Skip to contentSkip to left sidebar Skip to right sidebar Skip to footer

Grading Texas

Heading in opposite directions on education

 

The Texas Senate, beginning with the Senate Education Committee, still needs an education in public education. For starters, it can take lessons from its counterpart, the House Public Education Committee, on the other side of the Capitol.

Yesterday, Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock, chairman of the House committee, was explaining his proposal to add $3 billion in funding (above enrollment growth) to public schools and try to provide a fairer distribution of funding between rich and poor school districts.

Now, $3 billion is probably not enough money, and school finance experts probably can find other faults with Aycock’s plan. But the point is he is actually trying to address a serious problem in public education, an issue that already has prompted a state judge to declare the school funding system unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, what has the Senate Education Committee been doing? The answer is not much except fooling around with one unproven privatization scheme after another.

Today, the Senate panel approved Senate Bill 4, which would divert tax dollars from public education by creating “opportunity scholarships” for students attending private schools. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck…This is a private school voucher bill, folks, a huge step in the wrong direction.

On the House side, Aycock is trying to improve funding for public schools, while his counterparts in the Senate continue to undermine them.

The fight over vouchers and school funding is far from over, but I, for one, am very grateful our fore-parents created two legislative chambers.

 

Rating legislative performances on the A-F scale

 

You may have heard by now that the state Senate this week approved a worse-than-worthless piece of legislation, the bill to submit public school campuses to an A-F grading system. It’s worthless because it would do absolutely nothing to give teachers and students the support they need for success. And, it is worse-than-worthless because it is a contrived political maneuver to blame teachers and students for the failure of the legislative majority to provide an adequate and fair system of funding public schools.

But, while we are on the subject of grading performances, what kind of letter grades should be attached to some of the performances over at the Capitol?

Let’s start with Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the biggest and loudest promoter of the A-F scheme and several other bad ideas being considered by lawmakers under the guise of “education reform.” How about his vote four years ago to cut $5.4 billion from public school budgets and his follow-up play two years ago to vote against the entire state budget, including all education funding?

I think you may see where I am headed. The possibilities are many, but in the interest of space I will offer only a few other grading opportunities:

# Sen. Donna Campbell, the voucher advocate who called our public school system a “monstrosity.”

# The Senate majority, which approved – in the name of student “safety” — a bill to allow people to carry handguns on university campuses, over the objections of many university administrators.

# Dan Patrick (again), who insisted the Senate approve more than $4 billion in tax cuts before appropriating a dime for public schools, health care or any other public service. And the Senate majority, which gave him what he wanted.

# Patrick and other border “security” advocates, who have let traffic and crime enforcement in most of Texas slide while loading up a small stretch of the Mexican border with state troopers.

# Rep. Stuart Spitzer (a medical doctor, no less), who succeeded in diverting $3 million from HIV and STD prevention programs to sex education programs promoting abstinence.

Whatever grade you may want to give Spitzer’s priorities, he may deserve an “A” for honesty, however, for noting, during public debate, that he was a 29-year-old virgin when he met his wife. It may have been the first time, ever, that such a statement was uttered on the floor of the Texas House.

 

 

 

 

 

Bluster from non-education experts

 

First, the pro-voucher crowd trotted out economist-for-hire Arthur Laffer, who issued a mostly political, pie-in-the-sky report claiming that private school vouchers would coat Texas’ future in gold. Laffer’s report was promptly discredited by a serious, academic review concluding that it was “unsuitable as a basis for public policy decisions.”

The Austin American-Statesman had a more succinct description – “hogwash.”

Undeterred, though, the folks who insist on wasting public money on school privatization then presented someone else who knows very little about public schools — former U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm — as a star, lead-off witness at yesterday’s Senate committee hearing on vouchers. Gramm admitted he hasn’t set foot in a classroom in years. But what he didn’t know about public schools (a lot), he more than made up for in corn-pone bluster and misstatements of fact.

You may recall that Gramm spent his fairly long career on the taxpayers’ payroll bashing government, and yesterday’s testimony was more of the same, except this time he zeroed in on public schools. He claimed Texas’ public schools were a failure, when, in fact, the vast majority of public schools are successful, thanks to thousands of hard-working, under-paid educators.

Only recently, the Texas Education Agency announced that Texas has one of the highest overall graduation rates in the country – 88 percent for the class of 2013 – and the highest graduation rates in the country for Hispanics and African Americans. And, some 95 percent of Texas school districts are meeting accountability standards.

Yet, there was Gramm – with voucher advocates fawning all over him – castigating public schools with a broad brush. He tossed in a couple of trite remarks about how much he supposedly appreciated teachers, but in truth he was insulting teachers, since teachers are the heart and soul of the very public schools he was condemning.

Yes, some schools – particularly in low-income neighborhoods – and struggling, and they are struggling because the legislators at the head of the voucher movement refuse to begin work on an adequate and fair method of state education funding. Nor, do they care much about providing low-income families with the health care and other support services so important to the educational climate for children, the vast majority of whom will remain in public schools, with or without vouchers.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the chief voucher advocate in Austin, has made a career of advocating and voting for budget cuts, just as Gramm, when he was in Washington, prided himself on battling government spending.

Now, they want to divert tax dollars from public schools to a handful of kids attending private schools and then proclaim themselves champions of education. Hogwash.

 

 

Latest voucher bill still a bad idea

 

By tightening up on their legislation a bit, private school voucher advocates are trying to convince us that they really do want to help low-income children. But the facts remain the same. Few poor families, if any, would benefit from vouchers, but opportunistic business people eager to get their hands on some tax dollars would be lining up at the trough.

SB276, the original voucher bill by Sen. Donna Campbell, was wide-open in that it set no income restraints for a voucher recipient. It has been supplanted now by SB4 by Senate Education Chairman Larry Taylor, who is carrying all of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s bad education privatization ideas – and there are a lot of them.

Both SB4 and SB276 are scheduled for a hearing tomorrow before the Senate Education Committee, but SB4 is the voucher bill “blessed” by the lieutenant governor. TSTA and other public education advocates oppose both.

SB4 would restrict most voucher recipients to children from families with incomes within 150 percent of federal poverty guidelines, but it also would let a first-grade or kindergarten student receive a voucher regardless of family income. The maximum voucher per child would be about $7,000 per year under the bill’s limit.

That’s about the average price of tuition for a private elementary school in Texas but almost $2,000 a year less than the average tuition for a private high school. Even most of the average-priced private schools, though, would remain out of reach of families from low-income neighborhoods because most private schools don’t provide transportation and wouldn’t be required to under either voucher bill.

More significantly, the best private schools in Texas charge $26,000 or more a year in tuition, keeping them way out of reach of low-income families, even those armed with a voucher. But the vouchers would siphon funding from the neighborhood public schools that the children will continue to attend.

SB4 also would create tax credits for businesses and other organizations that contribute money for vouchers in the form of “scholarships.” This is still a voucher, folks, and the tax credits would still reduce funding that should be spent on public schools, where the vast majority of Texas children will continue to be educated.

Good private schools don’t need to swell their enrollments with tax-paid vouchers. Most of these schools pride themselves on small classes and already have waiting lists.

But vouchers would spur the creation of a bunch of fly-by-night private “schools” eager to take vouchers (your tax dollars), under-pay teachers and take their chances that an under-funded Texas Education Agency would be unable to shut them down.

Many of these alleged “schools” would be little more than storefronts with substandard facilities, under-equipped classrooms and your tax dollars enriching the latest education privateers.