| Special Report - Texas Lege TEA Power Grab (Parts 1 & 2) |
| SPECIAL LEGE REPORT - PART 2 Who is driving and empowering Shirley Neeley's historic land grab in Texas public schools? By Peyton Wolcott - May 12, 2006 - 1:08 p.m. Using any of the definitions in the sidebar below right (see "A Socialism Primer"), it's hard to view the events of the past few weeks in Austin as anything but signs of Socialist creep, and with Senator Florence Shapiro's (R-Plano) name on the bill bringing it to pass, I'd be hard pressed to place the blame anywhere but with her and the guy who set it all in motion--Governor Rick Perry, with TEA commissioners Shirley Neeley and Robert Scott and Higher Ed commish Raymund Paredes playing key behind-the-scenes roles. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst appears to have hopped on an already moving bandwagon. |
| Florence Shapiro (PHOTO/Houston Chronicle) |
| Who is Florence Shapiro and why is she doing this? A former schoolteacher who started her own advertising shop specializing in PR and events, Shapiro served on Plano's city council before becoming mayor. Plano ISD is the district you'll recall whose supe Doug Otto has been much in the national news for his district's refusal to let kids bring candy canes to school at Christmas. Plano ISD is also the district that back in August, 1998 hosted a "Parent's Math Night, meant to discuss the Connected Math Program in Plano ISD," a "public meeting....also publicized in the local paper, the Plano Star-Courier" that turns out to have been not for the purpose of discussion at all but instead an edu-event where parents were supposed to attend and listen to the district sell them on a new fuzzy math program. Some parents objected, filed a lawsuit, and won. (More in pink box about 9-10 scrolls down.) Oh, Otto is also an ERDI consultant. And somewhere in here it should be noted that although it is still listed as of today as Mrs. Shapiro's occupation, Shapiro & Company no longer exists as of sometime this past month, according to her Plano senate office just before noon today. |
| Plano ISD supe Doug Otto with wife and fellow PISD employee Bobbi at PISD event for teachers |
| We should also note that Shapiro is notable for having secured a presidential pardon for fellow Plano-ite David McCall, a white-collar criminal notorious for his role in the S&L debacle estimated to have cost, according to Lou DuBose in LA Weekly, "$300 billion to $500 billion in taxpayer-funded bonds to be retired in the future." A few years ago Perry offered Shapiro, who is chair of the Senate Education Committee, two fat carrots: the Southern Regional Education Board, and the Education Commission on the States. Yum. What on Earth is the Southern Regional Education Board and are our tax dollars funding it? Organized as a 501(c)3, the Southern Regional Education Board's website tells us that it "is proud to be the nation’s first interstate compact for education, founded in 1948. With 16 member states, SREB works to achieve "12 Challenge to Lead Goals for Education in the region." What does this mean, "Challenge to Lead"? Is this any kind of language the average person not employed in the PR or education fields actually speaks? And why is some far-off group in Georgia setting "Goals for Education" which will impact my local schools? |
| I had to do some Googling to confirm what you probably already guessed, that SREB is a 501(c)3; it's not information that a search of the PDF'd annual report pulls up. This next is going to bring a great deal of reassurance to your heart about the overarching effectiveness of this enterprise: SREB's chair is none other than Louisiana Governor Kathleen "Call Me MIA during Katrina" Blanco. Following the money and connecting the dots, we note that SREB gratefully acknowledges support from a mixture of foundations and governments, one of whom is the Lumina Foundation for Education. Lumina, light. Sounds promising, noble even. Step inside the sausage factory, girls and boys. Don't be misled by the pork you smell. |
| Kathleen Blanco |
| Lumina Foundation for Education The LFE is "a private, independent foundation" which "strives to help people achieve their potential by expanding access and success in education beyond high school." The key words here are "Help people" and "beyond high school," especially the last three. Herein may be some of the roots to Texas public education's sudden expansion into the P-16 business. Lumina funded a study entitled "State Policies to Achieve the Dream in Five States: An Audit of State Policies to Aid Student Access to and Success in Community Colleges in the First Five Achieving the Dream States" by Kevin J. Dougherty, Monica Reid and H. Kenny Nienhusser of the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University this past February. According to the frontispiece, "The research for this report was funded by the Lumina Foundation for Education as part of the 'Achieving the Dream: Community Colleges County' initiative." |
| I don't know about you, but nowadays when I hear about Columbia University's Teachers College I immediately think of Arlene "I may say it's all about the kids but I'm walkin' outta here with my $375,000 buyout" Ackerman who is about to land there with aforesaid buyout from San Francisco USD. That they would not only take Ackerman in but embrace her tells me a lot about Columbia University's Teachers College. On page six of this report we learn that Texas is one of Lumina's five target states. The other four are New Mexico, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia. Wondering how Lumina set Texas within its sites, wondering why North Carolina was chosen rather than its neighbor South Carolina, which you would think would be the likelier candidate and dare we say easier target. Wondering who decided the five targets and who's paying for this exercise. |
| Arlene Ackerman |
| Performance lobotomies Scanning through the rest of the report we breeze through terms and words like "access policies" and "outreach" and "success policies." We note that "remedial education (also called developmental education) is crucial because so many...students come into college with inadequate academic skills," and wonder out loud yet again why Texas parents and taxpayers have put up with our poorly worded Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for so long now. Fuzzy non-specific curriculum parameters produce fuzzy education. On page 64 of this 258-page report are the summary tables for state policies for performance lobotomies. No, I misread, should be performance "accountability," although lobotomies seems where some of this garbage seems headed--why not just take the 90% of the student population Education, Inc. deems unfit for a real education and treat them to lobotomies so they can sit through their P-16 deadly-dull education years until it's time to strap them to the assembly line and they spend the next twenty years paying off their student loans? |
| Lumina in Texas Among those interviewed in Texas by Lumina are "officials of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, state legislators and staff, gubernatorial advisors." And Lumina looked at "materials by Texas state agencies and by external organizations such as the Education Commission of the States and the Southern Regional Education Board," both of which we again note Governor Perry's appointee senator Florence Shapiro serves on. The fulcrum narrows; Lumina tells us helpfully that the "Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is the sole state body that coordinates community colleges and universities. The Governor appoints the 15 at-large members (the number is eventually to go to 9) of the coordinating board with the advice and consent of the state senate," where state senator Shapiro chairs the state senate education committee. Are you leaving bread crumbs behind yet? Lumina notes with a visible scowl, "The state system is highly decentralized, with great resistance to a high degree of state direction." |
| Governor Rick Perry (left) with Shirley Neeley and Robert Scott |
| Resistance, indeed! Well, this is about to be fixed, by the new TEA P-16 alignment. "The first goal of the Closing the Gaps initiative is to greatly increase the number of students in higher education by 2015." "The strategies by which Goal 1 is to be achieved, as they relate to community colleges, include the following: linking the high school and college curricula so that the standard curriculum in high schools will be a college preparatory program, the successful completion of which would be an admissions requirement to a Texas public college." In other words, K-16 or P-16 vertical alignment. |
| How will this be paid for? The Lumina report confides that "local community college officials and the Texas Association of Community Colleges complain that state funding for the Closing the Gaps initiative has never been sufficient." Oh, pulleeez. Let us just state the obvious here. When have you ever once in your life heard a public education executive admit he or she has enough money? "As a community college president noted, 'We've got a higher ed coordinating board at the state level, giving us a charter to bring more people in. But they don't control the dollars. And because they don't control the dollars, the Legislature does, it's tough for me to say that there is strong support in encouraging minority students or lower income students into higher education." |
| But wait! There's more! Did you pop in on the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board's Commissioner's Summit last November at the Renaissance Hotel in Austin? (Yes, you read that correctly. Despite our numerous suggestions, our education executives continue to feel entitled to stay at the finest hotels rather than the more budget-conscious choices available. But it's not their money! Why should they economize if they don't have to?) The purpose of this summit was "Ensuring Academic Excellence: Developing Strategies of Success Campus by Campus." Texas taxpayers will be happy to know that they fund stays where the "Fresh new guest room décor [is] regionally-inspired by the Texas Hill Country" with "Heated indoor and outdoor pools, whirlpool and sauna, full spa and golf nearby" for our overtaxed edu-executives. The stated goal for this soiree was "Bringing together Texas educational leaders to discuss the state of developmental education, and identifying actions Texas must take to ensure academic success for all college students." |
| Pool & dessert at the Renaissance |
| The summit's welcome was provided by Robert Shepard, Board Chair/Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and--none other than Senator Florence Shapiro and Raymund A. Paredes, Commissioner of Higher Education-Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Among the topics to be discussed were, "Creating a Curriculum and Culture of Inclusion," "We Have The Way, Do We Have The Will?," "Developmental Education, More Important Than Ever" and "25 Steps to Effective Developmental Education" and of course Shirley Neeley's "Overview of Educational Challenges and the State's Efforts to Improve College-Readiness." |
| THECB chair Robert Shepard (left) and vice chair Neal Adams |
| The dotted line & the fine print Was the mainl purpose of the summit the signing memo of understanding signed by Nealey, Paredes and Sue McMillin, the president & CEO of the Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation? Was this one of the foundation stones of this new P-16 alignment? |
| Another shadowy edu-layer Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation's assets at year end were $327 million; TGSLC, or, as they refer to themselves, TG, occupies a roughly 200,000 square foot building worth $24 million which they own 100%, according to Williamson County tax rolls. Their property taxes for this building, located at 301 Sundance Parkway, Round Rock, Texas 78681go to Round Rock ISD. According to their literature, "TG is a public, nonprofit corporation that administers the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP)" whose "vision is to be the premier source of information, financing, and assistance to help all families and students realize their educational and career dreams." Ah, visions and dreams. By the looks of their events calendar, TG's dance card appears full. (See violet box below) |
| Sample guest room at Renaissance, site of Commissioner's Summit |
| Memo of understanding This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) sets forth the mutual understanding and agreement between and among Texas Education Agency (TEA), Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), and Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation (TG) (the “Parties”) to jointly support the state of Texas in increasing student enrollments and completion in postsecondary education. The Parties understand that it is vital for the State of Texas, its residents, and the state economy, that all Texas students, whether enrolled in public or private schools, become college-ready, and have access to a quality postsecondary education. The Parties further understand that collaboration among the state entities, schools, postsecondary institutions, and local and regional organizations will maximize our collective efforts to ensure that more Texans earn a postsecondary education. Therefore, the Parties agree to work together to develop and carry out comprehensive plans that address two critical statewide objectives: (1) Participation – increase student enrollments in postsecondary education; and |
| TG's 'senior management team' a mixed bag of credentials TGSLC's vice president in charge of "Customer Focus" is Kim Alexander who holds a bachelor's degree in criminal law from Illinois State University. Wondered at first whether this was a statement about TGSLC's clientele or if this skill helps with collections--but no, someone else is apparently in charge of collections as Phillip Cervin's title is vice president of collections. |
| Sue McMillin |
| Sue McMillin, TG's president and chief executive officer, holds a bachelor’s degree in theater arts from St. Edward's University, an institution of higher learning known for its theater program. From her posted bio we know that "McMillin is committed to ensuring that TG continues to provide the unsurpassed service, reliable solutions, and innovative support that have made TG the guarantor of choice for a growing number of schools and lenders nationwide." Inquiring minds really do want to know Here I'm stumped. Why is a federally funded (the Federal Family Education Loan Program) not-for-profit established by the Texas legislature, with "Texas" their first name, out in the hustings in places like Savannah, Georgia and Huron, Ohio? Las Cruces, New Mexico at least makes sense because it's the next state over. But Boyne Mountain, Michigan? Looking for answers to these questions, I called TG this morning and asked for McMillin, who from her photograph appears friendly and approachable and no doubt blessed with good people skills given her theater arts background, but was instead directed by the operator to Kristen Boyer, TG's senior media specialist who according to her voice mail is "out today." Boyer's message referred callers to Keith Dodson who turned out to be TG's creative director whom I would not expect to be able to answer these questions, who in turn referred me to Andres Cordero, their communications specialist who did not want to commit to a general dollar amount for TG's income this year or last from the feds, even to the nearest ten mil. And could not say why a federally funded 501(c)3 with "Texas" as its first name is all over the country business-wise. And no persons of sufficient pay grade were available to do so, either. In fact, none of TG's 560 employees, in situ or remote, were available. |
| Back to the ranch. Is the Neeley/Scott/Perry/Dewhurst/ Shapiro land grab legal? After all, Perry called the session to fix public school funding and here we are not even a month later in new and unchartered territory. On April 17, Perry called the legislature back to Austin for five purposes, to consider legislation that provides "for school district property tax relief," "for modification of the franchise tax," "for modification of the motor vehicle sales and use tax," "for modification of the tax on tobacco products," and "for an appropriation to the Texas Education Agency." This last is the so-called "buy-back" wherein the aforementioned new business, used car and tobacco taxes will pick up the slack when our property taxes are reduced. There is no where of course anywhere in this any mention of reduced funding to Texas public schools. Heaven forbid any of our public schools should go through any of the same kind of down-sizing that the folks who pick up the tab for public education have experienced in the corporate workplace. Also missing from this is any mention of the proposed K-16 alignment scheme that appears to have entered via the back door. |
| A scant eight days after the call, Dewhurst issued a statement which includes the following: "I am pleased the House passed bills that provide a vehicle for the Senate to pass meaningful legislation to improve education and lower local school property taxes....Senator Florence Shapiro will carry HB 1 in the Senate, and we are talking with the House about the Senate adding language to that bill that will improve our schools such as teacher pay raises, incentives and increased accountability and performance. It is imperative that the Senate work thoroughly and carefully to craft a school finance reform bill that will ensure we improve our schools." |
| Still, is this constitutional? It is, according to Charles W. "Rocky" Rhodes, constitutional and state constitution law specialist and associate professor of law at Houston's South Texas College of Law, who cites the "Enrolled Bill Doctrine" (see grey box below). As I understand the concept, this doctrine would allow Governor Perry to call a special session on the topic of, say, regulating the activities of little green men and for the legislature to subsequently approve the sale of used cars by the light of the silvery moon. But of course this is not what's happening in Austin; something this dramatic would wake us up. Most of us hear "improve education" and "improve our schools" and fall back asleep. There is a possibility that some conservative representatives may object to the language of article 5 as not being germane. |
| Charles Rhodes' faculty page at South Texas College of Law in Houston |
| Something is happening in Austin that appears to have all the stoppability of a train wreck because we have allowed the money-changers of Education, Inc. to run unfettered and unchecked for too long in the temple of education. Where's that Guy with the whip when we need him? |
| A smorgasbrod |
| potential revisions, once every two years, within six months after the completion of the regular session of the Texas legislative session, beginning with the 80th Texas Legislature. This Agreement is subject to all Texas and Federal laws. The Agreement is also subject, to the extent applicable, to the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C. Section 1070, et seq., including but not limited to Section 422(g)(2) of HEA, 20 U.S.C. Section 1072(g)(2). The MOU is hereby agreed to and signed on November 15, 2005, by: _____________________ Dr. Shirley J. Neeley Dr. Raymund Paredes Sue McMillin http://www.tgslc.org/pdf/mou_stude nts.pdf |
| November 2005 summit speaker noted Dr. Patricia Gándara, Professor, Associate Director, University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute, Co-Director, Policy Analysis in California Education University of California-Davis "Latino Academic Success" Patricia Gándara is a professor of education at the University of California-Davis. In addition to being associate director for the University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute, |
WHO'S ENFORCING THE ILLEGAL STUDENTS' AFFIDAVITS? "A 2001 law (HB 1403) made Texas one of the earliest states to allow undocumented residents to qualify for instate tuition. Community colleges can charge instate tuition to these students if they graduated from a Texas high school, have lived in the state for at least three years, and have signed an affidavit that they will apply for permanent residence as soon as they are eligible." So my question is, who's job is it to ensure that undocumented residents follow through on their promise to apply for permanent residence as soon as they are eligible? Might this be the same guy whose job it was to follow Mohammed Atta around the country when he overstayed his visa? Just asking. |
| she is also a co-director for Policy Analysis in California Education, a University of California/Stanford University policy research consortium. Gándara's research interests include equity and access in education and the education of linguistic and minority groups. She has written books and |
| Patricia Gandara |
| TGSLC's full dance card May 10 - 12 - ATLE Annual Conference - San Antonio, TX May 16 - Mapping Your Future™ Chat Event - Evening Chat — Financial aid and managing student loans and consumer debt May 17 - 19 - GASFAA Spring Conference - Savannah, GA May 18 - TG Lender and School Advisory Committee Meeting - Round Rock, TX May 18 - Positive+Balance™ Spring 2006 Workshop - Kansas City, MO May 23 - Positive+Balance™ Spring 2006 Workshop - Denver, CO May 23 - TG Public Benefit Program Information Forum - Lansing, MI May 25 - Positive+Balance™ Spring 2006 Workshop - Tallahassee, FL May 25 - TG Public Benefit Program Information Forum - Edinburg, TX May 30 - TG Public Benefit Program Information Forum - Round Rock, TX May 31 - June 2 - OASFAA Spring Conference - Huron, OH June 7 - 9 - FASFAA Spring Conference - Fort Myers, FL June 9 - Positive+Balance™ Spring 2006 Workshop - Montgomery, AL June 15 - Positive+Balance™ Spring 2006 Workshop - Hampton, VA June 21 - 23 - MASFAA Annual Conference - Jackson, MS June 23 - Positive+Balance™ Spring 2006 Workshop - Las Cruces, NM June 28 - Positive+Balance™ Spring 2006 Workshop - Dallas, TX June 25 - 28 - MSFAA Summer Training - Boyne Mountain, MI June 27 - Enrollment Services Efficiency Committee (ESEC) Meeting - Round Rock, TX June 30 - Council for the Management of Educational Finance Quarterly Meeting - Austin, TX June 30 - Positive+Balance™ Spring 2006 Workshop - San Antonio, TX July 5 - 8 - NASFAA Annual Conference - Seattle, WA July 14 - TG Regional Training - Houston, TX July 18 - TG Regional Training - Corpus Christi, TX August 15 - Mapping Your Future™ Chat Event - Evening Chat — Managing your student loans, including repayment options, consolidation, and cancellation October 11 - 13 - TASFAA Annual Conference - San Antonio, TX November 8 - 10 - SWASFAA Annual Conference - Tulsa, OK December 1 - 3 - CASFAA Annual Conference - Ontario, CA |
| articles on such subjects as peer-group influence and the college-bound behavior of low-income Latino and other ethnic minority students; immigrant students, bilingual education policy and public schools; high academic achievement of low-income Mexican Americans; and mathematics instruction in multicultural classrooms. Gándara is currently conducting a study of classroom teachers and their perceptions of the challenges they face in teaching English learners. She received her Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from UCLA. Gándara has directed education research for the California State Assembly, and served as Commissioner for Postsecondary Education for California. |
| The Southern Regional Education Board 'gratefully acknowledges support from': ACT, Inc. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation BellSouth Education Foundation Carnegie Foundation of New York Charles Stewart Mott Foundation Council of State Governments Johns Hopkins University Joseph B. Whitehead Foundation Lamar Plunkett Family League for Innovation Lumina Foundation for Education National Institutes of Health National Science Foundation North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Project Lead The Way SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education The College Board The Goldman Sachs Foundation The Philadelphia Foundation — Wright-Hayre Fund The Wachovia Foundation U.S. Department of Education Wallace Foundation If you have any questions regarding how the DOE is spending your tax dollars: Southern Regional Education Board 592 10th St. N.W. Atlanta, GA 30318-5776 (404) 875-9211 |
MOU press release
EDUCATION LEADERS FORMALIZE
PARTNERSHIP TO BENEFIT TEXAS
STUDENTS
November, 2005
Round Rock - November 15, 2005 -
The leaders of the Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board
(THECB), Texas Education Agency
(TEA), and TG executed a
memorandum of understanding (MOU)
today that will help Texas students
receive information and support to
continue education beyond high
school. In signing this trilateral MOU,
the organizations agree to work
together to reach out to students and
families about the opportunities and
benefits of a college education. On
Tuesday, Nov. 15, as a part of the
THECB's summit, "Ensuring Academic
Excellence: Developing Strategies of
Success Campus by Campus," the
leaders met to sign the agreement. Dr.
Raymund Paredes, higher education
commissioner, represented THECB;
Dr. Shirley J. Neeley, education
commissioner, represented TEA; and
Sue McMillin, president and CEO,
represented TG.
Today, 1.2 million Texans are enrolled
in postsecondary institutions across
the state. Texas' Closing the Gaps
higher education plan, adopted by the
THECB in October 2000, calls for
enrolling 1.63 million students in
college by 2015. To reach that goal, the
state will have to increase its efforts in
early outreach and college awareness,
academic preparation and planning,
and support services designed to help
students navigate their college
enrollment process.
"If current and future needs are not
addressed," said Paredes, "it will lead
to a drop in Texans' educational levels,
a consequent annual loss of billions of
dollars in household income, and a
narrowing of opportunity for millions of
people. Hispanics will account for most
of the state's new workers in the future,
and it's especially alarming that we
have not been able to enroll the
number of Hispanics needed to close
the gaps. Our staff, TEA, TG, public
school officials, business and
community leaders, elected officials,
and others must expand and
strengthen collaborations to meet this
challenge."
"These numbers illustrate the need to
improve educational opportunities
throughout the state, but particularly in
communities where our students may
be the first in their family to pursue
higher education," said Neeley. "All of
our agencies are committed to
achieving this goal, and we will work
well together throughout the state."
"We look forward to working
collaboratively with TEA and THECB to
help Texans realize their educational
dreams," said McMillin. "We know that
by working in partnership we increase
our likelihood of success. Texas
students and families, whom we all
serve, will benefit greatly from this
renewed partnership," declared
McMillin.
Electronic copies of the agreements
signed by TG, THECB, and TEA are
available from the TG Newsroom at
www.tgslc.org.
EDUCATION LEADERS FORMALIZE
PARTNERSHIP TO BENEFIT TEXAS
STUDENTS
November, 2005
Round Rock - November 15, 2005 -
The leaders of the Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board
(THECB), Texas Education Agency
(TEA), and TG executed a
memorandum of understanding (MOU)
today that will help Texas students
receive information and support to
continue education beyond high
school. In signing this trilateral MOU,
the organizations agree to work
together to reach out to students and
families about the opportunities and
benefits of a college education. On
Tuesday, Nov. 15, as a part of the
THECB's summit, "Ensuring Academic
Excellence: Developing Strategies of
Success Campus by Campus," the
leaders met to sign the agreement. Dr.
Raymund Paredes, higher education
commissioner, represented THECB;
Dr. Shirley J. Neeley, education
commissioner, represented TEA; and
Sue McMillin, president and CEO,
represented TG.
Today, 1.2 million Texans are enrolled
in postsecondary institutions across
the state. Texas' Closing the Gaps
higher education plan, adopted by the
THECB in October 2000, calls for
enrolling 1.63 million students in
college by 2015. To reach that goal, the
state will have to increase its efforts in
early outreach and college awareness,
academic preparation and planning,
and support services designed to help
students navigate their college
enrollment process.
"If current and future needs are not
addressed," said Paredes, "it will lead
to a drop in Texans' educational levels,
a consequent annual loss of billions of
dollars in household income, and a
narrowing of opportunity for millions of
people. Hispanics will account for most
of the state's new workers in the future,
and it's especially alarming that we
have not been able to enroll the
number of Hispanics needed to close
the gaps. Our staff, TEA, TG, public
school officials, business and
community leaders, elected officials,
and others must expand and
strengthen collaborations to meet this
challenge."
"These numbers illustrate the need to
improve educational opportunities
throughout the state, but particularly in
communities where our students may
be the first in their family to pursue
higher education," said Neeley. "All of
our agencies are committed to
achieving this goal, and we will work
well together throughout the state."
"We look forward to working
collaboratively with TEA and THECB to
help Texans realize their educational
dreams," said McMillin. "We know that
by working in partnership we increase
our likelihood of success. Texas
students and families, whom we all
serve, will benefit greatly from this
renewed partnership," declared
McMillin.
Electronic copies of the agreements
signed by TG, THECB, and TEA are
available from the TG Newsroom at
www.tgslc.org.
| PLANO PARENTS' ANTI-FUZZY MATH LAWSUIT Chiu, Brown, Jenkins, Kirke et ux and Johnson v. Plano Independent School District, et al. 21. On August 25, 1998, Alfred Kirke attended a public meeting held at the Haggard Middle School. Mr. Kirke intended to discuss with fellow parents the many aspects, pros and cons, to the new Connected Math Program in the Plano ISD. Mr. Kirke received notice of this public meeting for parents through a flyer sent home via his daughter by Plano ISD, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein for all purposes. 22. This meeting was held in the school and was open to the public. According to Plano ISD, this was a Parent's Math Night, meant to discuss the Connected Math Program in Plano ISD. This public meeting was open to the public. It was also publicized in the local paper, the Plano Star-Courier. 23. In preparation for this public meeting, Mr. Kirke duplicated copies of a Department of Defense report detailing its experience with the Connected Math Program, and a report on the 1995 Palo Alto School Board election where Connected Math was a controversial issue, a true and correct copy of which are attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein for all purposes. Mr. Kirke also prepared and brought a petition that parents could sign expressing their desire that Plano ISD not implement the Connected Math Program until it had allowed parental input in the curriculum selection at the middle school level, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein for all purposes. 24. The morning of the meeting on August 25, Mr. Kirke, as a courtesy, met and informed the Haggard Middle School Principal, Ms. Roxanne Burleson, an employee of Plano ISD, that he was going to pass out these flyers and circulate a petition at this public meeting. Ms. Burleson made no objection. 25. The night of the meeting, Mr. Kirke arrived early and again informed Ms. Burleson and Dr. Jim Wohlgehagen of his intent and desire to present an opposing view of the Connected Math Program and provide handouts to parents that may be interested. Again, neither Ms. Burleson nor Dr. Wohlgehagen objected, so Mr. Kirke proceeded to do so. |
| 26. Some time after Mr. Kirke placed his handouts and petition on the information table, alongside Plano ISD's own handouts addressing the benefits of the Connected Math Program, Dr. Wohlgehagen and Ms. Burleson both approached and asked him to remove his materials to another table so as to avoid the appearance that his materials were associated with the official presentation of Plano ISD. At the time, Mr. Kirke believed that this was a reasonable request and did so. 27. At the same time, Ms. Burleson informed Mr. Kirke that he would have an opportunity, after Plano ISD's presentation to the parents, to present his point of view on the curriculum issue, but when that time came, he was not allowed to do so. 28. As the parents arrived at this public meeting, Mr. Kirke greeted the parents and mentioned to them that he had prepared handouts and a petition concerning the implementation of the Connected Math Program in the Plano ISD. Many of the parents picked up copies of his literature and a number of them signed the petition. Mr. Kirke was at all times polite, orderly and non-disruptive, never attempting to force his handouts or petition on anyone. 29. As the room in which this public meeting for parents began to fill, Dr. Wohlgehagen and Ms. Burleson once again approached Mr. Kirke and asked him to pick up his materials and actually leave the premises. Mr. Kirke pointedly asked Dr. Wohlgehagen that if he were to refuse, would Dr. Wohlgehagen make him leave the premises. In response, Dr. Wohlgehagen said that he would not, and left Mr. Kirke. 30. Shortly thereafter, Dr. James Davis approached Mr. Kirke and informed him that the Plano ISD would not allow him to circulate a petition on school property and that he was to immediately collect his petition clipboard and put it away. Reluctantly, and in apprehension of what Plano ISD or some of its employees would do to him or his children if he did not comply, including forcefully removing him from the premises or retaliating against him through his children, Mr. Kirke abided by the request of Dr. Davis and put away the petition. 31. Minutes later, Dr. Davis once again returned to Mr. Kirke, informing him that Plano ISD would not allow him to pass out literature on school property and directed him that he should also gather up his handouts and put them away as well. Again, Mr. Kirke, fearing what the Plano ISD would do to him if he refused, picked up his literature off of the very table that he had been previously directed by Dr. Wohlgehagen and Ms. Burleson to place literature earlier in the evening. Dr. Davis further told Mr. Kirke that the District would not allow him to pass out material because otherwise they must permit abortion rights activists and other groups of that sort to also pass out material. 32. The day following the August 25 public meeting at Haggard Middle School, Assistant Superintendent Dr. Davis prepared and distributed to all central cluster principals a memo instructing these principals to not allow parents, such as Mr. Kirke and other Parents involved in this litigation, from communicating in written form with any other parents or school personnel on their respective campuses. The motivating factor in initiating and preparing this memo was to stop parents that are opposed to Connected Math and its implementation within the District from providing information that is predominantly against the program to fellow parents. Specifically, the memo stated: |
| "I want to alert all of you of our district legal position regarding people coming on to your campus with petitions and material associated with the Connected Math Program. You are not to allow anyone to come on to your campus, inside or out, to circulate a petition or pass out material related to the Connected Math Program. The recent flap over the Connected Math Program has prompted some people to conduct personal campaigns supporting one side or the other. I think they will seek support wherever they can find it, including schools not using the program. Don't get caught napping on this one." A true and correct copy of Dr. Davis' memo, is attached hereto as Exhibit "D", and incorporated herein for all purposes. 33. This "legal position" of Plano ISD was, upon information and belief, based upon Plano ISD Policy GKA (Local), a true and correct copy of which, as it existed on August 26, 1998, is attached as Exhibit "E", and incorporated herein for all purposes. 34. The substance and effect of Defendant Davis' August 26 memo was approved by, endorsed, and once again made district policy by the Plano ISD Board of Trustees on April 26, 1999 when it adopted the revised Policy GKA (Local), a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "F", and incorporated herein for all purposes. It was further approved and adopted by Defendants when Superintendent Otto heard the Parents' Complaint at a Level II hearing and by letter of February 2, 1999, denied all relief and ratified the acts of Davis and other Defendants. The acts of Davis and all Defendants as described herein were again ratified and approved by Defendants Plano ISD and Plano ISD Board of Trustees on March 2, 1999 when they heard the Parents' Level III Complaint, which complained of this Davis Memo, and denied same. 35. The motivating factor and purpose for the adoption of the amended Policy GKA (Local) was the desire and intent to further solidify and strengthen the desire and intent of the Defendants to quench the free speech and expression of Parents and squelch any opposing speech or expression that may be contrary to the position, plans, or desires of Defendants. 36. After this incident at Haggard Middle School, Mr. Kirke attended another public meeting for parents and the general public, at Wilson Middle School on September 1, 1998. Mr. Kirke attended this meeting because his son, T.K., attended that school. Again, just as at Haggard Middle School on August 25, this meeting was specifically designed and created by the Plano ISD for parents to learn additional information about the Connected Math Program. 37. Before the Wilson meeting began, Mr. Kirke was approached by Dr. Davis and Ms. Beverly Sellers, Principal of Wilson Middle School, and was told that he would not be allowed to pass out any literature at that public meeting. Once again, fearing reprisal by Plano ISD and/or its employees against either himself or his children, or that he would be asked to leave the premises, Mr. Kirke agreed to not distribute or even make available his literature at the meeting. 38. The materials of Mr. Kirke were not disruptive, inflammatory, inciting to civil disobedience or unrest or imminent lawless or disruptive action, obscene or inappropriate, libelous or hateful. Rather, the materials sought to be given to fellow parents by Mr. Kirke were merely informative, discussing the merits of the Connected Math Program in Plano ISD, and concerned an item of critical and serious importance to parents--the education of their child. http://www.pisd.org/cmp/cmpsuit.html |
| The one bright spot I've observed since this third special session convened almost a month ago was representative Bill Keffer's comment to one of many of a long string of teachers union officials testifying before the House Public Education Committee on Tuesday that the employment status of teachers is a hybrid. "On one day you want the state to get involved and give you more money and another day you don't want the state meddling in your business because you're part of a union" as regards the state holding teachers and schools accountable. Keffer's admonition aside, Texas teachers are to receive an across-the-board $2,000 pay raise regardless of their teaching skills. |
| LITTLE KNOWN SBOE FACTS 1. Yes, there is a State Board of Education. If you live in Texas, you have an elected representative on the SBOE; find your representative here http://www.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/SBO EmapC.pdf 2. Yes, the governor appoints the SBOE chair. No, the SBOE doesn't get to elect its own chair. LITTLE-KNOWN SBOE RUMOR 1. The governor requires his appointee chair to sign a resignation letter before assuming the chairmanship. (Think about this.) I contacted the governor's office earlier this week and have not received a yes/no confirmation. |
| THE ENROLLED BILL DOCTRINE prevents the courts from examining legislative compliance with certain procedural aspects of the constitution as long as a bill has been properly enrolled and signed by the speaker of the house and the lieutenant governor, and not vetoed by the governor. "The courts won't look behind that bill to the legislative records to try to invalidate it," says Rhodes. "They can only invalidate for reasons that appear on the face of the bill. As the result, the issue of whether a piece of legislation falls within the governor's proclamation in calling the special session is not enforceable by the judiciary and becomes a matter for the legislature." Rhodes adds that this doctrine has most recently been tested in 1971, in Maldonado v. State, where the governor called a special session and the legislature went beyond and challenged in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that this was not a matter, saying, "We will not look behind the engrossed bill to see if the governor issues a proclamation including the subject matter of the enacted legislation." . |
| Special Lege Report - Part Two |
| SADDLE UP AND MOVE 'EM OUT: HOW TOP POLITICIANS ARE CONSPIRING WITH TOP EDUCRATS TO RUSTLE TEXAS PARENTS & TAXPAYERS--AGAIN By Peyton Wolcott - May 8, 2006 - High Noon Sad part is, even though it's going on AT THIS VERY MOMENT, this big-time cattle rustle is one that next to nobody's noticed. Major Texas papers are concentrating on the jazzier elements of this past week's special Lege session such as Friday's food fight on the floor of the Senate when six Senators walked out, and ignoring what's really important, the power grab by Texas edu-missioner Shirley Neeley and associate edu-missioner Robert Scott to seize what little power the elected State Board of Education still has. |
| Texas edu-missioner Shirley Neeley with assoc. commish Robert Scott (PHOTO/AP) |
| Why? "Come, let us reason together," LBJ used to say. More power for governor Rick Perry's Texas Education Agency appointees Neeley and Scott means more power for Perry. Follow the money. K-12 good? K-16 must be better Perry has called the Lege into special session, for the third time now, to settle the school finance issue--which would have been a full corral by itself. Except that both Perry's and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst's ambitions have by now reared their collective heads and Republican Senator Florence Shapiro from Plano has added language that shifts education decision-making power from our elected SBOE representatives to the Governor's appointees over at TEA. The rationale appears to be that if K-12 reform worked for Bush, K-16 must be better for Perry and/or Dewhurst. |
| "The commissioner shall's" |
| But as anyone who's ever baked a cake will tell you, adding more basic ingredients is not necessarily a good thing, flour and salt and butter being good examples. Lone Star Report managing editor Will Lutz writes that Shapiro's motivation is her concern "that our high school curriculum is not aligned with what is expected of students in higher education. 'We're losing people. There's a huge disconnect between our high school curriculum and our college curriculum, vis a vis the fact that we've got kids going to remedial courses [in college.]' So she asked the commissioner of education and the commissioner of higher education to draft language to align the higher education standards with those in K-12 education. The elected State Board of Education would lose discretion over the curriculum, the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, if the committee substitute to HB 1 unveiled in the Senate Finance Committee May 1 were to become law.' " |
| Why grab land when you can grab power-- and then buy lots of ranches? Here's one small section of a very large bill where mention of the SBOE is AWOL. * ARTICLE 2. FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY - SECTION 2.01. Chapter 1, Education Code, is amended by adding Section 1.005 to read as follows: Sec. 1.005. (b) The commissioner of education . . . .may establish . . . three centers for education research . . . . as part of: . . the Texas Education Agency; (d) A center may be operated under a memorandum of understanding between the commissioner of education . . . . The memorandum of understanding must require the commissioner of education . . . to provide direct, joint supervision of the center (f) The commissioner of education . . . (1) under the memorandum of understanding . . . may require a center to conduct certain research projects considered of particular importance to the state, as determined by the commissioners (g) In conducting research under this section, a center: . . . (1) may use data on student performance, including data that is confidential under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (20 U.S.C. Section 1232g) (2) shall comply with rules adopted by the . . . commissioner of education . . . to protect the confidentiality of student information, (h) The commissioner of education . . . may: (1) accept gifts and grants to be used in operating one or more centers; and (2) by rule impose . . . fees for the use of a center's research, resources, or facilities. (j) The commissioner of education . . . shall adopt rules as necessary to implement this section. (k) In implementing this section, the commissioner of education may use funds appropriated to the agency and available for that purpose, including Foundation School Program funds. SECTION 2.02. Subchapter A, Chapter 7, Education Code, is amended by adding Sections 7.008 and 7.009 to read as follows: Sec. 7.008. PUBLIC ACCESS TO PEIMS DATA. (a) The commissioner . . . shall develop a request for proposal for a qualified third-party contractor to develop and implement procedures to make available, through the agency Internet website, all financial and academic performance data submitted through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) for school districts and campuses. (b) The commissioner shall appoint an advisory panel to assist the commissioner in developing requirements for a system that is easily accessible by the general public and contains information of primary relevance to the public. ________________________ PLEASE NOTE: This section above also allows for-pay outside contractors access to our kids' confidential PEIMS information. Remember Xpediant, LLC? Remember C Innovation's ZANGLE? Remember the photos of the unguarded tech department? http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/79 3/billtext/HB00001E.HTM |
| So it's easy to see why Shirley Neeley would be able to call her end of the deal "a homework assignment" from Shapiro's committee, Senate Finance. But is it really that simple, Shirl? Not our first time in this not-OK corral Let's go back to 1993 when then-state senator Bill Ratliff created our so-called Robin Hood state edu-funding which introduced socialism to state public school finance--why does no one call it that?--which has made nary a soul, including the poor districts designed to be the lucky recipients of others' hard work, happy, as those districts have since sued for still more money. In the bargain, Robin Hood "destroyed about $81 billion of property wealth in Texas," Harvard's Caroline Hoxby and Ilyana Kuziemko reported in 2004, noting that "good intentions about redistribution are not enough in school finance." When that creek didn't overflow, Ratliff seized higher ground in 1995 with SB 1 which at the local level stripped elected school boards of their authority, giving it to their hired superintendents, and at the state level similarly stripped the SBOE of its authority and gave its power to the governor-appointed Texas education commissioner. |
| Gov. Rick Perry atop unnamed horse; former Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff on foot. (PHOTO BELOW-Andi Hadisutpto/Daily Texas) |
| The Ratliff gang Since leaving office, Ratliff has proven himself to be not only a staunch ally and good friend of the Texas education establishment but also what some might call its wealthy beneficiary as he now works as a paid political lobbyist for among other organizations the Texas Association of School Boards from which he expects to make as much as $99,999.00 this year, according to Texas Ethics Commission records. |
| In fact, the Texas edu-establishment has proven generous to the entire Ratliff family. Bill's nephew Shannon Ratliff II is a registered lobbyist on behalf of two businesses that traffic in public school funds: Bracewell & Giuliani, a law firm which seems to be specializing in anti-parent lawyering on behalf of Texas school districts, and Cisco Systems which Texas ISD's don't seem to be able to function without, for which he expects to be paid $25,000 to $49.999.99 for this year alone. Not to be left out, Bill's son Thomas Ratliff was listed by state rep. Todd Baxter last year as one of two sources for HB 2264, Baxter's proposed anti-sunshine legislation directed at the efforts of parents and taxpayers to view their schools' open records; shortly after HB 2264 failed last year Baxter left office--to become another Texas lobbyist. (See below left, goldenrod box, for more regarding honors bestowed by Eanes ISD's grateful board and administration on Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Ratliff.) |
| (From left) Eanes ISD professional lobbyist Brad Shields (standing); then-rep. Todd Baxter, 3rd from right, conferring with EISD supe Nola Wellman (named by Baxter as source of HB 2264) & then-EISD board president Clint Sayers. |
| TEKS no Rex the Wonder Workhorse Some would argue that the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) are poorly written to begin with in that they are too broad and vague. I stumbled across this section of the Texas Education Code by accident several years ago while looking up something else and was appalled. Drawing only upon my experience as a mom, the lack of specifics was surprising. Where I expected to find "Read Shakespeare's Twelfth Night in 9th grade" and "Learn basic algebra in 8th," something along those lines, instead there were generalities, thereby generating another education specialty profession, that of the TEKS consultant who comes to schools and waves a magic wand over the curriculum--thus removing the burden of responsibility for figuring out what they mean from the supe's back. |
| As veteran teacher Donna Garner says, "Locals have already lost control of their public schools; every entity in the schools is now dancing to the 'TAKS dance' [the TEKS test] including school board members, administrators, teachers, and students. Teachers have been given an impossible mandate which was crafted by the TEA. The education standards are too numerous, too broadly worded, and too unrealistic for teachers to follow and for students to learn. The reason Texas has such a huge percentage of high-school graduates who have to take remedial education in college is because the TEA has not given our students and our schools quality leadership in Pre-K--12. " |
| Donna Garner (PHOTO/Doug Fitzjarrell) |
| When all else fails blame it on PBS Maybe here in my home state we watched too much "Texas Ranch House 1867" on PBS last week and grew a bit overly enthusiastic about it all with the result that we've been moved to allow the spirit of our rough and ready forbearers and the Wild West to motivate our actions. Unfortunately, the Wild West image that comes to mind of our sitting Lege and education bureaucracy is not the noble and heroic scale of 1867 or even John Wayne but the Wild West of modern cinema--the food fight scene from Animal House (at left). |
| John Belushi in food fight scene, Animal House |
| SB 1 chockablock with 'the Commissioner shall's At right is just a small portion of this massive bill, just to give you an idea what's at stake. Over and over you read, "the Commissioner shall" this and "the commissioner shall" that--where we should be reading "the SBOE this" and "the SBOE that." |
| Perry/Dewhurst/Neeley/Scott's land grab So now our lawmakers have made the decision to wrest even more power from parents and taxpayers through their elected representatives, the SBOE, and give it to TEA, the same folks who created the problem in the first place. Aye-yi-yi. Just as other state legislatures before this one, the current Texas Lege doesn't appear to much want a State Board of Education independent of ties to Texas pols, Texas bidness or the Texas education establishment. Coming soon to a state edu-bureaucracy near you For those of you reading this in other states sitting there comfortably at your laptops or computer terminals thinking yourself safe because you're not in Texas, saddle up, partners. You'd better think, think, think again. We pioneered K-12 accountability and confidential student data collection and you now have both. |
| Notwithstanding when 15 little letters mean so much The Lege has duly noted calls and emails from conservatives around the state who had been alerted to the edu-missioner's power grab. Dave Nelson, an aide to Senator Jane Nelson who was one of Friday's walkouts said, "Senator Nelson is aware of some language in HB 1 that is of concern to her because it would diminish the role of the State Board of Education and she supports an amendment to remove that language." Senator Florence Shapiro added some "clarification" language in the Senate Finance Committee meant to appease conservatives and it goes like this: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the State Board of Education retains the board's authority over the required curriculum adopted under Section 28.002." |
| Further, according to Shapiro's office "there is NO intention to strip ANY power away from the SBOE." Neely likewise asserts, "At no time was there any attempt to make a 'power grab'....I have worked very hard to build trust and establish a good working relationship with the SBOE. I would never do anything to jeopardize the progress we've made." Smile back and grab your wallets, folks, in the presence of real artistry. So long as the word "notwithstanding" is still in there, Neeley's and therefore Perry's and therefore the Lege's powers are vastly expanded and the SBOE will be left with nothing much to do--and parents and taxpayers with still less direct input into our children's education. How is this so? Buttonhole your state representative next time you see him/her, ask them what "vertical alignment" really means. The pols don't know much about public education and they seek guidance from the very source most of us would rather they not--our local superintendents. As one small example, my own state rep, Harvey Hilderbran, a nice fellow from Kerrville, regularly schedules meetings with area supes (see photo at right) to solicit their feedback on education issues, but when asked a few years ago was unable to offer a single example of having done the same for parents and taxpayers. |
| State rep. Harvey Hilderbran (left) conferring with supe in 2004 at one of his specially calledl supes-only meetings |
| The road to hell These attempts to fluff over what the language actually says reminds many veterans of Bill Ratliff in 1995, with similar results on the horizon. And just as the road to hell is paved with good intentions, to quote former Roslyn supe Frank Tassone, "The devil is in the details." SBOE member Terri Leo points out that "I do not agree that this 'clarification' language Sen. Shapiro added really changed anything. It is just window dressing that reiterates another section of the code....[and] does nothing to correct the amendment. The language in the bill still has the Commissioners [Texas Higher Ed edu-missioner Raymund Paredes, also in on the scheme] approving and the SBOE implementing whatever the commissioners approve. The SBOE plays no role in development or approval of the vertical alignment of the high school curriculum." Armed with this I went back to Neeley mid-afternoon on Friday and she responded that "An amendment from Senator Shapiro clarifying that the State Board of Education has authority over curriculum has just passed in the Senate Finance Committee–CSHB1." Robert Scott confirmed that, "An amendment was just added in committee clarifying that the SBOE retains complete control over curriculum." But Neeley and Scott are wrong and Leo's right. Unless Neeley and Scott have access to a different version of CSHB1 than I have, the word "notwithstanding" in this amendment still gives the power to the commissioner. I don't see any way around it. Those pesky poly-syllabic qualifiers. |
| Frank Tassone's mug shot, above; Texas higher ed commissioner Raymund Paredes |
| Governor Perry attempting to pretend it's not his fault Perry's press aide Kathy Walt said Friday, "Gov. Perry’s sole focus in this special legislative session has been to address the Supreme Court’s mandate. His plan has been to provide providing meaningful discretion to local school districts through substantial property tax cuts and to reform the business franchise tax so that there is a lasting and stable source of funding for public schools." Meanwhile, back at the ranch, what they say and what they mean are poles apart. I'm having a hard time putting "meaningful discretion to local school districts" together in the same sentence with what's really happening to benefit Governor Perry's appointee Shirley Neeley. Looks like a horse, walks like a horse, smells like a horse. This exercise is still an old-time power grab. One wag (me) sums up this past week as, "How the SBOE Got Dissed, TEA & the Lege Got Wild, and Dewhurst Tried to Get a Life." I'm shopping the rights to PBS. |
What TEA'S proposed K-16 alignment means in real life-- And has anyone ever actually read the TEKS? |
| Texas TEKS' are not designed to teach children but to involve them in a group-think learning process also know as liberal indoctrination Look at the gibberish foisted on Texas children and teachers by TEA! There's not a specific author or work anywhere! TEKS - 9TH GRADE ENGLISH §110.42. English I (a) Introduction. (1) Students enrolled in English I continue to increase and refine their communication skills. High school students are expected to plan, draft, and complete written compositions on a regular basis. Students edit their papers for clarity, engaging language, and the correct use of the (continued below) |
| ON THE GROUND: A CLOSER LOOK AT WHAT TEA'S PROPOSED K-16 ALIGNMENT MEANS IN REAL LIFE By Peyton Wolcott May 8, 2006 - 2:30 p.m. TEA's proposed K-16 alignment calls for input by college professors. Let that sink in for a moment. |
| UT activist/prof Robert Jensen |
| The University of Texas is just a few blocks down the street from TEA Corporate Plaza. Come, walk me as we follow this to the next logical step. Do you want someone like UT prof Bob Jensen who spoke out on behalf of Al Quaeda after 9/11 writing your child's or grandchild's curriculum? Jensen has written that "Ward Churchill has a right to speak about 9/11. And Ward Churchill is right about 9/11" and that "Malcolm X was correct." Jensen further says, "It would be particularly cowardly if I tried to distance myself from Churchill and his ideas, given that I have made similar arguments in print and in public speaking over the past decade, especially since 9/11. I was the target of a much less intense vilification campaign on my own university campus immediately after 9/11, which blew over fairly quickly and never reached the level of the attack on Churchill. I am fortunate to remain employed at my university and engaged in the larger intellectual and political world." (SOURCE--CounterPunch) UT's Jensen: Images of U.S. soldiers dead & maimed are 'positive elements' Regarding Michael Moore's movie, Jensen comments, "Fahrenheit 9/11 also does a good job of showing war's effects on U.S. soldiers; we see soldiers dead and maimed, and we see how contemporary warfare deforms many of them psychologically as well. The film pays attention to the victims of U.S. wars, showing Iraqis both before the U.S. invasion, and after, in a way that humanizes them rather than uses them as props. The problem is that these positive elements don't add up to a good film." (SOURCE--Citizine) Jensen calls the war in Iraq "fundamentally illegal and immoral." (Ibid.) Goodbye, Mr. Jensen We'll depart Jensen with his own words: "When wealth dictates power, capitalism and democracy are relatively incompatible.” The source for this gem? The 2004 American Society of Newspaper Editors' "High School Journalism Institute" at The University of Texas. |
| What will radical UT prof Bob Jensen want our schoolchildren to learn about Bin Laden? |
| Texas TEKS' (continued) conventions and mechanics of written English and produce final, error-free drafts. In English I, students practice all forms of writing. An emphasis is placed on organizing logical arguments with clearly expressed related definitions, theses, and evidence. Students write to persuade and to report and describe. English I students read extensively in multiple genres from world literature such as reading selected stories, dramas, novels, and poetry originally written in English or translated to English from oriental, classical Greek, European, African, South American, and North American cultures. Students learn literary forms and terms associated with selections being read. Students interpret the possible influences of the historical context on a literary work. (2) For students enrolled in English I whose first language is not English, the students' native language serves as a foundation for English language acquisition. (3) The essential knowledge and skills as well as the student expectations for English I are described in subsection (b) of this section. (4) To meet Public Education Goal 1 of the Texas Education Code, §4.002, which states, "The students in the public education system will demonstrate exemplary performance in the reading and writing of the English language," students will accomplish the essential knowledge and skills as well as the student expectations in English I as described in subsection (b) of this section. (5) To meet Texas Education Code, §28.002(h), which states, ". . . each school district shall foster the continuation of the tradition of teaching United States and Texas history and the free enterprise system in regular subject matter and in reading courses and in the adoption of textbooks," students will be provided oral and written narratives as well as other informational texts that can help them to become thoughtful, active citizens who appreciate the basic democratic values of our state and nation. (b) Knowledge and skills. (1) Writing/purposes. The student writes in a variety of forms, including business, personal, literary, and persuasive texts, for various audiences and purposes. The student is expected to: (A) write in a variety of forms using effective word choice, structure, and sentence forms with emphasis on organizing logical arguments with clearly related definitions, theses, and evidence; write persuasively; write to report and describe; and write poems, plays, and stories; (B) write in a voice and style appropriate to audience and purpose; and (C) organize ideas in writing to ensure coherence, logical progression, and support for ideas. (2) Writing/writing processes. The student uses recursive writing processes when appropriate. The student is expected to: (A) use prewriting strategies to generate ideas, develop voice, and plan; (B) develop drafts, alone and collaboratively, by organizing and reorganizing content and by refining style to suit occasion, audience, and purpose; (C) proofread writing for appropriateness of organization, content, style, and conventions; (D) refine selected pieces frequently to publish for general and specific audiences; and (E) use technology for aspects of creating, revising, editing, and publishing. (3) Writing/grammar/usage/conventions/spelling. The student relies increasingly on the conventions and mechanics of written English, including the rules of grammar and usage, to write clearly and effectively. The student is expected to: (A) produce legible work that shows accurate spelling and correct use of the conventions of punctuation and capitalization such as italics and ellipses; (B) demonstrate control over grammatical elements such as subject-verb agreement, pronoun-antecedent agreement, verb forms, and parallelism; (C) compose increasingly more involved sentences that contain gerunds, participles, and infinitives in their various functions; and (D) produce error-free writing in the final draft. (4) Writing/inquiry/research. The student uses writing as a tool for learning. The student is expected to: (A) use writing to formulate questions, refine topics, and clarify ideas; (B) use writing to discover, organize, and support what is known and what needs to be learned about a topic; (C) compile information from primary and secondary sources in systematic ways using available technology; (D) represent information in a variety of ways such as graphics, conceptual maps, and learning logs; (E) use writing as a study tool to clarify and remember information; (F) compile written ideas and representations into reports, summaries, or other formats and draw conclusions; and (G) analyze strategies that writers in different fields use to compose. (5) Writing/evaluation. The student evaluates his/her own writing and the writings of others. The student is expected to: (A) evaluate writing for both mechanics and content; and (B) respond productively to peer review of his/her own work. (6) Reading/word identification/vocabulary development. The student uses a variety of strategies to read unfamiliar words and to build vocabulary. The student is expected to: (A) expand vocabulary through wide reading, listening, and discussing; (B) rely on context to determine meanings of words and phrases such as figurative language, idioms, multiple meaning words, and technical vocabulary; (C) apply meanings of prefixes, roots, and suffixes in order to comprehend; (D) research word origins, including Anglo-Saxon, Latin, and Greek words; (E) use reference material such as glossary, dictionary, thesaurus, and available technology to determine precise meanings and usage; and (F) identify the relation of word meanings in analogies, homonyms, synonyms/antonyms, and connotation/denotation. (7) Reading/comprehension. The student comprehends selections using a variety of strategies. The student is expected to: (A) establish a purpose for reading such as to discover, interpret, and enjoy; (B) draw upon his/her own background to provide connection to texts; (C) monitor reading strategies and modify them when understanding breaks down such as rereading, using resources, and questioning; (D) construct images such as graphic organizers based on text descriptions and text structures; (E) analyze text structures such as compare and contrast, cause and effect, and chronological ordering; (F) identify main ideas and their supporting details; (G) summarize texts; (H) draw inferences such as conclusions, generalizations, and predictions and support them from text; (I) use study strategies such as skimming and scanning, note taking, outlining, and using study-guide questions to better understand texts; and (J) read silently with comprehension for a sustained period of time. (8) Reading/variety of texts. The student reads extensively and intensively for different purposes in varied sources, including world literature. The student is expected to: (A) read to be entertained, to appreciate a writer's craft, to be informed, to take action, and to discover models to use in his/her own writing; (B) read in such varied sources as diaries, journals, textbooks, maps, newspapers, letters, speeches, memoranda, electronic texts, and other media; (C) read world literature, including classic and contemporary works; and (D) interpret the possible influences of the historical context on a literary work. (9) Reading/culture. The student reads widely, including world literature, to increase knowledge of his/her own culture, the culture of others, and the common elements across cultures. The student is expected to: (A) recognize distinctive and shared characteristics of cultures through reading; and (B) compare text events with his/her own and other readers' experiences. (10) Reading/literary response. The student expresses and supports responses to various types of texts. The student is expected to: (A) respond to informational and aesthetic elements in texts such as discussions, journals, oral interpretations, and dramatizations; (B) use elements of text to defend his/her own responses and interpretations; and (C) compare reviews of literature, film, and performance with his/her own responses. (11) Reading/literary concepts. The student analyzes literary elements for their contributions to meaning in literary texts. The student is expected to: (A) recognize the theme (general observation about life or human nature) within a text; (B) analyze the relevance of setting and time frame to text's meaning; (C) analyze characters and identify time and point of view; (D) identify basic conflicts; (E) analyze the development of plot in narrative text; (F) recognize and interpret important symbols; (G) recognize and interpret poetic elements like metaphor, simile, personification, and the effect of sound on meaning; and (H) understand literary forms and terms such as author, drama, biography, autobiography, myth, tall tale, dialogue, tragedy and comedy, structure in poetry, epic, ballad, protagonist, antagonist, paradox, analogy, dialect, and comic relief as appropriate to the selections being read. (12) Reading/analysis/evaluation. The student reads critically to evaluate texts. The student is expected to: (A) analyze characteristics of text, including its structure, word choices, and intended audience; (B) evaluate the credibility of information sources and determine the writer's motives; (C) analyze text to evaluate the logical argument and to determine the mode of reasoning used such as induction and deduction; and (D) analyze texts such as editorials, documentaries, and advertisements for bias and use of common persuasive techniques. (13) Reading/inquiry/research. The student reads in order to research self-selected and assigned topics. The student is expected to: (A) generate relevant, interesting, and researchable questions; (B) locate appropriate print and non-print information using texts and technical resources, periodicals and book indices, including databases and the Internet; (C) organize and convert information into different forms such as charts, graphs, and drawings; (D) adapt researched material for presentation to different audiences and for different purposes, and cite sources completely; and (E) draw conclusions from information gathered. (14) Listening/speaking/critical listening. The student listens attentively for a variety of purposes. The student is expected to: (A) focus attention on the speaker's message; (B) use knowledge of language and develop vocabulary to interpret accurately the speaker's message; (C) monitor speaker's message for clarity and understanding such as asking relevant questions to clarify understanding; and (D) formulate and provide effective verbal and nonverbal feedback. (15) Listening/speaking/evaluation. The student listens to analyze, appreciate, and evaluate oral performances and presentations. The student is expected to: (A) listen and respond appropriately to presentations and performances of peers or published works such as original essays or narratives, interpretations of poetry, or individual or group performances of scripts; (B) identify and analyze the effect of artistic elements within literary texts such as character development, rhyme, imagery, and language; (C) evaluate informative and persuasive presentations of peers, public figures, and media presentations; (D) evaluate artistic performances of peers, public presenters, and media presentations; and (E) use audience feedback to evaluate his/her own effectiveness and set goals for future presentations. (16) Listening/speaking/purposes. The student speaks clearly and effectively for a variety of purposes and audiences. The student is expected to: (A) use the conventions of oral language effectively; (B) use informal, standard, and technical language effectively to meet the needs of purpose, audience, occasion, and task; (C) prepare, organize, and present a variety of informative messages effectively; (D) use effective verbal and nonverbal strategies in presenting oral messages; (E) ask clear questions for a variety of purposes and respond appropriately to the questions of others; and (F) make relevant contributions in conversations and discussions. (17) Listening/speaking/presentations. The student prepares, organizes, and presents informative and persuasive oral messages. The student is expected to: (A) present and advance a clear thesis and support the major thesis with logical points or arguments; (B) choose valid evidence, proofs, or examples to support claims; (C) use appropriate and effective appeals to support points or claims; and (D) use effective verbal and nonverbal strategies such as pitch and tone of voice, posture, and eye contact. (18) Listening/speaking/literary interpretation. The student prepares, organizes, and presents literary interpretations. The student is expected to: (A) make valid interpretations of literary texts such as telling stories, interpreting poems, stories, or essays; and (B) analyze purpose, audience, and occasion to choose effective verbal and nonverbal strategies such as pitch and tone of voice, posture, and eye contact. (19) Viewing/representing/interpretation. The student understands and interprets visual representations. The student is expected to: (A) describe how meanings are communicated through elements of design, including shape, line, color, and texture; (B) analyze relationships, ideas, and cultures as represented in various media; and (C) distinguish the purposes of various media forms such as informative texts, entertaining texts, and advertisements. (20) Viewing/representing/analysis. The student analyzes and critiques the significance of visual representations. The student is expected to: (A) investigate the source of a media presentation or production such as who made it and why it was made; (B) deconstruct media to get the main idea of the message's content; (C) evaluate and critique the persuasive techniques of media messages such as glittering generalities, logical fallacies, and symbols; (D) recognize how visual and sound techniques or design convey messages in media such as special effects, editing, camera angles, reaction shots, sequencing, and music; (E) recognize genres such as nightly news, newsmagazines, and documentaries and identify the unique properties of each; and (F) compare, contrast, and critique various media coverage of the same event such as in newspapers, television, and on the Internet. (21) Viewing/representing/production. The student produces visual representations that communicate with others. The student is expected to: (A) examine the effect of media on constructing his/her own perception of reality; (B) use a variety of forms and technologies such as videos, photographs, and web pages to communicate specific messages; (C) use a range of techniques to plan and create a media text and reflect critically on the work produced; (D) create media products to include a billboard, cereal box, short editorial, and a three- minute documentary or print ad to engage specific audiences; and (E) create, present, test, and revise a project and analyze a response, using data-gathering techniques such as questionnaires, group discussions, and feedback forms. Source: The provisions of this §110.42 adopted to be effective September 1, 1998, 22 TexReg 7549. |
How we take back our children's education: one person, one question, one school at a time. |
P E Y T O N W O L C O T T |
| QUOTES |
| FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a republic. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., Chapter 1, Section 107 which states: the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright," the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use" you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. |
Helping parents & taxpayers implode Education, Inc. |
| ATTENTION EDUCATORS AND ADMINISTRATORS: Every attempt possible has been made to verify all sources and information. In the event you feel an error has been made, please contact us immediately. Thank you. |
| Copyright 1999-2006 Peyton Wolcott |
| POP QUIZ: How easy is it to make contact with your supe? Is his/her email address on your district's website? If not, why not? After all, you're paying for his/her email. |
David v. Goliath: How America's Moms & Dads are taking on Education, Inc. PEYTON WOLCOTT |
| F o c u s i n g o n a c c o u n t a b i l i t y f i r s t : T h i s i s h o w w e t a k e b a c k o u r c h i l d r e n s ' e d u c a t i o n O n e P e r s o n , O n e Q u e s t i o n , O n e S c h o o l a t a T i m e . Copyright 1999-2006 Peyton Wolcott |
TEA HEAD SAYS BOARDS SHOULD LAY OFF LEADERS By: BETTY WATERS, Staff Writer September 13, 2004 Tyler Morning Telegraph Governance violations in school districts by micromanaging school board members are a runaway train that needs to be braked, Texas Commissioner of Education Dr. Shirley J. Neeley asserted in Kilgore Monday as area superintendents applauded her stand. Governance violations by school board members out of control are the biggest frustration and one of the biggest challenges she has dealt with since becoming commissioner, said Dr. Neeley, who was appointed last January by the governor. |
MORE ON BILL RATLIFF'S ROBIN HOOD LEGACY The Robin Hood of legend stole from tyrannical government functionaries, returning the loot to the victimized poor. In Texas, he was hired by an elected judge and legitimized by the legislature to victimize taxpayers in the name of the children, while enriching the bureaucracy. Despite noble intentions, and precious few benefits, Robin Hood has been an unwitting tool for the advocates of increased spending without any accompanying accountability for classroom improvement." -- Michael Quinn Sullivan Texas Public Policy Foundation |
QUOTE OF THE WEEK "Here's how I see it," says Will Lutz, managing editor of the Lone Star Report and one of Texas' savviest political writers. "The Legislature has a very clear choice about who's going to be writing our curriculum: a bunch of liberals at TEA, a bunch of liberal college professors, or our conservative State Board of Education. And if our elected officials want conservatives to support them this November, they should stand on principle rather than turning our curriculum over to liberal government bureaucrats." |
May 8, 2006 footnote: This will come as no surprise: The entire legislative process this past week has not been transparent for those of us footing the bill for it. All week long attempts to get a straight answer have been met with variations on "Too busy" and "in committee." But what can we expect from a legislature which still refuses to record its votes by name? |
| HB 2264 State Affairs hearing May 2005 |
Texas mom Dianna Pharr states the obvious--and Education, Inc. misses the point Among the speakers at a public forum Friday, May 5, 2006 at the Texas Education Agency to discuss the 65% solution regarding spending in the classroom was Eanes ISD mom Dianna Pharr, who began her comments by noting, "I may be the only one in attendance who is not being paid to be here," to which the moderator, TEA associate commissioner Adam Jones, responded by asking for a show of hands by everyone present of their own free accord and not because they were paid to testify as a condition of employment. Dianna said, "As you can imagine the hands shot up." She then pointed out the obvious, that everyone else there including Jones was on salary from one form or another of public education-related businesses. Jones' response was to restart the timer for her five minutes to not include the show of hands. Pharr later commented, "None of those businesses would be in business without our education tax dollars." |
Eanes ISD bestows "EANESpiration" honors on Thomas Ratliff and wife Stacy Here are Eanes' announcements: The winners of the Spring 2006 EANESpiration Award have been announced. The awards are presented twice a year to EISD employees or volunteers in recognition of an exceptional act or special effort that clearly exceeded his or her job responsibilities. In sum, the cause for nomination should be potentially inspirational to others. A reception will be held in the Board Room at Central Administration on Thursday, April 13, at 4:00 p.m. to honor the winners. School winners are: Barton Creek Elementary: Thomas Ratliff (parent). ______ The fall EANESpiration reception was held Wednesday, Nov. 9, [2005] to honor 29 members of the Eanes family who have completed an exceptional act or special effort that clearly exceeded his or her job responsibilities. In sum, nominees’ actions should be potentially inspirational to others. Nominations are submitted to individual schools, which forward their campus winners for district recognition. Certificates were presented by Superintendent Nola Wellman and recipients and guests enjoyed cake following introduction of the winners. Dr. Wellman also thanked all Eanes employees and parents who stepped forward to lend a hand when the district opened evacuation shelters during Hurricane Rita. Congratulations to the district EANESpiration winners for fall of 2005. Barton Creek: ...Stacy Ratliff |
| What's happening, in brief Thanks to Shapiro's lead, spending on public education in Texas will increase by 4% despite massive evidence showing that throwing more money at public education does not improve it. Shapiro is also leading the drive to re-engineer Texas public education from the K-12 our politicians and education bureaucrats have made such a fine mess of into a still-bigger P-16 pile of money and social engineering. Along the way, Shapiro's plan has neatly discarded what State Board of Education member Terri Leo of Spring calls "parents' last firewall" by taking the little power the elected SBOE has left and giving it to Neeley and Paredes, the commissioners of education whom we will again point out are appointed by Gov. Perry. As Leo points out, while "the SBOE at least now has veto power over the end result, the bill language still has 'the commissioners evaluating, reviewing, recommending, developing, aligning, establishing, coordinating and approving the curriculum.' In other words, the two unelected commissioners control the whole process." |
“Creeping socialism,” an expression used in modern times to describe America's so-called drift towards a socialistic society, was coined by author F.A. Hayek in his book The Road to Serfdom. Published in 1944, Hayek's book warned of the dangers of state control over the means of production, which he perceived to be occurring, especially in regards to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), during the New Deal and the Fair Deal administrations of presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, respectively. Hayek believed that excessive governmental controls on society did not deliver on their promises and that their ideology actually delivered dismal economic results. But more importantly, he averred, it produces a psychological change in the character of the people in that man's desire to better himself is what drives him to succeed and also improves the way of life for those around him. According to Hayek, socialism strips man of his desire to succeed. (SOURCE--U-S-History.com) |
| (2) Student Success – increase completion of postsecondary certificates and degrees. This MOU is designed to help the state of Texas achieve goals one and two of the Texas Higher Education Master Plan: Closing the Gaps by 2015. To achieve these objectives, the Parties agree to: (1) Develop and implement a Postsecondary Education Communication Plan (“Communication Plan”). The comprehensive Communication Plan will include, but not be limited to, the following strategies: a) Connecting the Parties with a diverse audience (such as students in elementary and secondary schools, parents, educators, civic and faith-based organizations, business leaders, media, and policy makers). b) Creating consistent and effective messages stressing the importance of academic preparation, admission requirements, financial aid, making informed choices, mentoring and planning. c) Utilizing all available media to communicate these messages. The Postsecondary Education Communication Plan will be completed by February 1, 2006. (2) Develop and implement a Statewide Coordinating Plan (“Coordinating Plan”). The comprehensive Coordinating Plan will provide a roadmap for how the parties will work together in co-developing and co- implementing efforts under this MOU and create a written mechanism for involving interested stakeholders. The Coordinating Plan will involve, but not be limited to, the following resources: a) THECB: Texas Higher Education Master Plan: Closing the Gaps by 2015, its concomitant College For Texans Initiative, and associated College for All Texans Foundation; b) TEA: Educators Quality and P- 16 Coordination Initiative; and c) TG: Texas Financial Aid Information Center and Educational Alliances and Partnerships Team. The Statewide Coordination Plan will be completed by February 1, 2006. Effective Dates The MOU will become effective upon the signatures of the Commissioner of Education (TEA), Commissioner of Higher Education (THECB), and President and CEO (TG), and will remain in effect until it is so terminated by either party with 30 days written notice. The MOU, and its associated Communication Plan and Statewide Coordination Plan, must be reviewed for |
| Influences of socialism on American society today The effects of socialism in America can still be felt today. According to the Future of Freedom Foundation, any government-owned, - funded, or -subsidized operation is considered to be a socialist program. For example, publicly owned airports, sports arenas or government- funded universities would be considered socialist operations by that definition. The Social Security Act of 1935, one of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal creations, is seen by many as a socialist program because it is a government-organized and -regulated system. Social Security was designed to provide retirement benefits to citizens through mandatory donations to the program during one's employment years. During the Clinton administration, a plan was proposed to bring down the high costs of health insurance by creating national health insurance. Critics of the national health insurance concept labeled it “socialized medicine” and argued that the individual, not the federal government, had the wisdom and capability to manage his or her own affairs. They argued that deregulation of the health care industry and opening it up to the free market would bring the cost of health care down and increase the availability of care to the American public, which national health insurance would not do. (Ibid.) |
| It’s time to admit that pubic education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody’s role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It’s no surprise that our school system doesn’t improve; It more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy. — Albert Shanker, president, American Federation of Teachers |
| Historian Theodore White's description of socialism: "The belief and the hope that by proper use of government power, men can be rescued from their helplessness in the wild cycling cruelty of depression and boom." |
A Socialism Primer |
| Another way that the government uses propaganda is by having public schools. Many people think that because the public schools in the U.S. have done such a bad job of teaching academic subjects, these schools have been a failure. But if you believe that the real purpose of the public schools is to teach people to believe in the ideas of collectivism, and to discourage individual thought, then the public schools have actually been highly successful. (SOURCE--Review by grundle2600 at Amazon.com/The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek) |
| What’s Wrong with Public Schools? by Sheldon Richman, March 25, 2005 The following is an excerpt from Chapter 2 of Separating School & State: How to Liberate America’s Families (1994) by Sheldon Richman. To have reasonable expectations about the public schools, we must be clear about what they are and how they operate. It is necessary to look at how they are funded and controlled and what implications those aspects of the system have for the service being provided. It must be stressed that one cannot take the schools as given, inquire how they are performing, and then sift through countless studies to come to a conclusion. The public school system must be investigated from the inside out. Only then can the performance studies be evaluated intelligently. Public schools are government schools. That obvious statement has important implications. Government is the institution that has a monopoly on the legal use of force in a society. Most significantly, government obtains its revenues by force — taxation. As government schools, the public schools are financed entirely out of taxation. Most school revenues come from the local taxes on real estate. Owners of real estate are assessed on the basis of the value of their land and buildings. The growing federal and state financing of public education comes from income taxes. Public education’s dependence on taxation is emphasized here because it is the key characteristic of the system. It explains much else about the public schools. And it will enable us to contrast public schooling with its alternative, free market education (which includes many possibilities, including home schooling). What does the presence of taxation indicate about the schools? It indicates that those who run the schools have an access to revenue that no one outside government has. The proprietor of a shoe store cannot send you a bill, whether or not you buy shoes there, and demand payment under penalty of law. He cannot raise prices and compel payment from you whether you are happy about the price increase or not. All he can do is try to attract you to the store and hope that you like the shoes and will freely agree to exchange money for them. Those who operate the public schools are not nearly as helpless as the shoe-store proprietor. The compulsory funding of schools creates a distinctive attitude in school administrators and teachers that is not found in owners of shoe stores and other private enterprises. The people who come into the shoe store are potential customers, free to walk out without buying. In contrast, the citizens of a school district are taxpayers, who have no choice but to pay their tax bills. Sure, they can move to another jurisdiction. But they face the same compulsion there. Unsurprisingly, the school authorities treat the taxpayers differently from the way that a shoe- store owner treats his customers. An elected school board official, of course, has his eye on the next election and for that reason must at least appear to be doing things that the voter-taxpayers approve of. Some political theorists presume that the pressure for reelection is similar to the pressures that businessmen face in the marketplace. The similarities, however, do not go far below the surface. Electing a school board official has little in common with picking a shoe store. When shopping for shoes, the customer makes a straightforward decision for himself. He pickets the store and buys. Selecting a school board is very different. No one citizen can decide who serves on the board. If a citizen approves of a particular candidate, he must persuade over 50 percent of his fellow citizens to vote for the same person. His one vote means very little. The margin of victory in most elections is far larger than one vote. The chances of any one person casting the deciding vote are smaller than the risk of being killed in an auto accident on the way to the polls. Besides that, the average voter has no strong incentive to exert the effort to acquire the knowledge needed to cast an informed vote. That incentive is lacking because people other than himself would get the bulk of any benefits for his effort whether or not they exert any effort at all. That is known as the free-rider problem. It plagues all aspects of democracy. Another problem with administering schools democratically is that the costs of casting a vote are perceived as small by voters. A given voter will pay only a small portion of the expense that his vote might bring about. If he thinks about the monetary cost of his vote at all, he is likely to think only of his small share, not the overall cost. In the marketplace, by contrast, people tend to face the full money costs of their choices. Thus, in the democratic arena there are distortions with respect to individual action that are not found in the marketplace. Democratic organization of schools presents other problems not found in market organization. What if a citizen shares some but not all of the positions taken by a school board candidate? The electoral system treats his vote for the candidates as unconditional. He has no way to make clear that his endorsement is conditional or partial. He is stuck with a package deal that may look good only in comparison to the other candidates. Again, that problem is solvable in the marketplace. A person can choose to buy only what he likes from a given store and to go elsewhere for other items. In a private education market, parents, if need be, could even send their children to one school to study French and to another to study math. The market is the most flexible arrangement for satisfying consumers that can be imagined. It is precisely that flexibility that is missing in bureaucracy, whether controlled democratically or not. Even if a voter finds a school board candidate he likes, there is, of course, no guarantee that once elected the candidate will do what he promised during the election. What then? Can the people who voted for him sue for misrepresentation? Of course not. They are stuck with their candidate. Sure, they can try to vote him out in the next election. But by then the damage may have been done. And those who are upset with the board member will need to persuade many other people to vote the member out, as well. That cumbersome requirement has no analogue in the market. The nonmarket organization of education has a serious but unappreciated implication for the financing of schools: people do not know what they pay. As Myron Lieberman writes, “None of us knows the costs of public education, from our own pockets or the government’s. These costs are extremely diffuse and intermingled with others beyond identification. Even with the help of a supercomputer, it is impossible to ascertain what any individual is paying for education.” Generally, it is easy to tell what we pay for the various goods and services we buy. But when every level of government, taxing us in a variety of ways, puts money into the schools, how can anyone know precisely what he has been forced to contribute? That lack of knowledge has further consequences. Most people will not undergo the arduous effort to find out how much they pay. Many people will shrug and think, “What’s the point? I won’t be able to do anything about it anyway?” That understandable ignorance and weakening of responsibility suit the authorities just fine. They would prefer not to have the taxpayers looking over their shoulders, closely watching their decisions. It gives them substantial rein to spend money and to experiment with any fad in education theory that catches their fancy. The system’s inherent lack of accountability insulates the administrators from those who foot the bill and suffer the educational results. It also enables them to form close alliances with education professionals, who are seen as the experts who understand the “science” of education and child development, although there are excellent reasons for believing that those are bogus disciplines. That mystification of financing creates fertile ground for bureaucratic irresponsibility. As noted in the Appendix, the financing of public schools has skyrocketed in recent years. It is unlikely that the taxpayers have even been aware of that fact. The system has been arranged to keep taxpayers in the dark. No, they are not prohibited from acquiring the information. But such acquisition is made so difficult that most people, busy as they are raising their families and making a living, will not have the time to navigate the backwaters of the bureaucracy. The division of labor, normally a blessing, is perverted so as to discourage people from exercising self- responsibility. A related problem is that tax financing precludes market prices for educational services. Market prices do not only let buyers know what they are paying. They are the fruit of a complex communications process that encapsulates information about the relative scarcity of resources and conveys it to all participants in the marketplace. That information is crucial to intelligent planning by buyers and producers of services. It is at the very heart of market competition, which Nobel-laureate F.A. Hayek properly called a “discovery procedure.” We live in a world of uncertainty, an open- ended world in which perfect knowledge is denied to us. Discovery of new things and methods is always possible. But discovery is fueled by incentives. As economist Israel M. Kirzner points out, in the marketplace, the lure of profit creates incentives for entrepreneurs to find unsatisfied needs and to devise ways of satisfying them. Those incentives do not exist in government schools. In the market, entrepreneurs are accountable to consumers; they face the constant threat of financial loss. The alleged accountability of officeholders to voters is a mirage. It bears not real resemblance to the accountability of the marketplace. If the shoe- store operator misrepresents his product, there is recourse in the civil courts. Offended customers can take their business elsewhere without notice. They do not have to persuade over 50 percent of the other consumers to join in the boycott. That power held by the individual consumer in the marketplace— sometimes called consumer sovereignty— is lacking in the democratic administration of services such as education. The inherent insulation of school boards (and other democratic bodies) from real accountability aggravates a phenomenon known as the Iron Law of Oligarchy. The law says that in almost any group endeavor, a small elite will emerge as the most active in determining the activities of the group. Even in a neighborhood bridge club, two or three people will show the most interest in running the group — finding a place to play, determining the game night, and so forth. The Iron Law asserts itself because people tend to have busy lives, and few will find the activity of such importance that they wish to invest an extraordinary amount of time. Of course, in a bridge club the Iron Law is benign. But that is not true with things such as school boards. Even if people might like to spend lots of times studying every aspect of the school system, attending board meetings, and the like, most simply cannot do it. Besides, as mentioned above, the return on the effort will seem too small. Those who can invest such time usually have a special interest in doing so— members of the teachers’ union, for example. In the end, school policy will be inordinately influenced by a small group of activists, not by the mass of taxpayers or parents…. Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation, author of Separating School & State: How to Liberate America’s Families, and editor of The Freeman magazine. This is an excerpt from Chapter 2 of that book. |
| Another Day of Reckoning by Brian L. Carpenter, Mackinac Center, April 15, 2005. "It was on April 18, 1991 that [then] President George H.W. Bush released a pamphlet entitled 'America 2000: An Education Strategy.' Ultimately, the strategy became known simply as 'Goals 2000' -- a set of six nationalized education goals to be achieved by the start of the 21st century. Yet 2000 came and went, and despite an investment of millions of taxpayer dollars, the strategy ended like most directives from the feds: It didn't come anywhere close to achieving its goals. ... Mountains of data demonstrate that none of these goals were achieved. Nevertheless, as recounted above, the federal government subsequently created a significantly metastasized version of the law: No Child Left Behind -- the most ponderous federal government intervention in education in American history. ... Nobel Laureate and famed economist F.A. Hayek referred to the mistaken notion that a national economy could be effectively centrally planned as 'the fatal conceit.' Laws like Goals 2000 and NCLB are the educational equivalent of the fatal conceit because they are enacted on the premise that federal and state bureaucrats can effectively administer the massive government school system." (SOURCE-IllinoisLoop.or g) |
My definition of too much government: Meddling by pols and their appointees in other people's private lives funded by other people's money. --Peyton |