Skip to content Skip to left sidebar Skip to right sidebar Skip to footer

Grading Texas

An eroding educational foundation

 

In another indication of how badly state government is preparing for the future, a new study shows that Texas ranks in the bottom third of the states in the percentage of needy children who attend preschool. Two-thirds of low-income children in our state did not attend a preschool program from 2009-11, according to the latest “Kids Count” report from the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

This finding, as reported in The Dallas Morning News, hardly comes as a surprise, given the prevailing, short-sighted political climate in Austin. But the study nevertheless is significant for a number of reasons:

# The basic problem is this. Thousands of children attending Texas public schools are poor, and many don’t speak English very well, but they are a reality. They represent Texas’ future, and preschool programs offer most of them the best opportunity to learn how to learn in a classroom. How well they do in preschool can go a long way toward determining how well they will do in later grades — and beyond. When preschool isn’t there for them, their climb from poverty becomes more difficult, and Texas’ prospects for an adequately trained workforce in the very near future diminish.

# Yet, the most outspoken elements of the state’s business community remained largely silent while Gov. Rick Perry and the legislative majority slashed $5.4 billion from public school budgets two years ago. The cuts included a $210 million grant that would have helped school districts expand pre-kindergarten to full day programs. The Legislature restored about 80 percent of the cut education funding this year but, except for $30 million, didn’t restore the pre-K money.

# The legislative majority also ignored a state district judge’s ruling that the entire school funding system is unconstitutional because it is inadequate and unfair to poor districts. Meanwhile, public school enrollment in Texas continues to grow by 80,000 to 85,000 children a year, including thousands – perhaps a majority – of low-income kids who have never had an opportunity to be in a preschool program.

# Now, along comes Greg Abbott, the Republican heir-apparent to Gov. Perry, making his first alleged policy address. How would he prepare Texas for the future? By cutting, cutting — and cutting some more.

Abbott and legislators who are fascinated with and/or terrified of the right wing ideology that dominates Republican primaries – and ransacks public schools — need to quit gulping tea long enough to listen to people who actually do care about children, education and their roles in the Texas of tomorrow.

“It is imperative that our kids get a strong early start that helps counteract the effects of poverty and our failure to sufficiently invest in our kids,” Frances Deviney of the Center for Public Policy Priorities told The Dallas Morning News.

She is correct, but Abbott and the statehouse majority aren’t listening.

 

“Performance pay” idea far from dead

 

Texas is one of a vanishing species of states – 10 – that don’t require tests scores or another form of student achievement measurement to be a “significant” or the “most significant” factor in teacher evaluations. But don’t breathe a sigh of relief yet because the species is vanishing quickly, and you can be sure another effort will be made to impose those requirements on Texas teachers the next time the Legislature meets.

Education is a cumulative, collaborative process that involves many teachers for every student. Singling out one teacher for praise and higher pay and another for possible dismissal simply on the basis of the latest set of test scores is wrong, and no amount of political posturing will make it right. But that won’t necessarily stop Texas’ next governor and some legislators – depending on who is elected — from trying to force unfair requirements on teachers instead of giving teachers and their students the adequate resources necessary for widespread success.

According to a new report by the National Council on Teacher Quality, 35 states and the District of Columbia now require student achievement to be a “significant” or the “most significant” factor in teacher evaluations. Two years ago, Education Week reported, only 30 states had those requirements.

The National Council on Teacher Quality supports so-called “performance pay.” The report denies that “high stakes decisions about teachers are being made in haste based on single standardized test scores.” But it adds, “States need to require and implement (teacher evaluation) measures that demonstrate a relationship with student achievement.”

When self-styled education “reformers” in Texas talk about tying performance or merit pay to student achievement, the measures they usually propose are student test scores, even if the tests aren’t designed to evaluate teachers.

Policymakers need to put first things first. Teachers in Texas are paid more than $8,000 below the national average. The governor and the Legislature need to raise the pay level for all Texas teachers before they start trying to single anyone out. Then, if lawmakers are still going to insist on a new teacher evaluation system, they need to listen to teachers when they design it.

The 2014 elections are rapidly approaching. Does anyone think Greg Abbott, were he to be elected governor, would move a finger to raise teacher pay? Of course not. Instead, he is busy promising cuts to education and just about everything else to curry the support of right-wing ideologues in the Republican primary. That’s what his so-called “budget plan” was all about last week.

And, there will be many legislative candidates, like the conservative Republican who announced for an open House seat in North Texas last week, who will vow to “improve” public education “through innovative solutions and accountability.”

Yeah. “Innovative solutions” like private school vouchers, more corporate-style charters and other forms of privatization. And the kind of “accountability” that requires teachers to jump through more hoops to keep their jobs.

Watch out who you vote for, folks.

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teaching_now/2013/10/report_teacher-evaluation_policies_still_in_flux.html?cmp=ENL-EU-MOSTPOP

 

 

 

The me-first approach to tax-subsidized education

 

Many parents’ interest in education doesn’t extend beyond the quality of their own children’s schools, a fact reinforced by an email I received recently from the parent of a student (or students) now attending a new BASIS charter school in San Antonio. In this parent’s viewpoint, BASIS represents what is right with education, and Texas public schools – at least the ones he or she has observed – represent what is wrong.

Perhaps unwittingly, though, this middle-class parent pretty well summarizes the problems that tax-subsidized, corporate-style charters such as BASIS pose for Texas’ public education system and thousands of low-income, struggling children who will never see the inside of a BASIS classroom. Remember, low-income, disadvantaged children – the face of Texas’ future — were supposed to be the primary beneficiaries of charter opportunities. At least, that is how charter advocates, such as Senate Education Chairman Dan Patrick, sold the idea of charter expansion.

BASIS was organized as a “non-profit” in Arizona but is operated by a separate, for-profit company organized by its founders. I have written a few, earlier blog posts about problems associated with this chain, and this parent responded in BASIS’ defense. Here are some significant points from the parent’s email and my responses:

# BASIS parent: Charters can operate on less funding than traditional public schools because they “tend to have parents who care about their kids’ education and who find ways to fill in via donations, volunteer work, etc.”

Response: Charter schools, on average, receive more state funding per student for operating expenses than traditional public schools in Texas do. Charters get $8,341 per student in average daily attendance, compared to $7,662 for traditional public schools, the Texas Education Agency reports. Regular public schools get more ADA overall – an average of $8,811 compared to $8,341 for charters – because the state assists some districts with capital expenditures. But a new state law soon will allow some charters to use the backing of the state’s Permanent School Fund to lower their borrowing costs. And, charters also tap into tax dollars in other ways, which will be discussed a little later in this post.

Meanwhile, low-income kids who are left in the public, neighborhood schools the charters raid have parents who also care about their children’s education. But many of those parents can’t afford to make donations and can’t get time off from work to volunteer at their schools. Many low-paid, hourly wage-earners who miss a day of work lose their jobs.

# Parent: Charter schools are not “encumbered” by bureaucracy and unions.

Response: In truth, administrative overhead represents a very small percentage of most school district budgets, and there are no union contracts in Texas public schools because Texas is a “right to work” state.

# Parent: BASIS doesn’t provide school buses. If charter parents can drop off and pick up their kids, why can’t most parents in public schools, except for “proven” hardship cases?

Response: Many low-income Texans don’t have cars and don’t live on public bus routes. Public schools are required to serve all children in their districts. They can’t cherry-pick, as BASIS has a reputation for doing. So they need school buses.

# Parent: BASIS’ lunch program is “run by parent volunteers and catered by local restaurants at higher prices.”

Response: Again, most poor people don’t have time to volunteer at school and certainly can’t afford the “higher” restaurant prices. A subsidized school lunch for low-income children is required by federal law for public schools and is often the only meal that many of these children get each day.

# Parent: “BASIS doesn’t have a library. There are tons of public libraries in the area. So why should they?”

Response: Who pays for these public libraries? The taxpayers, of course, the same taxpayers whose money is being used to feed the profits of BASIS’ operators.

# Parent: “Do they (neighborhood schools) really need so many fields and playgrounds?…BASIS has no real playground and only a minimal gym for grades 5-12. They rent space at local sports courts for sports as needed and sometimes go to a local park for PE.”

Response: Again, the same taxpayers who are subsidizing BASIS also are paying for those neighborhood parks. And, yes, public schools need playgrounds and other exercise areas. Physical education is an important part of the public schools curriculum, and not every public school is conveniently located near a park.

# Parent: “There has been significant effort in recent decades to mainstream special needs kids. Some of this has been beneficial, and some of it has been ridiculous. When the cost to mainstream a child who really would do better in a special education classroom becomes exorbitant, the schools need a way to push back without getting sued.”

Response: BASIS already has a record of pushing back against special needs kids. In August, the Washington Post reported, the federal Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights opened an investigation into a complaint that a BASIS school in Washington, D.C., discriminated against students with disabilities. The newspaper also reported that several students with disabilities had dropped out of BASIS only a few months after enrolling. They were pushed back into the same public schools that already had lost hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to the BASIS charter.

The BASIS parent complains of local public schools that are inadequate for above-average children, are stuck in “old paradigms” and could learn a thing or two from how charters “stretch” their budgets.

Some of those “old paradigms” are required by laws and regulations from which charters are exempt. And, we see how corporate-style charters stretch their budgets – by raiding neighborhood schools for tax dollars and using other public facilities. Meanwhile, the programs these parents find inadequate in the public schools are largely the result of years of under-funding and budget cuts by a governor and a legislative majority that prefer privatization. I wonder: who have the BASIS parents been voting for?

 

 

 

Moody’s warns of charter financial threat to school districts

 

Advocates of charter schools argue that taking students and tax dollars from traditional public schools and turning the revenue over to corporate-style charters doesn’t hurt neighborhood schools. Public school supporters who already knew that argument was wrong have now been joined by no less a financial authority than Moody’s Investors Service.

In a new report, Moody’s warns that growing charter enrollment is threatening school districts in economically weak urban areas. The implications are particularly troubling for Texas, which is under still another court order to fix an inadequate and inequitable school finance system. If poor, struggling school districts are going to suffer additional financial setbacks because of charter schools, as Moody’s suggests, an inequitable school finance system will become even more unfair to Texas students and taxpayers alike.

Remember, the Legislature, while in session last spring, restored part of the $5.4 billion in school funding cut two years ago. It did little, though, to improve an outdated, inequitable and still-underfunded school finance system, while the legislative majority was enacting a new law to raise the limit on charter operators in Texas from 215 to 305 over the next several years.

Although they technically are public schools and receive tax dollars, many of these charters are not operated by school districts. Some are organized by outside interests as “non-profits” but are managed by for-profit operators eager to rake in public money.

Some advocates argue that charter schools don’t undermine traditional public schools because the tax dollars the charters receive is based on the number of students they enroll. Charter boosters claim the public schools don’t “need” that money anymore because their enrollment has dropped. But that argument misses the point that school districts can’t simply reduce their costs based on the number of students they lose to charters. The districts lose revenue, but they have fixed costs that remain unchanged, including building maintenance, bus routes and other expenses that can’t be reduced proportionately.

As Tiphany Lee-Allen, one of the Moody’s authors noted, “Shifts in student enrollment from district schools to charters, while resulting in a transfer of a portion of district revenue to charter schools, do not typically result in a full shift of operating costs away from district public schools.”

The Moody’s report also noted that a school district that already is under financial pressure is particularly vulnerable to charter school growth. It cites examples of public schools in Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City, St. Louis and Washington, D.C., where charters have made big inroads.

Now, with the change in state law, more corporate-style charter operators will attempt to move into Texas.

Last month, state Education Commissioner Michael Williams approved four new charter applications. At least two – Carpe Diem Schools, seeking a campus in San Antonio, and Great Hearts Academies, planning a campus in the Dallas area – bring with them a history in Arizona and other states of cherry-picking the best and/or more affluent students while taking tax dollars from thousands of other children in traditional neighborhood schools. Williams’ decision will be reviewed by the State Board of Education next month.

https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-Charter-schools-pose-greatest-credit-challenge-to-school-districts–PR_284505?WT.mc_id=NLTITLE_YYYYMMDD_PR_284505%3c%2fp%3e