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

Grading Texas

What kids are learning from the election

 

A presidential election can be a teaching object for young kids, offering a civics lesson in simple terms. Students at the Austin elementary school with which I am most familiar had an election night assignment to color the states on a U.S. map red or blue as returns were reported and the electoral scorecard was tabulated.

Few, if any, of those kids were awake when the election was finally settled, but for a couple of hours some of them felt engaged in a crucial civics exercise. Others were simply bored. One thing they were not supposed to be was afraid of the results.

But across the country many children were fearful as they went to school the next day, according to reports on social media from parents and teachers. Hispanic students of immigrant parents, Muslims, gay kids, even a boy with Autism expressed fear of what a Donald Trump presidency might mean.

Educators — including at least one principal, probably more, in Austin — took extra care to try to assure students that they and their families were safe.

Trump obviously had a strong appeal to Texas and American voters, but his campaign was a horrible example for school children, mocking, defaming or ridiculing, as he did, virtually every minority group in America. Even before Election Day, there were reports of increased bullying and racist comments among school kids mimicking his style.

Trump’s victory speech was conciliatory, much more gracious than his campaign, as he began the transition, we hope, to becoming presidential.

It remains to be seen what he will do about his campaign pledges to build a wall on the southern border, round up undocumented immigrants and crack down on Muslim refugees trying to enter the country.

Texas school kids and their parents will be waiting, and many will be apprehensive. More than half of Texas’ 5.2 million public school children are Hispanic, and many are legal citizens but the children and grandchildren of undocumented immigrants. Many other Texas children are Muslims. Who can blame them if they are wondering who they will find at home at the end of the school day?

I am not sure I believe in anyone’s poll anymore. But according to exit polling conducted for the Associated Press, more than 7 in 10 Texas voters, including many who voted for Trump, believe that immigrants working in the United States illegally should be given the chance to apply for legal status and not be deported.

Trump should consider that a civics lesson and take it to heart.

 

 

 

 

TEA’s excuses on special education not convincing

 

The Texas Education Agency tried to cover its bureaucratic posterior and transfer the blame to school districts for leaving tens of thousands of special education students without the required services to which they are entitled under federal law. But all the rhetoric in TEA’s “don’t blame us” letter to the federal government doesn’t change the fact that the agency was in the very middle of the mess.

TEA denied that its “Performance-Based Monitoring Analysis System” for special education was a cap on enrollment, but the fact remains that it resulted in districts limiting special education enrollment to 8.5 percent of students, a significant drop from the 12 percent of students receiving such services when the monitoring system was started in 2004.

The agency also said that the policy was not designed to save money, even though 2004, not so incidentally, was one year after the legislative majority had imposed budget cuts to deal with a budgetary shortfall. The legislative majority followed those cuts with $5.4 billion in additional education cuts in 2011, and millions of school children – including special education kids – continue to suffer the consequences.

TEA told the U.S. Department of Education that it “does not have any specific evidence indicating there has been a systematic denial of special education services to eligible students with disabilities.”

Yet, an investigation by the Houston Chronicle, which broke the story about the shameful policy, determined that as many as 250,000 children with autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, epilepsy, mental illnesses, speech impediments, blindness and deafness have been denied needed services.

The agency’s explanation doesn’t look like it will change the resolve of House Speaker Joe Straus and other legislators to address the issue. State Sen. Jose Menendez of San Antonio, for one, still plans to file legislation to force an end to the policy.

“I think it’s preposterous that they refuse to own up to this arbitrary cap,” Menendez told the Chronicle. “And if they can’t own up to it, how can I trust them when they say they’re going to eliminate it. If they can’t admit that it was wrong, how can I trust that they’ll fix it?”

Ending the policy is a good step. Lawmakers also need to increase education funding to discourage similar bureaucratic moves in the future.

 

 

 

Religious education is not a government responsibility

 

Writing about a recent pro-voucher rally at a Catholic High School in San Antonio, a pro-voucher blogger concluded, “Anti-Catholic bigotry must not stand in the way of quality education for all Texas students.”

I am not sure where the blogger came up with the half-baked idea that the opposition to vouchers from TSTA and virtually the entire public education community is driven by anti-Catholicism. It isn’t. She was as wrong about that conclusion as she and other members of the pro-voucher crowd are about suggesting that vouchers are the only way to provide quality education for Texas school children, particularly kids from low-income families.

The writer preferred the terms “school choice” or education savings accounts, but whatever you want to call them, vouchers are vouchers.

TSTA and other educators oppose them because they would take tax money from under-funded public schools and give it to a relative handful of parents to spend on private school tuition or home schooling expenses.

The Texas Constitution says nothing about vouchers or private schools, but it does specifically prohibit the expenditure of state funds for religious institutions. Article I, Section 7 of the constitution states: “No money shall be appropriated, or drawn from the Treasury for the benefit of any sect, or religious society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the State be appropriated for any such purposes.”

The constitution requires the Legislature to adequately and fairly pay for a system of free public schools. TSTA believes vouchers would undermine that responsibility because the vast majority of Texas kids will continue to be educated in public schools, while private schools would use tax dollars to cherry-pick a select few students.

We don’t want any private schools – religious or non-religious – receiving tax dollars. That includes Catholic schools, Baptist schools, Jewish schools, Muslim schools, atheist schools and all other private schools dedicated to whatever religion or life-altering experience someone may care to practice.

Many ministers and other religious leaders throughout Texas oppose vouchers because they value their local public schools and don’t want the acceptance of state funds to lead to government regulations. One of the education community’s biggest allies in the anti-voucher fight is Pastors for Texas Children, a group of ministers representing a number of different denominations that don’t want to see tax dollars drained from their neighborhood public schools.

Some Catholic leaders, however, want vouchers. One advocate is Brother Stanley Culotta, president of Holy Cross High School, where the pro-voucher rally was held in San Antonio. The blogger described him as an “ardent warrior for school choice” who is concerned about the future of Catholic education. Without vouchers, he fears that only wealthy children will be able to attend private schools.

Churches already receive significant tax breaks on their property. So, in a sense, they already are being subsidized by taxpayers. But the future of religious education is not the responsibility of Texas taxpayers at large. It is the responsibility of religious congregations, their benefactors and families whose children attend religious schools.

If the legislative majority in Austin would fulfill its responsibility to adequately pay for public schools and quit messing around with vouchers and other privatization schemes, Culotta and the parents whose children attend his school also could begin to regain some confidence in their local public schools.

 

 

Thousands of children are victims of tight-fisted politics

 

When Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick says he cares about children with disabilities — or any other school kids, for that matter – be careful about assuming he actually will do something meaningful for them, because his record screams otherwise.

A Patrick spokesman was asked to respond this week to another Houston Chronicle article about the recently dscovered Texas Education Agency policy that kept tens of thousands of children with disabilities from receiving the special education services they needed in public schools.

“Helping children with disabilities has been a priority for the lieutenant governor even before he was elected to public office, and he was very concerned to learn about prior policies,” the spokesman said in a written statement. “Our office is working very closely with the Commissioner of Education to ensure that students are identified and served appropriately.”

It is true, as the spokesman was careful to point out, that TEA imposed its 8.5 percent cap on special education enrollments before Patrick was ever elected to state office.

But the tight-fisted approach to state spending – regardless of the human cost – that the cap represented has been championed by Patrick since his first term as a state senator in 2007.

In 2011, Patrick voted with the legislative majority to cut $5.4 billion from public schools, including special education. In 2013, he voted against the entire state budget, including all funding for education and every other state service and program, including Child Protective Services. The budget passed despite Patrick’s vote, and yet he also has been expressing concern about thousands of foster children who are vulnerable to mistreatment or neglect, partly because of an under-funded protective services agency.

Patrick can work as closely as he wants with the education commissioner, but if he really wants all the disabled children in Texas to receive the special education services they need, he will see to it that the public education budget is increased next year. More funding also will be needed to protect vulnerable foster children.

Patrick has to prove that children in need really are his priorities, and that will require an about-face from his record.