee responsible for consolidation proposals, pointed to language in the Supreme Court order indicating that Texas has too many districts – with 80 percent of the state's 1,037 districts having 1,200 or fewer students.

Justices said lawmakers can upgrade schools in other ways besides additional funding, such as improved efficiency and better methods of education.

"The large number of districts, with their redundant staffing, facilities and administration, make it impossible to reduce costs through economies of scale," Justice Nathan Hecht wrote in the majority opinion. "Bigger is not always better, but a multitude of small districts is undeniably inefficient."

Teacher groups, already prepared to fight proposals for merit pay based on test scores and vouchers that use public dollars for private school tuition, said consolidations will only attract more opposition to GOP proposals.

"I'm surprised that rather than deal with the issues they have to address, they are taking on an even more adversarial agenda," said Richard Kouri of the Texas State Teachers Association.

Funding lobbyists

On the issue of lobbying by governmental entities, members of the education committee and the House panel that handles investigations and ethics matters expressed frustration that swarms of education lobbyists descend on lawmakers when they take up school finance bills.

"There could be an instance where schools are using the money collected from the public to lobby against something the public is for," said Rep. Kevin Bailey, D-Houston. He cited as an example the unsuccessful attempt to move all school start dates after Labor Day, which Texans favored in a recent poll but districts don't like.

In addition to hiring lobbyists, many districts pay membership dues to various education associations, which do extensive lobbying. All of that effort excludes the salaries paid by many of the larger school districts – and cities, too – for government affairs administrators, whose chief job is to lobby the Legislature.

Lawmakers also said they were concerned because it is difficult for anyone to discover what a school district might be spending on a well-heeled Austin lobbyist. Districts are not required to delineate such expenditures.

But Texans for Public Justice, a lobby and campaign funding watchdog group, released a study Tuesday that showed thus far this year, various school groups issued 161 lobby contracts for as much as $6 million.

In the study of state records, it showed that education groups – led by teachers' unions – spent between $2.8 million and $6.3 million this year. State ethics law requires that payments to lobbyists be reported in ranges, not in exact amounts. But the group noted that a single company, SBC, spent $6.9 million on lobbyists during the same period.

E-mail tstutz@dallasnews.com and choppe@dallasnews.com

LOBBYING EXPENSES
Some of the top lobbying spending by school districts and groups this year:

Texas Association of School Boards , $650,000
Houston ISD, $420,000
Dallas ISD, $255,000
Fast Growth School Coalition, $245,000
Northwest ISD, $170,000
Texas School Alliance, $160,000
Austin ISD, $100,000
Center for Equity and Adequacy in Public School Finance, $100,000
El Paso ISD, $100,000
South Texas Association of Schools, $100,000
Stafford Municipal School District, $100,000

NOTE: Lobbying contracts are reported within a range, rather than in precise amounts, so these figures reflect the maximum possible amounts spent by these groups.

SOURCE: Texans for Public Justice

We've got our marching orders

Tue, Nov. 29, 2005
We've got our marching orders

By KENT GRUSENDORF
Special to the Star-Telegram
Throughout the Texas Supreme Court's 117-page Nov. 22 ruling on school finance, the message is clear. We must be innovative -- no more "that's the way we've always done it."

The school system must be results-oriented. After all, we are preparing children to run tomorrow's world -- a daunting task, and one that's even more daunting for the ill-prepared. And the system must be efficient -- money well spent rather than just more money.

Now the biggest political obstacle is gone.

Previously, many interest groups were very resistant to solving the problem before first hearing the court's opinion. Some wanted much more money for education; some wanted less. Both sides were convinced that the court would see things their way.

The court has now ruled for the state on all issues except the statewide property tax. The justices rejected the call for huge injections of cash and increased taxes by the school leaders suing the state. Instead, the court repeatedly called for structural changes in the system.

Throughout the opinion, the justices called for change -- e.g., "structural changes, and not merely increased funding, are needed." A recurring message appears to be that the status quo will not solve the problem.

The justices noted that the Legislature can "consider, for example, the improvements in education which could be realized by eliminating gross wastes in the bureaucratic administration of the system."

As with earlier rulings, the court called for consolidation of school districts: With "a proliferation of local districts enormously different in size and wealth, it is difficult to make the result efficient -- meaning 'effective or productive of results ...' "

Consolidation is one of the most difficult and contentious political issues. Yet the court ruling clearly will require serious discussion of this issue.

The court said that the Texas Constitution requires the school system to be "structured, operated, and funded so that it can accomplish its purpose for all Texas children." It also stated that to achieve such a constitutional system, the Legislature "has chosen to use local school districts."

Bottom line: The court has said that every student must be served, and the method to achieve that goal is left to the Legislature; however, the standard of review must be "results-oriented" as opposed to measuring inputs. The justices said that in order to determine if the system is constitutional, "it is useful to consider how funding levels and mechanisms relate to better-educated students."

The court warned that the system "has reached the point where continued improvement will not be possible absent significant change, whether that change take the form of increased funding, improved efficiencies, or better methods of education." Earlier in the opinion, the justices said: "Pouring more money into the system may forestall those challenges, but only for a time. They will repeat until the system is overhauled."

The Texas Supreme Court has given us thoughtful and meaningful insight into the legal and constitutional requirements of school finance. As the speaker, lieutenant governor and governor have done in the past, we must continue to make the tough decisions.

Let's find common ground on the amount of new money and make the necessary changes for not merely a temporary fix but a system that works over time. The status quo is not acceptable.

We live in a very competitive global economy. We must restructure our education system with common-sense reforms that work for the benefit of every child, every taxpayer, every Texan.

This ruling is a victory for Texas taxpayers and for Texas students. No longer can some hide behind the curtain of judicial uncertainty. The fog has lifted. We have our road map. We must now finish the job.

State Rep. Kent Grusendorf of Arlington is chairman of the House Committee on Public Education.

© 2005 Star-Telegram and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.dfw.com

Helping high school kids pass life's test

Helping high school kids pass life's test
Schools should stress science, math, high expectations

by Tom Luce
Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Dallas attorney Tom Luce moved to Washington this year to take a top Department of Education job. As assistant secretary in charge of policy and planning, he works with Education Secretary Margaret Spellings to improve American high schools. Mr. Luce's involvement with education goes back at least to the mid-1980s, when he and Ross Perot persuaded legislators to improve Texas schools. The education reformer spoke recently in Washington with editorial columnist William McKenzie.

What is the administration's high school initiative?

We'll announce it in January, but we have to increase the rigor in our high schools. And we need to personalize how we educate kids and keep their attention.

What does rigor mean?

A Nation at Risk, which came out in 1983, called for high schools to have four years of math and science. Only two states have that today.

I hope we communicate that math and science are critical, and not just if you want to be a mathematician or a scientist. They are key to problem-solving ... and to jobs in the 21st century. It's about the rigor of thinking.

That's interesting, because I think about those kids who aren't oriented toward math and science. What do they gain?

They gain the analytical skills that enable them to get the higher-paying jobs in the global economy. Rote jobs are going to be replaced by computers.

How do you personalize education?

More and more, with technology. And personalization can be with large groups. We're going to need math and science high schools. And high schools that are academies for information technology or for people who want to go into health care.

Personalization also can mean different teaching styles. With technology, we can present different options to kids and how they learn.

Margaret Spellings told our editorial board the other day that there are only a few states that give standardized high school tests beyond what's required in No Child Left Behind.

Yes. Many high schools give exit exams, but they only test at a 10th-grade level. Almost by definition, we're saying that we're not going to insist on rigor.

By the way, it was startling when all 50 governors signed a statement this winter that said a high school graduate needs the same training whether they're going into the workforce, community college or a four-year university. I agree with that, but we need high school exams to reflect college readiness and workforce readiness.

A 10th-grade exam doesn't do that. Eighty-five percent of the jobs created today require 14 years of education.

Many people feel like their kids are overtested. What is your response?

Nonsense.

I ask audiences whether they took a test every week, and everybody's hand goes up. The only difference today is that there is more public information about the testing.

But tests may not have mattered as much as these tests.

OK, so are we saying that tests matter too much? We cannot have a system where we aren't testing to find out what our kids are learning. How can we ever know how to help a student succeed if we're not doing testing?

Let's name names. Which states are not rigorously enough testing high schoolers?

Most aren't. Texas' testing isn't rigorous enough.

How so?

We have a high school exit exam that tests 11th-grade knowledge. You need to assess until the end.

How do you engage 12th-graders ready to hit the door?

The bottom line is talented teachers.

How do you get more of them?

We're going to have an initiative to improve math and science teaching. And we want to reward better teachers and those who teach math and science.

What kind of money will go to teachers and classrooms?

Money's not irrelevant, but more important is how it is spent. In my mind, the best place to start is with better training of teachers.

How engaged is the business community with these efforts?

Business all over the country is pushing for more math and science. We're a net importer of technology. We can't stop the world. Our only choice is to get better and smarter.

Perry accused of neglecting Latino voters

11/30/2005 12:00 AM CST

by Gary Scharrer
S. A. Express-News Austin Bureau

AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry is disrespecting Hispanics by keeping a minority state legislative seat vacant for seven months while calling a quick special election to fill a vacant Austin seat for an overwhelmingly Anglo district, some lawmakers said Tuesday.

Perry has called a special election Jan. 17 to give West Austin residents a voice in the Texas House of Representatives. Former Rep. Todd Baxter, a Republican, resigned from the District 48 seat Nov. 1 to become a lobbyist for the Texas Cable and Telecommunications Association.

An inner-city Houston seat has been vacant since May 6, when Rep. Joe Moreno, a Democrat, was killed while driving his pickup to Austin. Perry waited until this month to hold a special election to fill Moreno's District 143 seat. A runoff election next month will determine the winner.

"It really shows a very basic and fundamental disrespect for the needs and concerns of Hispanic Texans," said House Mexican-American Caucus Chairman Pete Gallego, D-Alpine.

A spokeswoman for the governor said state election law dictated the timing for a special election to replace Baxter.

Houston residents have been deprived of representation, including during two special sessions this summer for public school funding and tax issues, said Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, a leader among African American lawmakers. "They just don't like it," he said of Houston residents. "They believe that they were treated shabbily."

Perry spokeswoman Kathy Walt said any assertion involving mistreatment of minorities is "a false issue."

Perry scheduled a November special election for Moreno's seat before he knew the Legislature's failure to address school funding would force him to call special summer sessions, Walt said. "Once the election date was set, it could not be rescheduled," she said.

A uniform election date in September could not have been used because that date could not have accommodated a runoff, if one had been necessary, Walt said.

A ruling by the Texas Supreme Court last week gave lawmakers until June 1 to fix school funding problems. That ruling, Walt said, obligated Perry to call a special election for Baxter's seat.

Perry's conduct is influenced more by politics than public policy, Gallego said. "His decisions just seem to spiral downward. He's becoming more and more blatantly political."

gscharrer@express-news.net

'Revolution' in education learning a hard reality

This story provides a good critique of the Edison Schools Project. Check out this quote: "But critics call Edison a "nail in the coffin of public education as we've known it." "I mean, you don't help the public schools by starting private schools," author Jonathan Kozol said. "If you want to improve the public's water supply, you don't do it by selling champagne." -Angela

The for-profit corporation brought in to help failing schools in Philadelphia changed the way the schools worked, but students' improvement seems negligible.

By ANITA KUMAR, Times Staff Writer
Published November 27, 2005

PHILADELPHIA - In Room 202 of Anderson Elementary School, Claire Burris asks the three rows of squirming first-graders to identify the drawing on the large card she holds up.

"A pig," the dozen students say in unison.

And what sound comes from the first letter?

"Pa, Pa, Pa," they say.

The drawings keep coming as the students - some of the worst readers in one of America's worst school districts - begin to learn their letters and later, it is hoped, to read.

The classroom teacher sits quietly at her desk watching Burris, occasionally taking notes - refining her own skills by observing the school's reading coach.

The reading curriculum coordinator is mandated by Edison, a private management company hired to help lift sagging test scores and overall student achievement in this poor, once-failing school in southwest Philadelphia.

Edison - a for-profit business hired almost four years ago to manage two dozen of the lowest-performing schools in the district - is striving to radically change education in America. But the reality at the classroom level looks less than revolutionary.

The required reading and math coaches can be found in many public schools. The results of new monthly online tests are analyzed every which way in the hopes of improving annual state standardized test scores. Expensive curriculum and books, already available elsewhere, replaced the outdated ones.

There's no doubt Edison has brought accountability and business savvy to the classroom. A corporate culture pervades the mint-green concrete block halls of these 1960s-era schools, which are now called EMOs or Educational Management Organizations.

But in this large-scale experiment of using the profit motive to improve schools, the approach to education has been rather conventional. So conventional, in fact, the gains in student achievement recorded so far have been largely indistinguishable from improvements seen elsewhere in the Philadelphia school system, where schools are run the traditional way.

"What we've seen is that they're not a miracle cure," said Chad d'Entremont, assistant director for the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education at Columbia University's Teachers College. "We simply don't know the overall affect yet. Things haven't been made dramatically worse, but they haven't been made dramatically better either."

* * *

Edison Schools, the largest for-profit school chain in the United States, has risen with a decade-old phenomenon in public policy that seeks to mesh entrepreneurial concepts with educational goals as a fresh way to attack underperforming public education.

Republican leaders have fueled the movement with a series of initiatives - the federal No Child Left Behind law (which permits low-achieving schools to be turned over to private companies), Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's A-Plus plan and the growing use of vouchers for private schools. This year, 60 for-profit companies are managing more than 500 schools nationwide.

At the forefront is Edison, the brainchild of Chris Whittle, the eccentric entrepreneur who made his first splash in education with the controversial Channel One business that brought TV - and commercials - into schools. The communications executive who had restored Esquire magazine to fiscal health came up with the idea as he prepared a speech to a business group on ways to improve the nation's school system.

Edison's mission is to find a cheaper way to get better results with students.

The company and its supporters say troubled schools have failed long enough and a new approach is required. They boast of significant gains in student achievement. Critics say there have been gains, but the amounts are disputed as compared to other public schools, which they argue get less money and opportunity.

Whittle insists he can serve both those who want the company to turn a profit and those who want the children to learn.

"The two goals exist side by side," he said from his office in New York. "One won't work without the other."

This year, Edison works with about 61,000 students at about 136 public schools - down from almost 70,000 students at 157 schools a year ago. Founded in 1992, it runs some district and charter schools, and provides heavy support to others.

The company also sells services - professional training, classroom management, after-school programs, computerized testing and tutoring for schools that rate low on No Child Left Behind requirements.

In Florida, the Miami-Dade district ended a contract this year with the state's only Edison school - a poor inner-city elementary school in Miami. The state graded the school a D last year, down from a C the year before.

Much of Whittle's time is spent flying around the country looking for new customers. But he said he doesn't even try in Florida because the spending per student is so low - $1,580 below the $8,259 national average - it would be difficult to cover the cost of his program.

Edison, which went public in 1999 but has since gone private, turned its first profit last year, Whittle said. He won't disclose specific financial information, but the company does have a high-profile partner in Liberty Partners, the investment firm that Edison merged with two years ago that manages Florida's pension fund.

"We knew we would lose money," Whittle said. "With any venture, you expect to lose money for a substantial period of time. We just didn't think we would lose it for as long as we did."

Supporters of the Edison idea praise private companies for trying something - anything - to boost failing student achievement.

"Public education works well for a lot of kids. It does not work well for inner-city kids," said Matthew Ladner, director of state projects for the Alliance for School Choice. "We can't do any worse."

But critics call Edison a "nail in the coffin of public education as we've known it."

"I mean, you don't help the public schools by starting private schools," author Jonathan Kozol said. "If you want to improve the public's water supply, you don't do it by selling champagne."

The results are mixed.

The biggest study so far, released last month by the nonprofit RAND Corp., shows that most schools run by Edison post gains in student achievement that exceed those of comparable public schools over time if all the company's strategies are adopted and followed for several years.

But while test scores are increasing and some involved parents rave about the individualized attention their children receive, Edison and other companies have seen contracts canceled.

Just this year, Edison left the troubled urban Pennsylvania school district of Chester Upland where it operated most schools. Test scores improved a little, but the company lost $30-million.

No matter, Edison and similar companies expect to flourish as the demand for a new approach increases.

* * *

Edison came to Philadelphia at the invitation of Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge in 2001, who asked the company to review the city's troubled school system. Edison recommend another entity - like itself - take over.

The Republican-run state seized control of the district and established a new board that, despite vigorous objections, hired private groups, including three for-profits, to manage about 45 schools the next year.

"We need to adopt and embrace as robust reform as possible," said James Nevels, an entrepreneur and chairman of the School Reform Commission.

Edison wanted a hand in running the whole district and to operate 45 schools. Instead it got a five-year contract to run 20 of the worst schools, some with less than 10 percent of students learning at grade level. This year, Edison was awarded two more schools.

"This is all political," said Jerry Jordan of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, the union that represents 20,000 employees. "The Republican perspective on education is really to privatize it."

But as had happened elsewhere, to get the Philadelphia contract Edison had to forgo some of its key components, such as longer school days and pay incentives for teachers. The company brought in new equipment but teachers say some of the initial staff support was removed after the first year.

Some teachers left the schools. Others stayed and learned to adapt. For all the tried-and-true teaching approaches, an Edison school does look and feel different from a traditional school.

Edison managers have corporate, not education, backgrounds and are glued to BlackBerrys, cell phones and laptops. They talk about accountability, paradigm shifts and benchmarks - not your typical educator words.

The new manager of Edison schools in Philadelphia, Stephanie Nellons, came to the job after working at Sodexho food services and Ryder transportation company. With her business suit and ever-present dangling cell phone earpiece, she looks out of place in an inner-city school.

"I think they respect my business savvy," she says of the principals she supervises. "I'm tough and I don't care."

Sheila Stubbs, 38, who has been a teacher at Anderson Elementary for seven years, said the focus moved to reading and math tests - at the expense of other subjects - but, she acknowledges, the school's scores have improved.

She worries about the emphasis on Edison's monthly online tests called Benchmarks and state tests, but says she knows that is the way education is headed today in the United States.

Edison wanted $1,500 per student in Philadelphia but got $750. Paul Vallas, the CEO of the Philadelphia schools, has said he has directed more money to district schools to even out the spending, but some critics still say it's unfair.

"How do we know its working?" said Shelly Yanoff, executive director of Philadelphia Citizens for Children and Youth and an Edison opponent. "They are taking funds out of the schools. For-profit companies are getting more money."

Some of the more involved parents were worried about Edison at first but are content now. Many others don't care that Edison manages the schools. They - and their children - don't seem to know the difference.

"They have a lot of access to more things that public schools didn't," said Gerald Shaffer, 68, whose 11-year-old grandson attends sixth grade at Penn Treaty Middle School. "Even the books are better."

Times researchers Caryn Baird and Angie Drobnic Holan contributed to this report.

Lawmakers have lofty goal for Texas schoolchildren: Adequate

The court ruled that funding is adequate despite Texas having the highest dropout in the nation. Also check out the Statesman's story that appeared on Sunday, Nov. 28. Only in Texas.... -Angela

by Cary Clack

11/28/2005 12:00 AM CST / San Antonio Express-News

A few years ago, the then pre-teen daughter of my colleague, Carlos Guerra, took apart the word extraordinary and asked, "Why would anyone want to be extra ordinary?"

An equally profound question for Texans, their legislature and governor is, why would anyone want just an adequate education?

Last week, the Texas Supreme Court declared the current funding system for education unconstitutional but denied claims that the legislature doesn't provide enough money to educate more than 4 million public school students.

The discussion and debate about the education of these students always centers on the word "adequate" and whether the state is meeting the requirements in Article 7, Section 1 of the state constitution to adequately provide the funds for adequate education for the students.

The actual language in the section talks about "the duty of the Legislature and State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools."

"Suitable" is a synonym for "adequate" and if you knew that, then you received at least an adequate education.

But who wants to be adequate in anything? "Adequate" is such a weak, vague, and wishy-washy word that it's less than adequate. It's one of the lamest and least-inspiring words in the English language.

Who aspires to adequateness?

Maybe one reason Texas schoolchildren aren't doing as well as they should is that we've set such a low bar for success for them and the state. How many parents tell their children, "Today, you're going to do adequate on that big test, continue to have an adequate thirst for education and do adequately well in school, get an adequate job and go out and make the world not a better place but an adequate place."

What politician on the campaign trail promises to work adequately hard to create an adequate education system? Were you hoping for an adequate Thanksgiving meal, and are you looking forward to an adequate Christmas?

The next time you run into a friend and his family are you going to say, "Jim, good to see you. Your wife and kids are looking adequate. Have an adequate day."

Does anyone want to hear, "Honey, you were, well, adequate."

When talking about the financing and quality of education we want for the state's children, we should upgrade from "adequate" to "superb," "excellent" or "outstanding."

The way language is used in education can be confusing and limiting.

Programs that challenge exceptionally successful students are indispensable but when labeled as "Gifted and Talented," what's being said to the students not in them is that they are only adequate.

Special ed programs are also indispensable but one of the special things they can do is stigmatize a child.

The legislature has until June 1 to devise a new school finance system. For the sake of the untapped gifts and talents of this state's schoolchildren, here's a special wish that the legislature is extraordinarily dutiful in producing something more than adequate.

Editor's Note: This column by Gary Clark was adequate, which is a considerable improvement for him.

To leave a message for Cary Clack call (210) 250-3546 or e-mail at cclack@express-news.net. His column appears on Mondays, Wednesdays and Saturdays.

School champions held ground in Austin

by William McKenzie


They want funding to back higher student standards

04:57 AM CST on Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Texans of the Year?

Simple.

The school groups that stared down the mighty Texas Legislature on school finance. They surprised Austin by shunning the pennies-on-the-dollar lawmakers tried to give them. They forced legislators to go home this summer with no solution, tails dragging for all their constituents to see. And seven Texas Supreme Court justices helped their cause yesterday by giving Austin until June 1 to create a better way of funding schools.

God love these groups for their steadfastness. And God love 'em because that High Noon courage contrasted sharply with the school groups' past performances, when they fell prey to legislators' entrapments.

Wily lawmakers would tantalize rural districts with money for transportation needs, as long as those districts supported the school funding bill on the table. Or legislators would throw poor districts, or rich ones, a bone to entice them into backing the package.

This year, during one regular session and two special ones on school finance, school groups stood firm and refused to let anyone pick them apart. They unanimously told the governor, speaker, lieutenant governor and all 181 legislators that, this time, peanuts wouldn't do.

Catherine Clark of the Texas Association of School Boards attributes the unity to a decision the groups made during a meeting back in 2003. "We knew that breaking us apart would divide and conquer us," she said. As the funding debate wore on, "there was a lot of temptation, but big principles held us together."

Those principles began and ended with a belief that state government should invest enough money in its public schools so students could meet the new demands lawmakers had placed on them. Like some business leaders, the coalition wanted $8 billion in new money for the next two years.

The GOP-run Legislature didn't come close. The higher-ups started at $3 billion; by the time the last special session imploded, the leadership was down to offering only $2.4 billion.

Neither figure even kept pace with inflation, much less made up for the deep budget cuts many districts had to make since reaching the maximum tax rate they could charge property owners. About 70 percent of Texas school districts are close to maxing out, from the Lower Rio Grande Valley to West Texas to suburban North Texas.

That's what gave the coalition its backbone. School groups representing urban, suburban, rural, poor, rich, black, brown and white students stood together – and fought back.

Wichita Falls schools Superintendent Dawson Orr was a notable spine-stiffener. He led the coalition as members met every other week during the regular session, keeping his group focused. Similarly, members kept their game faces on through this summer's two special sessions.

The coalition "clearly played a role in denying legislative leaders access to a positive constituency," says Bill Allaway of the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association. Lawmakers couldn't flank them to rally local support because these groups, after all, represented those very people. They did their job so well that a group of parents is fielding Republican candidates to run against some GOP incumbents next year.

The school groups also balanced out the many Republicans who were loath to raise taxes to help schools. Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist was pressing from Washington to not raise one cent, and without the coalition pressing for more aid, lawmakers likely would have passed a puny package and gone home.

Maybe that's why some in Austin, mostly House Republicans, came to refer to the coalition members as the "Whiny Ass School People." (I started not to include that vulgarity in a family newspaper, but it reveals the contempt some elected leaders have for those who run our schools.)

Fortunately, the WASPs didn't budge. Our state is better off for their uncommon leadership and independence, which is what this editorial board seeks in bestowing The Dallas Morning News Texan of the Year award.

It would be best if legislators and the education groups could work out a common solution when Austin takes up school finance again. But if Republican leaders keep offering higher standards and little funding, someone has to force the Legislature to give students the means they need to achieve higher ends.

I nominate the WASPs for that job and for Texans of the Year. It's not easy wrestling the Capitol to a draw, but they did it with brilliant courage and independence.

William McKenzie is a Dallas Morning News editorial columnist. His e-mail address is wmckenzie@dallasnews.com.

"Acting White" by Roland G. Fryer

This published piece on "Acting White" tests Fordham and Ogbu's framework that connects to oppositional identities that they maintain minority youth develop. To see what the latest is on this, it's worth checking out.

Angela

School tax system unconstitutional

Check out Greg Moses' summary in theTexas Civil Rights Review, and also MALDEF's response (scroll down), as well as that of the Statesman's titled, 'Schools need more than tinkering'.

-Angela.

State Supreme Court wants a fix by June 1.

By Jason Embry
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
The Texas Supreme Court declared the state's school finance system unconstitutional Tuesday because school boards lack control over the tax rates they set, handing a partial victory to school districts and prompting what could be major changes to Texas' tax structure.

But the court also ruled that the system does allow enough overall spending on public education to meet the state and federal demands students and teachers face and that money is distributed fairly enough to satisfy the Texas Constitution. Although that decision on overall spending is an immediate setback for school officials who have pressed lawmakers for significantly more money, the high court did warn that the school system is drifting toward an underfunded state.

"The court recognized, as all Texans recognize, that we can and should do a better job of educating students in Texas," said Attorney General Greg Abbott, whose office defended the system in a lawsuit brought by more than 300 districts. "But just because we can do a better job does not mean that the job being done now is unconstitutional."

The court, in its 7-1 opinion, gave the Legislature a June 1 deadline to restructure the tax system, which now relies heavily on local property taxes to pay for public schools. The Legislature is likely to meet in a special session next spring.

In the meantime, the decision will have little immediate effect on the daily operations of the state's $33 billion-a-year school system and its 4.3 million students.

"For the past decade, the Legislature has been shifting the responsibility of funding Texas schools onto local districts and onto the local property tax, but the local property tax can no longer bear this heavy burden," said David Thompson, a lawyer for some of the school districts, including Austin, that sued the state. "The Supreme Court's decision makes clear that it is time for the Legislature to step up to the plate and pay for the high academic standards it has imposed on districts and students."

The court was acting on a ruling last year by state District Judge John Dietz of Austin that the system was unconstitutional for three reasons: because school boards had lost control over their tax rates, because the system lacked enough funding for schools to meet constitutional standards and because districts did not have equal access to money to build and renovate schools.

The Supreme Court did not specifically address the "Robin Hood" nature of the system, meaning the state can continue to require districts that have high property values relative to their student populations to share some of their local tax money with districts that have lower values per student.

But if lawmakers reduce schools' dependence on property taxes to pay for education — a likely outcome of Tuesday's decision — most, if not all, wealthy districts will keep a higher percentage of the dollars they collect, proposals made earlier this year showed.

Forbidden state tax

Under the current school finance system, districts may not set tax rates for the portion of the revenue they use to maintain and operate existing schools any higher than $1.50 per $100 in assessed property value. They may exceed that cap to pay for construction.

Because of a lack of state funding to balance out the local dollars, school districts argued, they have had little choice but to tax at or near the $1.50 cap, robbing them of the tax-setting discretion that prior court decisions have said they must have.

The Texas Constitution forbids a statewide property tax, but the court said Tuesday that that's effectively what the current cap has become. More than 80 percent of Texas students are in districts that tax within 5 cents of the $1.50 cap, including Austin, up from 6 percent of students in 1994.

The court pointed out that districts are spending more than 97 percent of the revenue that would be available if every district taxed at maximum rates, up from 83 percent in 1994.

"The current situation has become virtually indistinguishable from one in which the state simply set an ad valorem tax rate of $1.50 and redistributed the revenue to the districts," said the court's majority opinion, written by Justice Nathan Hecht.

The Legislature, anticipating that the court would order changes in the tax system, tried repeatedly this year to cut property taxes and replace those taxes, dollar-for-dollar, by increasing taxes on consumers and businesses, such as the sales tax and a proposed payroll tax. Most of the plans benefited higher-income Texans, according to legislative analyses.

They never approved a final plan because House and Senate leaders could not agree on whether businesses or consumers should bear the brunt of the increase. But the proposals floated during the regular legislative session and two special sessions generally gave voters the option of adding slightly to their school districts' tax rates — an option intended to make sure communities are able to raise more money if they want.

Some school officials argued that schools would need that extra money just to meet minimum standards on such things as the state tests that students must pass to graduate or be promoted. The court decision warned against that, which school lawyers interpreted as a call for larger funding increases than state leaders have pushed.

"The state cannot provide for local supplementation, pressure most of the districts by increasing accreditation standards in an environment of increasing costs to tax at maximum rates in order to afford any supplementation at all, and then argue that it is not controlling local tax rates," the court's opinion said.

Warning on adequacy

On the question of whether Texas students are receiving an adequate education, Dietz had ruled that there was not enough money in the system overall to provide the "general diffusion of knowledge" that the constitution requires.

But the Supreme Court said in its ruling Tuesday that Dietz did not find that such a diffusion is impossible in the current system, just that the state has not provided enough money to get there.

The court warned that "substantial evidence" suggests that continued improvement will not be possible without significant change, although it did not limit its definition of change to an increase in spending. School district lawyers said the court's warning was another call for more education spending.

Gov. Rick Perry downplayed talk of spending increases.

"The court also made note of an important point: While the $10 billion in increased funding Texas has provided for education since 1999 has had a positive and measurable impact on our schools, it is possible for the Legislature to implement new reforms that will improve student success without necessarily spending additional dollars," Perry said.

The governor did not say when he would call lawmakers back for a special legislative session. The fact that a Perry-appointed commission studying the state tax system held its first meeting Monday suggests such a session is several months away, perhaps after the March political primaries. Perry is among the incumbents running for re-election.

The Supreme Court rejected the state's argument that judges should stay out of this discussion and bow completely to the Legislature on questions of adequate funding for education.

"Had the state won that argument, adequacy would have been off the table forever," said Mark Trachtenberg, a lawyer for school districts. "When the Legislature meets again, it is going to meet knowing it has a constitutional duty to provide an adequate education that is enforceable in the courts."

Next: more litigation?

Dietz had also called the school finance system unconstitutional because some property-poor school districts don't have the same access as other districts to money to build facilities.

School construction is paid for primarily by passing bond initiatives, which rely on local taxes. The state does not attempt to equalize funding to build facilities the way it does for operating expenses such as teacher salaries and utilities.

The court ruled that property-poor districts did not prove that they must have more buildings to educate students in a way that complies with the constitution. That finding might have opened the door to more litigation, one observer said.

"With regard to equity in funding facilities, the court in essence invites further litigation by ruling only that necessary evidence was not presented," said Scott McCown, a former district judge who has ruled on school finance cases. McCown now heads the Center for Public Policy Priorities, which pushes for additional spending on education.

Justice Scott Brister, in the lone dissenting opinion, said the court should not find that school districts are forced to tax at the maximum rate just because some of them do. He also questioned whether school districts, instead of students or parents, should have brought the lawsuit, and he said the majority opinion did not demand the "efficient" system of school funding the constitution requires.

The lawsuit decided Tuesday began in 2001, when a small group of districts sued over the question of whether the property tax cap had become, in effect, a statewide tax. Other districts later joined as the questions of adequacy and fairness were added. The districts that were plaintiffs in the suit included some that had been on opposite sides of prior school finance battles in the courts.

jembry@statesman.com; 445-3654
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 22, 2005 CONTACT: David Hinojosa (210) 224-5382
(210) 473-1935 cellular
J.C. Flores (213) 629-2512, ext. 124


MALDEF Decries Latest Decision of Texas Supreme Court:
Ruling Abandons Low-wealth Districts and
Upholds Glaring Inequities in the System

(AUSTIN, TEXAS) More than 16 years after declaring the school finance system
unconstitutional in Edgewood I, the Supreme Court of Texas refused to remedy persistent
inequalities in the present school funding system. As a result, property-poor districts face
the prospect of even greater inequities in a new system that will not contain a property tax
cap.
MALDEF represented the Edgewood Districts∗, a group of 22 property-poor
school districts, many of which filed the original landmark school finance suit in 1984.
Despite a trial record consisting of 655 Findings of Fact and 24 Conclusions of
law based on over 7,000 exhibits and testimony from dozens of witnesses, the Supreme
Court refused to address the issues and, instead, deferred to the Legislature’s discretion.
Although the Supreme Court found that the State violated the Texas Constitution by
forcing district’s to tax at the maximum rate, the Court failed to address the gross
inequities in the system.
“MALDEF is very disappointed with the Supreme Court’s ruling,” said MALDEF
President and General Counsel Ann Marie Tallman. “This case is not about money but
rather about lost educational opportunities for the 2 million-plus students attending
schools in property-poor districts. Unfortunately, the Court has failed to act and protect
the interests of those children.”
David Hinojosa, MALDEF Staff Attorney and lead counsel in the case, added:
“Fifty years after Brown v. Board, our undisputed evidence at trial showed that the
quality of education for certain Texas children still suffers as a direct result of which side
of the tracks they live on. Despite the glaring disparities between the haves and have-
nots, the Court refused to confront the issues head on.
He continued: “The lone victory for our districts was that the Supreme Court did
not state that the recapture (wealth-sharing) system needed to be eliminated. With that in
mind, there is every reason for the Legislature to address the inequities in the system
when creating its new school finance plan.”

∗ The Edgewood District consist of the following Independent School Districts: Edgewood, Brownsville,
Edcouch-Elsa, Harlandale, Harlingen, Jim Hogg County, Kenedy, Laredo, La Feria, La Vega, Los Fresnos,
Monte Alto, Pharr-San Juan-Alamo, Raymondville, Roma, San Benito, San Elizario, Socorro, Sharyland,
South San Antonio, United, and Ysleta.

"The fact that the Supreme Court ruled that the system is constitutional does not
mean that we have a quality school system that can support the economic future of Texas.
MALDEF looks forward to working with the Legislature to provide a funding system that
is fair and equitable for all Texas children," commented Luis Figueroa, MALDEF
legislative staff attorney.

A national nonprofit organization found in 1968, MALDEF promotes and protects the
rights of Latinos through advocacy, community education and outreach, leadership
development, higher education scholarships and when necessary, through the legal
system.

Trust power of bilingualism

“Where bilingual education has failed, it has failed mainly because affluent Americans do not want to use
their tax dollars to support a high-quality education for the poor.”


Posted on Tue, Nov. 22, 2005
Viewpoint

From: The Tribune (San Luis Obispo)
By Johanna Rubba

Once again, Victor Davis Hanson (Commentary, Nov. 20)
pontificates beyond his area of expertise, declaring
English "our common bond" and claiming bilingual
education "eroded first-generation immigrants'
facility in English."

He also makes the typical, right-wing appeal to the
non- existent "good old days" in referring to the "the
inclusivity that once worked" prior to the 1960s.
Those were the days when blacks were restricted to
inferior schools, neighborhoods and jobs; Jews were
not welcome at posh country clubs; and more than half
the population, viz., women, were acceptable in the
workforce as long as they did not aspire to men's jobs
and accepted sexual comments and advances from their
bosses. Very inclusive.

All of these people spoke English. Blacks and whites
shared English in the South for hundreds of years, but
the bondage of slavery seems to have trumped the
"bond" of a common language. Speaking English did not
help Irish immigrants in the 19th century, who
suffered serious discrimination, in large measure
because they were Catholic. Oh, and the sovereign
against whom American colonists revolted in the 1770s
spoke ... English. Language certainly can be a common
bond, but that bond is easily overridden by divisive
forces such as racism, sexism and religious
intolerance.

Hanson refers to Quebec, perhaps with the strife
between French and English speakers in mind.
Language-based strife generally arises when those in
power suppress a language. The English imposed
restrictions on French in Quebec long before the
Quebecois turned the tables; strife in Sri Lanka,
eastern Turkey and apartheid in South Africa resulted
partly or mainly from language oppression (remember
the Soweto massacre, in which white South Africans
shot and killed children who were marching for the
right to be schooled in a language they understood).

Immigrants come to America because they share values
like economic opportunity, freedom of speech and
religion and a superior education for their children
(sadly, only some reap these benefits). The great
majority of immigrants want to learn English and want
their children to learn English. Historically, the
languages of immigrant groups cease to be used by
those groups by the third generation born on American
soil; the current wave is following suit.

Where bilingual education has failed, it has failed
mainly because affluent Americans do not want to use
their tax dollars to support a high-quality education
for the poor. Bilingual education comes in many forms,
and there are forms that work: resource-intensive
programs that give children five to seven years to
master English while cultivating academic proficiency
in their native language. Tell me who has better
potential for "economic security" in today's global
economy -- a monolingual person or someone literate
and fluent in two or more languages? Isn't there a
certain irony in the fact that we encourage or require
middle-class children to study a second language in
high school or college, but we do our best to
discourage bilingualism in immigrant children?

I recommend that Mr. Hanson consult the large body of
scholarly research by language experts on bilingual
education and language policy. An excellent resource
is James Crawford's substantial Web site, including
the page "Ten Common Fallacies About Bilingual
Education" (www.cal.org/ericcll/digest
/crawford01.html) and the site "The Effectiveness of
Bilingual Education," hosted by the Center for Applied
Linguistics, (www.cal.org/ericcll/faqs/rgos/bi.html).
He will then have standing to express an opinion on
these issues.
Johanna Rubba is associate professor of linguistics at
Cal Poly.

3rd-graders who fail state test often promoted anyway

What this piece does not acknowledge is that the current system of testing violates professional ethics. Most fundamental is the ethical argument advanced by national reputable associations like the American Educational Research Association, the National Research Council, the American Psychological Association, and the National Academy of Sciences - alongside the makers of the tests themselves - that no single test be used as the basis for any high-stakes decision like retention, promotion or graduation. I do not accept the premise implicit in this piece below that the testing system either serves the interests of the children or that it is used in an appropriate manner. It is unfortunate that our official leadership is apparently unaware of the decades of research that demonstrates that retaining students in grade is a backward, not to mention morally reprehensible approach to student achievement. -Angela

3rd-graders who fail state test often promoted anyway
Educators say review process allows a look at each failing student's situation before making decision to promote them.

By Jason Embry
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Monday, November 21, 2005
For three years, Texas has used a statewide test to help determine who is ready to move from third grade to fourth and who needs to stay behind for another year. But the handful of students who fail the test often move on to fourth grade anyway.

During the first two years that the state required third-graders to pass the reading section of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, about 3 percent of them, or 8,600 students per year, neverdid. Slightly more than half of that group, including many students who failed the test three times, advanced to fourth grade at the start of the next school year, according to data from the Texas Education Agency.

The fact that third-graders are jumping to the next grade without meeting the testing requirements raises questions about the effectiveness of a policy that was supposed to end so-called social promotion and ensure that students would not advance through school without the proper skills.

"I don't know whether that number is too high," Sandy Kress, an adviser to then-Gov. George W. Bush who helped push for the testing requirement in 1999, said of the total number of promoted students. "It's certainly high enough to wonder if youngsters who might not be able to do the work in the next grade are going on to the next grade. So I worry without knowing I have the right to be worried."

According to state and local records:

•In 2004, at least a third of those who failed and were promoted moved on after a committee of one of the child's parents, one teacher and one principal reviewed their academic records and decided that they should advance despite having failed three times. That ratio was roughly the same in 2003.

•Several districts in Travis County, as well as the Round Rock district, chose more often than not in 2004 to promote students who repeatedly failed the test, according to data provided by the districts.

•About 38 percent of failing students who moved on to fourth grade in 2003 did so by taking a different test, which state law allows because their teachers identified a disability. Numbers are not available for 2004.

Still other students took other tests deemed more appropriate for them after two TAKS failures, and for some, records of why they were promoted are not clear because they changed schools, state officials said.

Yet state data indicate that fewer than one-third of failing students whom a committee moved on to the next grade in 2003 went on to pass the fourth-grade state reading test.

The education agency report released at the end of October also shows that the promotion policy that began in 2003 has done little to affect the overall rate of students who have to repeat third grade. In 2004, 2.6 percent of third-graders were kept there an extra year for any reason, from low grades to poor attendance.

The rate has hovered between 2 percent and 3 percent since 1998.

Educators say the overall retention rate has remained low because, in the years leading up to the new test, the state spent hundreds of millions of dollars on small-group instruction, extra teacher training and other programs designed to ensure that students could read at a third-grade level. As a result, finalpassing rates on the English version of the third-grade reading test have been above 95 percent for several years.

"We've made a profound difference on the issue of kids being able to read," said Linda Bridges, president of the Texas Federation of Teachers.

Promoted; then what?

Locally, the Austin, Round Rock, Pflugerville and Del Valle school districts all promoted more third-graders who failed the TAKS three times than they kept back in 2004. Educators say those decisions reflect careful scrutiny of each student's classroom work, attendance and progress on the state test.

ThePflugerville district held back eight out of 11 TAKS failures in 2003 but promoted eight out of 11 in 2004.

"You're looking at a lot of student performance data to make that decision, and you know that student," said Romelle Parker, an assistant superintendent in the Round Rock district. "If you promote them and it's the wrong thing to do, they're going to fail next spring. And we're going to be held accountable for that. So it wouldn't behoove us to promote someone if they're just going to fail the next time."

But, statewide, many of them do fail the next time.

Among third-graders who were promoted by a committee after the first year of TAKS testing, 2003, just 29 percent passed the reading test in fourth grade, state figures show. Similar data for the 2004 test have not been released by the state.

The TAKS is given in almost every grade to gauge how well schools are teaching the curriculum that the state requires. The reading section in third grade measures vocabulary, comprehension and other areas of instruction.

Bush called for the state to tie promotions to test scores in the late 1990s to reduce "social promotion," or students moving to the next grade without the requisite skills. The jump from third grade to fourth, it was thought, brings a major change in the difficulty of classwork and the reading skills children need.

The promotion requirement has since been added to the fifth-grade math and reading tests, and it will extend to the eighth-grade tests in those subjects in 2008.

Little change in rate

Kress said proponents of the policy created the appeals committees late in the 1999 legislative session to win support from some Democrats. He could not recall talk at the time of how many students who go before the committees should be promoted.

"We foresaw the day when it might be used widely or maybe too easily," he said. "But legislatively, it was the price we had to pay to get the bill. And it wasn't as if there would be no justification for it."

Third-graders must answer about two-thirds of the questions correctly to pass the reading test. Those who fail the test on the first try must have extra small-group instruction at school. If they fail a second time, the school must form the grade-placement committee made up of a parent, a teacher and a principal.

After the third test failure, the student is kept in third grade unless the parent asks the committee to consider promotion. If all three members of the committee approve, the student can move on. Students who are promoted without meeting the testing requirements must continue to receive extra help in fourth grade.

"The whole reason for having a grade-placement committee is, you want to avoid making a significant and comprehensive decision based on only one data point," said Maria Whitsett, executive director of accountability in the Austin district.

The fact that there has been little change in the retention rate since the testing policy was set raises the question of whether social promotion was a major problem in the first place.

It was, said the teacher federation's Bridges. In 1995, fewer than 80 percent of third-graders passed the state reading test, which was an easier exam than the one used today. But only 1.3 percent of third-graders were held back that year.

Bridges credited the money the state spent on extra programs in kindergarten through third grade between 1999 and 2003 and pointed out that lawmakers cut funding for some of those programs when confronted with a state budget shortfall two years ago. Additional funding will be crucial now that testing plays into promotion decisions in fifth grade and soon will in eighth, Bridges said.

"We've made significant gains over time based on the investment that was made," Bridges said. "Will we stay the course and continue the investment to continue to make gains? That's an issue I'm a little nervous about."

jembry@statesman.com; 445-3654

Panel on education, taxes is all business

School finance is back in the news with the Texas Supreme Court making a decision on school finance shortly. Stay tuned. -Angela


Critics note slant, but leader says members can make finances work

12:00 AM CST on Monday, November 21, 2005


By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN – Awaiting only final marching orders from the Texas Supreme Court, a high-profile committee of business leaders headed by a prominent Democrat is poised to tackle the divisive issues that roiled three sessions of the Legislature this year:

John Sharp rejects criticism that his business-based panel would favor consumer taxes. 'We'll try to develop something that produces a long-term, stable and fair tax system,' he said.

The 24-member Texas Tax Reform Commission, appointed by Gov. Rick Perry and led by his one-time political rival, Democrat John Sharp, will begin work today on recommendations for cutting school property taxes and raising new revenue for education through higher business and consumer taxes.

The issues dominated Austin while lawmakers struggled and squabbled, but they have receded as policymakers await the high court's ruling on a lawsuit by school districts over the state's funding system. But they are no less divisive, as shown by an outcry over the Sharp panel's lack of labor, education or consumer representatives.

Mr. Sharp said the panel would examine potential increases in sales taxes, higher cigarette and alcohol taxes, along with a redesigned state business tax.

"We are open to everything except an income tax," the former state comptroller said, adding that even expansion of gambling in Texas, which failed to pass the Legislature, will be on the table.

At the same time, Mr. Sharp said, the panel will respond to calls from state leaders and taxpayers to significantly cut back school property taxes.

"I take 'significant' to be at least a third," Mr. Sharp said. The current maximum school property tax rate is $1.50 per $100 assessed value. Cutting the rate to $1 would save property taxpayers about $5.5 billion a year.

"If you go less than a third, it becomes hard for homeowners and businesses to see any real relief," he said.

Three failures
It's too early to tell whether the Legislature will accept any recommendations the committee may make or what effect the proposals would have on individual taxpayers.

Disagreement between the House and Senate, along with strong opposition from school districts and business groups, derailed the Legislature's efforts to overhaul the state's school finance system in a regular session and two overtime sessions called by Mr. Perry. Proposals offered by Republican leaders would have decreased local property taxes and boosted consumer taxes and some business levies to compensate.

Meanwhile, the state Supreme Court is expected to rule any day on the state's appeal of a lower court decision that found the $33 billion-a-year school finance system unconstitutional. If the justices agree, they could set a deadline for the Legislature to change it, which could prompt Mr. Perry to call another session next year.

Mr. Sharp said his commission will scrutinize the tax legislation drafted this year and look elsewhere, even other states, in the search for tax alternatives.

"We'll try to develop something that produces a long-term, stable and fair tax system," he said. There will be an emphasis on changes in the state's main tax on businesses – the corporate franchise tax – now avoided by five of six businesses because of loopholes in the law.

Mr. Sharp said having so many business leaders on the panel will make it easier to find a replacement for the franchise tax. But critics see no voice for consumers and average Texans on the commission. Some noted that several members of the panel made big campaign contributions to Mr. Perry in the past.

"Where is the mother working two jobs to provide for her family? Who represents the family that is trying to pay one of the highest property taxes and the third-highest sales tax rate in the country?" asked Sen. Eliot Shap- leigh, D-El Paso.

Mr. Shapleigh predicted the commission would resort to the same approach that was popular among legislative leaders, particularly in the House: heavy on consumer taxes that would raise the overall tax burden for all but the wealthiest Texans, according to state research.

Mr. Sharp rejected the criticism, saying his panel is similar to those appointed by past Democratic and Republican governors, including Ann Richards, Bill Clements and Mark White.

He also insisted the commission will have an open mind and try to be fair to consumers and businesses alike.

Another panel
Any recommendations face the legislative gantlet, though, and reaction among lawmakers has been polite if not enthusiastic.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick have already agreed to appoint seven members from each chamber to seek a compromise once the Supreme Court has ruled. Unlike the Sharp panel, the House-Senate committee will look at not just taxes, but also school reforms and new funding rules for education.

Asked if the legislative committee might duplicate the work of the tax reform commission, Mr. Dewhurst said: "If the commission comes up with a concept that we haven't considered in the past, then we will be pleased to consider it." He added, though, that there is only a "finite" number of ways to attack the problem.

'Fresh eyes'
Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas, said having a panel of business leaders endorse a new package of business and consumer taxes could make it easier for the Legislature to reach agreement next time around.

"We have been looking at this for quite a while, but it's always good to have fresh eyes look at an old problem," he said.

"Their work could lead to broader support from the business community in Texas, something we didn't have before," he added.

Today's hearing will include testimony from experts on the state tax system and a briefing on the legislation considered by the House and Senate earlier this year. They will also set a schedule to develop recommendations for the Legislature.

Mr. Sharp said his panel could ultimately help legislators with public support.

"We will go from one end of the state to the other, educating the public, including business leaders, on what is in the tax code and what the unfairness in the tax code is, and try to build support from there so it will be easier for members of the Legislature to come to a consensus," he said.

E-mail tstutz@dallasnews.com

Gulf Coast officials worry that feds won't pick up recovery tab

Mon, Nov. 21, 2005
By GRIFF WITTE
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON -- The federal government has spent or obligated through contracts more than $18 billion in Hurricane Katrina relief, meaning that in just over two months, storm recovery costs have already drawn even with the record spending package the United States has been using to fund Iraq reconstruction for the past two years.

But local, state and federal officials say that number pales in comparison with the ultimate price tag for rebuilding the Gulf Coast. Until now, major expenses have come in the form of debris removal, temporary housing and direct assistance to those victimized by the storm. The real big-ticket items, they say, will not come until months and years down the line as the government attempts to re-create a public infrastructure network -- including roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, sewers, power lines, ports and levees -- that was decimated when Katrina swept in at the end of August.

"I hate to use the term 'drop in the bucket,' but that's pretty much what it's been," said Arthur Jones, who heads Louisiana's disaster recovery division. "This is going to be expensive. My mental calculator doesn't go that high."

No one else has come up with a definitive estimate, either. Guesses tend to range well above $100 billion but vary wildly from there.

Rebuilding the levees in New Orleans to the level that state and local leaders want is expected to cost $20 billion or more. Many roads, including a bridge that forms part of Interstate 10, have to be rebuilt entirely. Labyrinths of underground cables, wires and pipes that spent weeks corroding in the dank floodwaters have to be replaced. And thousands of buildings have to be leveled to make way for fresh construction.

There is widespread agreement on who will end up receiving that money: the companies that make their living doing architecture, engineering and construction work for the government. Less clear is who will pay.

It is yet to be determined, for instance, just how much of a role the federal government will play in picking up the tab. "It depends on a threshold question: What are you going to rebuild? What is the federal responsibility for rebuilding a city, a metropolitan area or a region? This is where it gets really confused," said Bruce Katz, director of the metropolitan policy program at the Brookings Institution. "Federalism is a messy business."

In the immediate aftermath of the storm, Congress rushed to approve more than $60 billion in aid. President Bush offered assurances in a nationally televised address from New Orleans that the federal government would bear much of the financial burden.

Yet since then, fiscal conservatives in the Congress have begun to question whether the United States can afford to take on such an enormous expense at a time of mounting deficits. They knocked down legislation pushed by members of Louisiana's congressional delegation that would have authorized $250 billion in additional storm-related funding.

With the nation's attention shifting away from Katrina, the Bush administration has given indications it is listening to conservatives' concerns. When the White House late last month wanted $17 billion primarily to rebuild federal facilities and highways in the Gulf Coast, it requested that Congress take that money out of the existing reconstruction budget.
Meanwhile, state and local officials say they are growing increasingly concerned that the federal government will not put in the kind of money needed to rebuild the region. "We've always been a poor state, so this is something that can't be done without federal help," said Mark Drennen, president and chief executive of Greater New Orleans Inc. "For local businesses to survive, there's got to be a basic infrastructure in place. And that infrastructure is gone."


© 2005 Star-Telegram and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.dfw.com

My Mother's Obituary

I want to share with blog readers my Mom's obituary link in the San Angelo Standard-Times, Nov. 12, 2005, as well as a November 20, 2005 story on her.

We had her funeral on Monday and it was a sweet and peaceful experience. She had many friends and she was very loved.
Click on the obit and you can see her picture. I'm told by many that I take after her though I actually look like both of my parents.

To this, I'll add that her very last words to my father and me in Spanish were 'No hicimos bastante' ('we didn't do enough'). He lovingly told her, 'No, we didn't do enough. But you still did do a lot. You helped a lot of people. And we will continue the work that we began. Have no doubt or concern over that. (My father is a minister, as were my mother's parents before her.)

I've always been concerned that this would be my concern at life's end. Now I know that that's okay since God's work still gets done. Still, life is so very brief.

Bye again, Mom. I'm blessed to have had a Mom like you.

Angela

Activist to Ask Judge to Punish State in English-Learner Suit

Just came across this. Not sure of what’s happened since in Arizona, but this is really interesting. What is not said is also significant, namely, that this state is and has been doing very poorly with their non-English-speaking population. What's interesting is that this is happening in a state that is so dead-set against bilingual education.

There's concerns about taking away monies from highway funds. And the real, long-term effects of not educating, or mis-educating Latino children is what seems to be moving things here. I wish I knew the politics behind this.

-Angela

The Arizona Republic
October 30, 2005
Arizona Funds Imperiled
Activist to Ask Judge to Punish State in English-Learner Suit

By ROBBIE SHERWOOD & CHIP SCUTARI

On Monday, a federal judge will consider halting Arizona's freeway construction to force the state to do more to help educate immigrant children.

The state's most powerful public-interest attorney will ask that up to $500 million in federal highway funds be withheld until Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano and the Republican-controlled Legislature agree on a spending plan to improve children's English skills.

The English-learner program could cost the state an extra $200 million a year and boost the skills of as many as 160,000 Arizona children, most of whom are U.S. citizens but whose parents generally are immigrants.

Tim Hogan of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest is targeting highway funds because he believes the sanctions would get lawmakers' attention without penalizing needy children. Opposing attorneys say withholding up to $500 million in federal money would have an "immediate and devastating" effect on Arizona's economy.

The funds, which account for at least half of the Arizona Department of Transportation's budget, flow into the state as needed to pay for ongoing construction projects. If the money were stopped, it could have an immediate effect on freeway projects that include the widening of Interstate 17 from Loop 101 to the Carefree Highway; the construction of carpool lanes on the Pima freeway; and, in the East Valley, the widening of U.S. 60 from Val Vista Drive to Power Road.

Attorneys for the construction industry said that shutting off federal funds would not only stop or delay freeway projects, but also make traffic congestion and air quality worse, and force "significant layoffs" among construction workers. Contractors, who front money for building and wait for the federal government to reimburse, would immediately face massive debts.

An order to withhold the highway money would be unprecedented. The request will be heard by U.S. District Court Judge Raner Collins, who already has found Arizona's spending on students learning English to be "woefully inadequate." Because of their lack of English skills, such children are considered high risks to drop out of school. Their numbers are growing rapidly as Arizona's Latino population continues to swell.

Hogan will also ask the court to exempt English learners from having to pass the high-stakes AIMS test to graduate from high school next year because of the state government's failure to comply with the court's order.

Hogan said the request to deny federal highway money is "the cleanest and most efficient way to do this."

"If the court is reluctant, we've alternatively asked the court to impose fines of $1 million a day. You want to give the court flexibility and helpful here, but by the same token, I'm convinced the threat of federal highway funding is substantial and will result in compliance," he said.

Collins is not expected to deliver his decision Monday. The outcome ultimately could compel Napolitano and Republican legislative leaders to end their stalemate by crafting a bipartisan plan to spend millions more on teacher training, individualized instruction and smaller classrooms.

Collins had given Arizona's leaders until the end of last spring's legislative session to comply with his order in the Flores vs. Arizona lawsuit, which was first filed in 1992 on behalf of a family in Nogales. But that deadline blew up in May in a hail of partisan name-calling and finger-pointing. Napolitano vetoed a Republican legislative plan that she said did not meet the court's demand for adequate funding for English instruction.

Cartwright Elementary School District Superintendent Mike Martinez, who worked with Hogan on Arizona's landmark case about school construction financing, said going after highway funds could persuade lawmakers to act. "With the climate at the Legislature so hostile and skeptical, Tim recognized he had to go to an extreme level," Martinez said. "The history in Arizona has been that sometimes you need to do that to get things done."

The state's attorneys will argue that Napolitano and lawmakers have made a "good faith" effort to pass a spending plan and, despite Napolitano's veto, should be given more time to work out their differences.

"The (vetoed) bill was a good-faith effort to meet the requirements of the court and that, in fact, did meet the requirements of the court," said state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, a defendant in the case. "(Hogan) urged the governor to veto it and then he turns around and asks for sanctions because it never became law."

Horne plans to argue that, without Hogan's meddling, Napolitano would not have vetoed the Republican plan.

That plan would have spent about $42 million next year for English-language-learner programs and teacher training, although only $13.5 million would be new funding. Future spending increases would be uncertain because the approach would become a grant program subject to approval by the Department of Education and the Legislature. After Napolitano's veto, she unveiled her own plan that would increase spending for English learners by $185 million a year, but legislators have refused to discuss it.

Lawyers for the state will also argue that overall spending for English learners has increased from $150 per student to more than $350 a year, so there is no evidence of ignoring the court's order. Part of the delay will be pinned on a court-ordered cost study finished in February that said lawmakers should spend more than $1,000 per pupil, or $200 million a year, to help students overcome language barriers. Legislative leaders dismissed that study as flawed.

Hogan believes that, without sanctions, lawmakers will choose to dismiss any cost study that shows a need for substantial new spending.

The AIMS test

Horne also hopes the judge will dismiss Hogan's request to exempt English learners from passing the AIMS test to graduate from high school

"The worst thing that you could possibly do for Latino kids is take away their motivation to study," Horne said.

Parent activist Norma Alvarez of Glendale thinks Hogan is mistaken to try and exempt immigrant children from passing AIMS. Alvarez, a daughter of immigrants who spoke no English when she entered school over 50 years ago, is active with Hispanics for Better Education, an advocacy group pushing to consolidate school districts to improve funding for instruction.

"I didn't know a word of English when I entered school and I did fine," Alvarez said. "Our brain works the same as a White brain. To say, OK, you don't have to pass the AIMS test is like telling us we're dumb. (Hogan) is maybe trying to do us some good, but he's hurting us even more."

As for increased funding, administrators in school districts with large immigrant populations have said they need the extra money to shrink the size of classes, update materials and equipment, provide more individual instruction, and better train teachers. For example, instructors say Spanish-speaking children tend to speak in longer, run-on sentences and must be taught to streamline their writing. Those skills aren't addressed by normal textbooks.

In the Isaac School District, more than 60 percent of the students grow up in homes where English isn't spoken and Telemundo is favored over news in English. About 5,000 of the 9,000 students are classified as English-language learners. Isaac Superintendent Kent Parades Scribner said the task is more challenging today because America has evolved from a service-based economy to a technology-driven economy.

"My grandfather from Mexico City came to this country and did very well without an education because he could get into the economy by doing construction," Scribner said. "The tool of the day is the brain. We need to invest in that so Arizona can have a productive, taxpaying citizens."

Erminda Garcia, a first-grade teacher at Morris K. Udall Elementary, has been teaching children who struggle to learn English for nearly 30 years. Garcia, an upbeat, energetic teacher, sums up the challenges like this:

"They are learning language and content. Can you imagine trying to learn German and biology at the same time?" Garcia asked. "They are busy trying to make sense of a new language and doing math problems at the same time."

http://www.nabe.org/press/Clips/clip110905b.htm

Legislature OKs school takeover

Legislature OKs school takeover
Senate, House bills give control to state
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
By Laura Maggi
Capital bureau

BATON ROUGE -- Signaling the overwhelming frustration in the Legislature with the New Orleans school system, both the House and Senate voted Monday to approve Gov. Kathleen Blanco's proposal to shift responsibility for reopening and running most of the city schools to the state Department of Education.

The House went a step further, also approving a competing bill by Rep. Steve Scalise, R-Jefferson, that calls for the state to take over every school in New Orleans.

Blanco has made the takeover of most New Orleans schools a priority during the legislative session that ends Nov. 22, winning wide support from legislators who have been increasingly unhappy in recent years with the system's poor academic performance and financial mismanagement. Sixty-eight of 117 schools in the system qualify as failing under the state's accountability program, while another 34 have school performance scores below the state average.

"We have a unique opportunity to have a true change," said Sen. Ann Duplessis, D-New Orleans, who sponsored Senate Bill 49, one version of Blanco's legislation, which would leave just about a dozen schools in the care of the Orleans Parish School Board. Some of those schools, which are the best in the city, have already been converted to charter schools by the School Board.

Both of Blanco's proposals were approved by large margins, with the Senate passing Duplessis' bill 34-4 and the House backing its version 89-16.

But Scalise argued it didn't make any sense to leave any school in the School Board's hands.

"There are about nine schools that have been left out here hanging that would be left to wither on the vine if we left them to a system that most of us agree is not able to provide quality education," he said. Scalise's legislation, House Bill 93, was approved by a 67-36 vote.

No public schools have reopened in Orleans Parish since Hurricane Katrina. Milestone SABIS Academy and the James Singleton Charter School, both Uptown charter schools and so not under School Board control, reopened Monday. A group of five recently chartered schools in Algiers are slated to open in mid-December to serve children from all over the city. Other charter schools, such as schools with selective admissions such as Benjamin Franklin High and Lusher School, could open in January.

If either proposal becomes law, the state would largely be in charge of deciding which schools to reopen as students come back to New Orleans. The bill was amended to affect only the Orleans Parish school system.

A vocal critic

The pockets of opposition to both proposals have come from different camps, including some who usually support efforts to revamp the New Orleans school system. Rep. Karen Carter, D-New Orleans, who has supported efforts to strip power from the Orleans School Board in the past, has criticized the timing of the bill when so many community members are scattered across the country.

Carter has argued that proponents should reach out to displaced citizens and then come back with a proposal, perhaps during the January special session.

Teachers unions have also complained that critics of the system aren't acknowledging the recent improvements in the New Orleans schools' test scores.

They also have decried the fact that the legislation would effectively strip teachers of their collective bargaining agreement with the School Board, which would normally guide which teachers would be hired back as schools are reopened.

In her remarks to the Senate, Duplessis exhorted her colleagues to put aside any concerns they have about issues raised by any "special interest" groups.

"I say it is time for the grown-ups to stop studying this issue and time for the grown-ups to take the test so our children can pass," Duplessis said. "This is not the method to address teacher pay issues and teacher collective bargaining issues."

In 'recovery'

After all the debates were over, Brenda Mitchell, president of the United Teachers of New Orleans, said those remarks and the possibility that teachers will lose some of their contracted benefits sends a negative signal to educators, people the system will eventually need back.

"This sends a message to people that we represent: We don't care about what you have done so far," she said.

Blanco's legislation, Senate Bill 49 and House Bill 121, would strip the Orleans Parish School Board of its authority over the 102 schools with performance scores below the state average. The state Department of Education and Board of Elementary and Secondary Education would be given the responsibility of running those schools.

Both proposals would give the state education department six months to come up with a plan for running the schools, although it could open schools earlier if necessary. State officials have said they would likely oversee some schools themselves, but would look for independent foundations or universities to run others.

The legislation would move the substandard schools into a "recovery district" run by the state. This recovery district for failing schools was approved by the voters through a constitutional amendment several years ago.

Because this district was created for poor-performing schools, it might be unconstitutional for all New Orleans schools -- even those that are doing well as directed under Scalise's bill -- to be moved into recovery district, said House Education Committee Chairman Carl Crane, R-Baton Rouge.

With both the House and Senate passing versions of Blanco's proposal, it will be up to legislative staff to decide whether the language is similar enough that they are duplicates. If so, that means just one chamber would need to approve a version of the bill before it could be sent to the governor for her signature. If not, the bills will have to continue through the opposite side's committees, as well as be approved by both floors.

Scalise's House Bill 93 heads to the Senate Education Committee. If the proposal eventually wins the favor of the whole Senate, Blanco could decide to go with the alternative proposal to take over all the schools or to veto it.

. . . . . . .

Laura Maggi can be reached at lmaggi@timespicayune.com or (225) 342-5590.