Home ::
Executive Director's Message
The months leading up to a legislative session always offer some important clues about what to expect once January of an odd-numbered year arrives and the Legislature convenes in regular session. Battle lines get drawn, priorities established, and issues developed, often through a seemingly endless series of hearings and reports.
There are some early indications that the upcoming session will be a lively one for public education. First, there will be money available – up to a $15 billion surplus according to a recent projection made by House Speaker Tom Craddick, though Comptroller Susan Combs is projecting a lower surplus. That sets a significantly different tone than when deficits or flat revenue are projected, though given the current economy legislators may not be willing to make long-term expenditures with those surplus funds. School districts are publicly lamenting their finances with projections showing increasingly strained budgets unless voters approve tax increases at the local level. Yet school district fund balances are growing (perhaps in anticipation of rainy days to come); a fact that is not going unnoticed by legislators. Representatives of the business community are already denouncing the new business tax that replaces the franchise tax repealed last session; clearly efforts will be made to cut the rates, exempt more businesses, etc. Simultaneously, however, some of those same business representatives are loudly demanding higher standards for educators and students without recognizing the inherent conflict in expecting more while hoping to provide less support. I continue to be amazed at the attitude demonstrated by so many people that are not involved in public education that they have the answers for our schools - I can only imagine the response should a group of educators take it upon themselves to do some research and start making recommendations about how business practices could be improved.
Due to interim legislative committee charges and a report recently released by a group of attorneys (more non-educators!) working on a project relating to school discipline, there will likely be significant discussion of disciplinary issues ranging from discretionary removals to the quality of instruction in DAEPs. The first phase of their project, entitled “Texas’ School-to-Prison Pipeline” implies – as you have likely guessed from the title – that disciplinary referrals suggest an unhappy ending in the prison system for the offender. Fortunately, the legislators hearing the report demonstrated a much more realistic understanding of the issues being confronted in the schools, and noted that the attorneys had really not shown much in the way of causality (the old “chicken or the egg” problem). Nonetheless, this issue will likely get both some legislative and media attention in the months ahead.
The biggest education issue of the session, though, is likely to be accountability. The Select Committee on Public School Accountability (see related story on pages 9-11) is continuing to meet in locations throughout the state and, at the time of this writing, is far from reaching any conclusions. The questions being raised in the context of this committee’s activities, though, are critical public policy issues that need serious attention and debate. The issue of accountability is amazingly pervasive throughout the education system, and changes to the accountability framework generate significant effects throughout the system.
A core issue that is yet to be resolved is what, exactly, the accountability system purports to measure. The current TAKS exam was designed to demonstrate, with a passing score, a basic understanding of the elements of the curriculum being tested, and this “minimum standard” aspect of our current system is important to keep in mind when critics of public education decry, for example, the lack of college readiness. Under the current system, college readiness was never the established goal.
In the event that revisions to the accountability system encompass a new standard tethered to a goal, there will be significant changes. Some advocate a college readiness standard for all students; others suggest a college readiness or workforce readiness standard. Debate rages over whether a college readiness standard is the same as a workforce readiness standard. And, despite multiple committees addressing the issue, we are far from agreement on what a college readiness standard might look like, if that’s the identified goal. Critics often cite the high percentage of students in community colleges who require remedial coursework to succeed as evidence that Texas high schools are not currently producing college ready students. Yet the average age of a student enrolled in community college is 28 – meaning that the average student has been out of high school for as much as a decade, which is plenty of time to forget your math formulas.
Others seem to prefer a more relative standard that would allow Texas schools to be compared to each other, or to those in other states or countries. Such an approach might not, however, satisfy the requirements of NCLB for criterion-referenced testing at specified grade levels. But then the future of NCLB is murky at best as complaints continue to surge from the states and the current administration is soon to be replaced.
Regardless of the goal identified for the accountability system, proper sequencing will be critical. First the goal will need to be identified, then the curriculum structured to provide the knowledge and skills necessary to meet the goal, then tests designed or adapted to correlate to the curriculum. Interestingly, delegates to the TCTA annual convention in February overwhelmingly indicated in a straw poll a preference for replacing TAKS with a “shelf test” such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS).
One clear theme that is emerging from the Select Committee on Accountability hearings is strong support for measuring growth in student performance. Holding all students and subgroups of the student population to the standard of passing the TAKS makes it far more difficult for districts with student populations that are economically disadvantaged to attain high ratings. Allowing campuses and districts with diverse or disadvantaged student populations to be credited with significant gains in student achievement (growth) would potentially make better ratings more attainable, but the argument will then shift to whether a growth standard and an absolute standard must both be attained or whether significant growth is enough. The sub-issues inherent in these determinations are numerous, and all have the potential to alter the priorities and practices of our schools.
At some point it will have to be recognized that gains in student performance cannot and will not continue indefinitely simply by virtue of demands of more, better, and faster. The resources, both financial and in terms of human capital, will have to be provided to support increasing demands.
It has now been 25 years since the release of “A Nation at Risk” prompted states throughout the country to embark on a serious effort at school reform. And if we’ve learned nothing else during that time period, we’ve certainly learned that any reform discussion will bring out in droves the hand-wringers who love to lament the poor job they think the schools are doing.
But as yet another school year draws to a close, much to the relief of teachers and students alike, a macro view of where our schools have been and where they’re headed is in order. I was shocked to read the following in a recent issue of Newsweek in an article not related to education specifically, but to the nature of the American people: “In 1940, three quarters of adults older than 25 were high school dropouts or never went to high school at all. By 1960, 59 percent still lacked a high-school education. By last year the figure was down to 14 percent.” It seems to me that such progress is remarkable, and that while our efforts to reduce the dropout rate, especially among some student populations, must continue, we should also occasionally drop back and celebrate the enormous progress that has been made, much of it during the span of many of your careers.
And Texas educators should take huge pride in what is being accomplished right now in this state. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) exam, which, unlike the TAKS does not lend itself to preparatory drilling, shows that:
For 2007, all of the Texas major student subgroups in 4th grade ranked among the top of the nation on the NAEP math test, with Hispanic students ranked second, African-American students tied for second, and white students ranked third in the nation. Texas 8th graders did even better on the math test, with Hispanic students ranked top in the nation, and white and African-American students both tied for second place.
Although Texas students weren’t ranked quite as high on the NAEP reading results, all the major student subgroups in grades 4 and 8 were ranked in the top 8 nationally.
Additionally, all of our student subgroups in both 4th and 8th grades outperformed the national average on the most recent NAEP science exam and every student subgroup in 8th grade beat the national average on the recent NAEP writing exam.
These results are particularly impressive when you consider that Texas is ranked in the bottom 10 states nationally for education funding ($7,561 per student compared to $9,138 national average).
Clearly, Texas taxpayers are getting great value for their investment. Congratulations to all of you for your part in producing these impressive results.
We solicit your expertise and will continue, via the website at tcta.org and our publications, to keep you informed as the next chapter in Texas public education takes shape.
Web posted: 06/06/08
