Blog Response: School Funding

In response to Ramblings of an Austinite’s blog on School funding I have to start by saying that I don’t believe there’s much about public schools that doesn’t confuse Texas lawmakers. Half the time it’s a process of the right hand not know what the left hand is doing (incidental pun). But, I digress, I have to agree with the comment in the article “that this [Senate Bill 3] is a backdoor attack on poorer districts that will slash nonessential programs “. Whenever it comes to cutting budgets in schools the first heads on the chopping block belong to the arts. If this does go through it will be another case of dividing the children of Texas into the haves and the have-nots. The last thing children in these circumstances need is to be told that they do not merit having an opportunity to study art because of where they live or who they are.

There’s always talk about funding, funding and more funding. As it stands are schools are basically funded by smokers, gamblers and sales taxes. It’s time these law makers stopped depending on sales taxes to keep this state afloat. It’s not working, unless of course you fall in the “I make over $150,000 a year” bracket. I think a state income tax would be a healthy step in the right direction. The entire system needs to be reformed, let’s face it. But, I can see both sides of the isle on issues of taxing. Yes, people do need to be more responsible for their families and their families well being. But, you can’t do that if percentage wise you pay more taxes than the CEO of “Big Oil”.

I have to believe that there is a real solution to this education crisis, my kids are in the system and I bust my backside every day making sure that I pick up where public education leaves off. It all comes down to personal responsibility but not just in taking care of your house but in paying your fair share of taxes to make sure all the children in this state receive the education they rightfully deserve.

Keeping my fingers crossed...

Well, it happened. The Texas legislature finally figured it out, NCLB (no child left behind) was leaving everyone behind. In a news story from KVUE.Com it was reported that a bill was passed that would take away the high emphasis placed on the TAKS test. Halleluiah! The bill will allow more focus to be placed on college readiness versus the focus placed on passing minimum standards in the elementary grades. I believe this is a wonderful step in the right direction for our public school system. Instead of having schools “teaching to the TAKS” teachers can now focus on the job they were originally hired for: educating children.

This new bill will remove the fear of having to pass the TAKS in the 3rd, 5th and 8th grades in order to be promoted to the next grade. It will also “prohibit districts from having grading policies that force teachers to give minimum grades to failing students”. So, in essence the Texas education system will now have an accurate accountability system in play.

It seems the focus will be placed more on preparing for college and therefore the tests that will matter will be taken at the HS level. High School students will also have a three tier option of classes they can take from basic, recommended and advanced, with most of the students being steered towards the recommended option. These classes will focus on teaching students the subjects needed to move on to college after high school. The hope is that it will empower more of the youth in Texas to stay in school and, just as important, to attend college after high school.

Of course as with all things time will tell how this bill will play out. But, I am hopeful that our legislators have worked out the major kinks NCLB placed into our public education system and more importantly that they realize now how important it is to make sure funding is available for our public schools. Because great ideas are one thing, not having the resources to see them through is a complete let down to the potential each and every student has.

Response to Texas Politics blog...

In response to my classmates’ blog, Mike makes a semi-valid argument regarding the legalization of drugs. In his post the “upside sides” of legalization would include a greater tax revenue and essentially removing the power the drug cartels have over this nation. I have to play a little devil’s advocate here however. The liberal side of me says “this is absolutely the way to go”. Legalizing drugs puts an end to the violence and the money spent to try and “secure our borders”. And Mike is right it the end of prohibition helped a great deal during the great depression and our lovely sin tax makes sure that smokers keep our public schools funded. That said the mom side of me has to sit and really think this through. Would I be OK when my son or daughter turned the legal age to purchase these legal drugs and decided that since heroin is legal they should give it a try? I can’t even fathom them smoking a cigarette because I understand the addictive nature of the nicotine drug. But, to know that something as horrific as heroin and cocaine could be accessible and legal for anyone over the age of 21 to try I don’t know. The youth of this country already trails so far behind the rest of the world academically do we really want to give them the opportunity to have something as debilitating as a drug addiction hold them back even further. Maybe Mike was just thinking of the drug addicts and junkies that roam around now and how they could be purposeful in providing for tax revenue. But, unfortunately once that gate is opened it now allows for a whole other group of people to walk through and perhaps engage in something they would otherwise have stayed away from because it was illegal.

What does a U.S. citizen look like?

In an effort to “secure our border” many American citizens are being illegally deported from the country in which they were born and raised. An article from the Austin American Statesman recounts a nightmare of a story for one mentally ill man in California. Pedro Guzman was arrested on a misdemeanor charge and signed a waiver in which he agreed to leave the country without a hearing. Mr. Guzman cannot read or write. He spent 3 months in Mexico homeless while his mother wandered through Tijuana carrying his picture and looking for him.

The sad and scary part of this story is that this is not on isolated incident. As the U.S. expects to see more and more illegal alien crackdowns the numbers of people wrongly accused and deported is expected to rise along with it. With all the propaganda that was spoon fed to the masses by the Bush administration these situations will become more common place and the citizens of this country will become more desensitized to the violations of the human rights of their fellow citizens. According to the article many more cases have been reported and one can only imagine the amount of cases that have gone undiscovered.

Between the cases of American citizens being wrongfully deported and the building of a ridiculous wall on the border, racial intolerance has only begun to scratch the surface. What was more appalling than the article itself were the comments left by some of the people in the Central Texas area. It is easier for someone to take aim at a culture and race that does not resemble their own. If American citizens are being targeted for deportation for no other reason than their appearance what’s next? Concentration camps? Although the road to this scenario seems improbable it’s not by any means impossible, and the longer the law enforcement of this country continue to bow down to the radical and overzealous right wing scare tactics then perhaps we as a nation are closer to this atrocity than we think.

Fair should be Fair...

In Scott Henson’s blog, Grits for Breakfast, he discusses the unspoken hypocrisy that Gov. Perry has shown regarding the stimulus money President Obama is offering. According to Henson Gov. Perry has refused the $600 million set aside from the federal stimulus package to help pay people on unemployment. The main argument is that this will place a huge burden on the private companies down the road who will have to pay these funds back. However, he has not batted an eye regarding stimulus money aimed at increasing law enforcement. Per Henson the outcome is the same, paying back long term for a short term fix.

Henson, who has worked for the ACLU and who has helped to police the police grass roots organizations, states that hiring all these officers on “a layaway plan-hire now, pay later” will not place the state’s economic future in any better standing than borrowing the money to help pay for unemployment wages. It appears that his concerns, and those of the people who commented on his blog, is that these agencies will begin to make more frivolous arrests and traffic violations to pay for what they’ve borrowed. His main question is if Perry rejects the first part of the stimulus should he not reject this part as well?

Henson’s blog is poignant and should be scrutinized a little further. Given his background in investigating law enforcement, I would recommend readers to take stock in his arguments. I am not a political analyst or a political anything really, but what I read into this issue is that it’s ok to have to pay back excessive stimulus funds on the backs of the taxpayers as long as the private companies (who maybe line Perry’s pockets?) go unburdened.

It's about time...

Finally somebody has figured it out! In an editorial in the Austin American Statesman, the issue of the undue pressure the TAKS test puts on our public schools was finally tackled. According to the editorial, Sen. Florence Shapiro-R and Rep. Rob Eissler-R have introduced a proposal that would keep the accountability needed to determine the status of the school while removing the high stakes associated with the test. Issues such as not allowing a student to pass to the next grade level based solely on one test score or determining whether or not a school should remain open based on the schools rating. These repercussions associated with failing the test have forced teachers in the public school system to “teach to the test”. This means not only are the students and teachers stressed about having to take and pass this test the students also lose out on a lot of other information that never gets elaborated on because it’s not on the test. The implementation of this idea would bolster a very failing public school system.

Of course there will always be opposition to change; just as some of the public comments on the article have stated. But, I would challenge anyone to walk into a public elementary school on TAKS week and see the look of fear on the faces of the students and teachers alike. Just because something looks good on paper does not mean that the idea is working. If a child’s education is well rounded and taught by competent teachers, the test will be a non-issue. Private schools and charter schools in Texas also take the TAKS without having to teach to the TAKS, and more often than not the scores are beyond favorable.

I hope that these legislators do right by the children of this state and allow them to learn what they need to learn to survive in this world and to foster the hope of one day attending college. Because at this point children are disheartened with school and what it represents and many of them are just waiting to get out. School needs to be a place where children can and more importantly want to learn.

Let's talk about Sex...

In a recent article the Austin American Statesman’s, main focus was the teaching of abstinence in public schools. Not only is the program expensive, it apparently, doesn’t get the message across anyway; leaving Texas 3rd in the nation for teenage pregnancies. The main argument is that, while teaching abstinence is a sound practice, these teenagers also need to be taught how to use contraceptives as well. Many conservatives feel that teaching anything other than abstinence will send a message to these teenagers that it’s ok to have sex. Wake up call…they’re already having sex. What they need to learn is how not to get pregnant and how to be safe regarding STD’s. Let me pose the situation in a different context. I tell my 9 yr old son when he rides his bike to “stay on the sidewalk”. Now, because I feel very strongly that the sidewalk is the safest route for him to ride, this does not mean that I will not explain to him the rules of the road. The goal is to teach all children how to live life the right way but, to give them the skills they need to survive if they stray.