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

Grading Texas

You can be optimistic about pre-K, but…

 

Recent news articles about the Texas Education Agency report recommending limited class sizes for pre-K generated a lot of positive buzz, as it should have, but here is a belated spoiler alert. The TEA’s consultants don’t reflect the short-sighted attitudes of many Texas legislators and may not even have the support of Gov. Greg Abbott, who gives himself more credit as a pre-K advocate than he deserves.

The governor and the Legislature will decide the fate of the recommendations, which include limiting class sizes to 22 students and limiting student-to-teacher ratios to 11-to-1 for classes that have more than 15 students. The recommendations follow research that repeatedly has demonstrated the value of small class sizes in improving the educational environment for young children. TSTA also has long advocated for smaller classes and the funding to pay for them.

Strangely enough, the state’s 22-1 limit on class sizes for grades K-4 – which is widely circumvented anyway — doesn’t apply to pre-K, and it is no sure thing that this report will change that. The Dallas Morning News story linked below explains some of the political obstacles, but it may be behind a pay wall for many readers.

Smaller class sizes will require more funding, and Gov. Abbott and the legislative majority have a history of opposing adequate funding for public schools, preferring instead to over-test kids and experiment with privatization.

Gov. Abbott allegedly made “quality” pre-K a “priority” during the 2015 legislative session, but his real priority was cutting taxes. Abbott signed tax cuts worth $3.8 billion (with a b), while his pre-K “priority” limped out of the legislative session with a $116 million appropriation that didn’t even replace all the pre-K funding that had been lost during the 2011 education budget cuts. Many districts found the individual grants so small for their needs that they didn’t even bother to apply for one.

As the Dallas News’ article points out, some members of the Senate Education Committee are openly hostile to pre-K, and some of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s tea party supporters consider the program “Godless.”

Meanwhile, the same senators will eagerly entertain a discussion at next week’s Education Committee meeting about how to drain tax dollars from public schools for vouchers and other privatization schemes – not invest them in pre-K classrooms, where they can actually do some good.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/headlines/20160907-pre-k-works-best-when-classes-are-small-study-finds.-but-does-texas-have-the-political-will-to-limit-size.ece

 

 

 

Teacher’s “crazy” choice for president

 

People don’t always vote for their own professional or economic best interests in elections, and they are entitled to do that. That includes educators who often don’t vote for what is best for their profession or their students. If they always voted for what’s best for education, Texas would have a different governor, a different lieutenant governor and a legislative majority that does not shortchange and over-test school kids.

Even so, I am amazed by the San Antonio teacher who, in a recent AP news article, called Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump a “crazy person” but still planned to vote a straight Republican ticket anyway.

“I’m maybe going to have to accept some of his….,” the teacher said, before trailing off and shrugging.

Accept what? Trump’s bigotry, xenophobia, fear-mongering, juvenile temperament, complete unpreparedness and incompetence for the most crucial job in the free world?

If this person likes Republican candidates for other offices, he could vote for them individually without voting for Trump for president. He could even vote a straight Republican ticket and “de-select” his vote for Trump.

Trump has bragged about loving “under-educated” people. He also loves educated people who know better than to vote for a “crazy person” for president of the United States but plan to do so anyway.

 

 

Passing the buck on school funding

 

Believe it or not, folks, with Texas already woefully behind in per-student funding and enrollment growing by about 80,000 kids each school year, Education Commissioner Mike Morath is asking the Legislature for a REDUCTION of $2.1 billion in basic state funding for public schools.

Yes, the education commissioner has asked legislators, when they convene next year, to budget $2.1 billion less for the Foundation School Program for 2018-19 then they did for 2016-17.

The Legislative Appropriations Request (LAR) that Morath filed on behalf of the Texas Education Agency is the product of complicated calculations that are based on rising property values. That means public schools, at least theoretically, won’t lose $2.1 billion. It means that the state will pay that much less and local property taxpayers will pay that much more because the values of their homes and business properties are increasing.

And the so-called property rich school districts – although many of them aren’t all that wealthy – will transfer more of their local tax dollars to poorer districts.

In other words, according to my interpretation of an analysis prepared by the school finance experts at Moak, Casey & Associates, Morath has showed the legislative majority how it can continue passing the buck to local property taxpayers for an inadequate and unfair school funding system.

Texas pays about $2,700 less per student than the national average each year for public education, and the Texas Supreme Court recently wrung its hands over how unfair, unjust and awful Texas’ school funding system is. But the same Supreme Court also let the legislative majority off the hook for improvements by declaring that same unfair, unjust and awful school finance system was constitutional.

In his appropriations request, Morath also recommended that the Legislature wipe out funding for a special mentoring program for young teachers. Instead of encouraging the professional development of young educators, Morath would rather under-fund their classrooms, over-test their students and then tie their evaluations to test scores.

Remember, T-TESS is the plan Morath approved to base at least 20 percent of a teacher’s evaluation on student test scores.

Educators and their students deserve better than this.

 

 

Dan Patrick’s latest bad idea for education

 

If he weren’t the lieutenant governor of Texas and in a position to do a lot of hurt to education and other public programs, Dan Patrick would be the punchline to a bad joke. As in, did you hear what Dan Patrick wants to do now?

One of Patrick’s latest brainstorms is to curb increases in college tuition by making it more difficult, if not impossible, for many low-income young people to attend college.

The idea, which The Dallas Morning News strongly rebukes in an editorial linked below, would be to eliminate the current requirement that state-supported universities set aside 20 percent of the tutition that they collect and dedicate it to financial aid for students who need the help.

The legislative majority imposed that requirement several years ago to partially take it off the hook for under-funding higher education with tax dollars. Patrick, of course, has a record of under-funding education at all levels.

According to the newspaper’s research, eliminating the tuition set-aside would save the average college student about 7 percent, or $482 a year. But it would cost some low-income students who depend on the assistance as much as $3,600 or more a year and cause many of them to drop out of college.

The program generates $345 million a year in financial aid for more than 200,000 needy students, many of them the first-generation in their families to attend college.

A spokesman for Patrick suggested the Legislature could replace the lost financial aid by appropriating more money for higher education. “The Legislature should step up and provide those funds,” the spokesman said.

That’s a good idea and a sensible way to reduce college tuition for everybody. But the problem is that Dan Patrick is probably the single biggest obstacle to the legislative majority actually stepping up and adequately funding student aid, higher education or any other public program, except maybe “border security,” whatever that is.

When it comes to programs that benefit most Texans, Patrick’s middle name is “Cut.” As far as he is concerned, if that hurts the needy and our state’s future, too bad.

And that’s no joke.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20160823-texas-lawmakers-shouldn-t-remove-college-grants-that-help-poor-and-middle-class-students.ece