Non-renewal Clause Tweaked by Texas Senate

Here’s the problem.  The biennial budget that the House will vote on near the end of the legislative session in early June comes more than 45 days after Texas school districts are contractually liable to notify their teaching staff whether they will be getting a contract for the next school year or not.

In other words, school districts need to know how many teachers it can afford to pay, but won’t actually know how much they will be getting to pay them until after they issue notifications of non-renewal.

So what do you do? The thought that most people would have, as I would, is plan for the worst case scenario and act accordingly. Then if somehow the budget crisis is less of a crisis than people thought it would be, school districts would be laying off more teachers than they needed to.

But you can’t do anything about the 45 days. That is already in the contract. So here is what the Senate Education Committee came up as a compromise. Currently a teacher has 15 days from getting pink slipped to file for a hearing. Fifteen days to put their case together. The Education Committee refers that period as a “cooling off period.” So here is their idea: give the teacher 30 days to mull things over before they have to file for a hearing.

Wow.

You know, the only real useful thing about this tweak in the rules is the practicalities of needing more time than you usually have for arranging and then holding these hearings. If what we are all hearing in the news is the case, there could be upwards of 100,000 of these hearings.

But I think the main thing that comes out of this is exactly this: this is their little way of letting the teachers know that they’re working on this.

How comforting.

A State Property Tax in Texas?

You could have knocked me over with a feather.

State Senator Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock) has suggested (again) that Texas solve its arcane system of taxation by instituting a system that seems to work in other foreign states: instead of having local school districts and counties see to the collection of property taxes for the purpose of local public education, why not have that function transferred to the state? Let the state collect property taxes. Education funding would then come 100% from state sources.

Gone would be the court-mandated reforms that maligned the once revered name of Robin Hood.

Gone would be the complex, some would say, Byzantine system of education finance that has resulted in the crisis in education delivery that we now face.

I guess it takes a crisis of these kinds of severe proportions to get Republicans to sit up and listen to the reformers.

Amazingly, here is an exchange between Duncan, uber-conservative Dan Patrick, and State Senate education guru Florence Shapiro:

Patrick (commenting on Texas’ system of educational fund collection): 

“This is what’s wrong with government…it’s inexplicable. It’s like the IRS code.”

Shapiro:

“No, it’s worse.”

Patrick:

“There must be a simpler way.”

Duncan (somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I would say):

“I’ve got it, Statewide property tax”

Tongue-in-cheek because Duncan floated that idea a year ago but if fell on deaf ears.

Well the ears have become unclogged because now we’ve got these two agreeing with him, it seems.

So Duncan seems to be again making the proposal that the constitution be amended to allow the state to be the property taxing vehicle, removing it from local authority. One result of this, you would think, is a uniform taxation rate across the state rather than some counties maintaining low rates, while others do not.

Here’s the rub: the constitutional amendment must be approved by Texas voters in off-off year elections, ones that draw only the truly concerned to the polls. All you would need is one ad campaign frightening Texas voters into thinking that they will be paying more in taxes because state government is less efficient than county government.

Or they could just blatantly lie and say that this is a new tax on top of local property taxes. Delivery of lies to effect a political agenda has been done before.

And again, not that this will matter a whit to the coming 2011-2012 school year. Even if the tax structure is totally revamped in this legislative session, the die is already cast unless someone can check the under the sofa cushions and find a few billion dollars they forgot about.

Here It Comes, A Voter ID Bill for You and Me

The Texas State Senate is debating today about the Voter ID bill, a moot point, really because the Republicans have enough votes for easy passage in both Houses, particularly because Senate rules have been changed specifically for this red meat conservative issue.

But I really liked the opening debate, about the “constitutionality” of the bill.

A better word, I think, would be legality.

From the Austin American-Statesman:

“[State Sen. Troy] Fraser (the bill’s author) said earlier in the day that the provisions of the bill were carefully researched and will pass a constitutional challenge. ‘There's no question,’ Fraser said.”

The constitutional challenge, it would seem is really an issue with squaring this soon-to-be law with the Voting Rights Act passed way back in 1964. Texas, you see, was on the wrong side of the War of Northern Aggression, a lesson that was not learned as they continued to oppress African-Americans with Jim Crow Laws, laws that prevented black people from voting, among other things.

The Voting Rights Act specifically targets 15 states who have acted poorly in the past, and any state law passed that affects the voting process must be reviewed by the federal Department of Justice.

Fraser points to the voter ID law passed in Indiana, a law that has continued to pass muster in court challenges, all the way up to the US Supreme Court. The Texas bill, Fraser says, is patterned after the Indiana law.

Indiana, however, has one thing going for it that Texas doesn’t: it isn’t one of those 15 exceptional states listed in the VRA.

Well, then there’s Georgia, which also fought on the same side as Texas in the War of Northern Aggression, also had similar laws to persecute their former slaves, and also has a voter ID law. Fraser says he patterned his bill after Georgia’s bill – the Texas bill is even a little more severe, he says.

Fine, except that the Georgia voter ID law has been under review by the Feds and in a recent letter to the Georgia Attorney General, we see that they do have some problems with the Georgia law.

“We have carefully considered the information you have provided, as well as information from interested parties. Under Section 5, the Attorney General must determine whether the submitting authority has met its burden of showing that the proposed change “neither has the purpose nor will have the effect” of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color or membership in a language minority group. As discussed further below, I cannot conclude that the state has sustained its burden in this instance. Therefore, based on the information available to us, I must object to the voter verification program on behalf of the Attorney General.”

So talk about a supreme waste of time and taxpayer money. Here we are in a $27 billion deficit and the Senate (and later on, the House) are frittering away their time (and our money) debating a bill whose future is doomed to the waste heap that Jim Crow Laws have been thrown to.

Texans must love it how these guys waste money.

 

Nineteen is Enough Says State Senator Uresti

This past week SB 1049 was voted out of the Texas Senate’s Health and Human Services Committee with a vote of 9 Ayes and 0 Nos. The bill, authored by State Senator Carlos Uresti, and co-authored by John Carona, Chuy Hinojosa, Joan Huffman and Jane Nelson, changes Section 161.081 of the states Health and Safety Code by crossing out the number 18, and replacing it with the number 19.

The bill would raise the legal age to buy tobacco products in the state of Texas by one year.

Senator Uresti, in filing the bill last February, had this to say:

“SB 1049 will remove the opportunity for underage tobacco consumption by raising the tobacco purchasing age to 19. Studies from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that sixty percent of teen smokers get their cigarettes from older friends and siblings. There are many high school students who are legally able to purchase tobacco products, and these students are in a position to provide tobacco products to their underage peers in school.”

“Ninety percent of all adult smokers begin smoking while they are in their teens. Studies indicate that the longer we keep teens from smoking, the fewer adult smokers we will have in the future. This bill is good public health policy, and it is an excellent health promotion tool for our youth”

Senator Uresti noted that tobacco-related illnesses contribute to $5.83 billion dollars in Texas health care costs per year, and $1.6 billion of those costs are borne by the State's Medicaid system.

One argument against this legislation has surfaced. That an 18-year old who is old enough to fight and die in war, should be old enough to poison him- or herself by intentionally inhaling carcinogens.

Phillip Morris, which has a stake in getting American teens hooked on their product, has kept mum about this, probably because they are too busy getting millions of others addicted to their product in Asia.

Uresti et al. have taken a good first step toward ending the disease of tobacco addiction in our time, but unfortunately this bill does not go far enough.

I have a modest suggestion. To this number, 19, add another number. Add another “1.” Let’s call a spade a spade, huh? This is an addictive material that is ultimately lethal. There is no sane reason to take up the habit.

Uresti’s reasoning runs that if the state can prevent an 18 year old from buying tobacco for yet another year, their brains will mature enough so that fewer of them will ultimately make the wrong health and lifestyle choice.

I say add a “1.” Make it legal for 119 year-old people to buy tobacco products.

Heck, if they lived that long, they deserve to treat themselves to a little suicidal behavior now and then, don’t they?

SB 220: Texas Senate Gets Punked

When the Texas Senate sat down to consider Senate Bill 220, a bill “relating to the conversion of a nontolled state highway or segment of the state highway system to a toll project” you have to wonder what they were thinking.

Clearly from the wording, this bill seeks to create toll roads out of roads that were built with taxpayer dollars, and used by the taxpayers for free.

But that’s not what its author, Texas State Senator Robert Nichols claimed.

In fact, Nichols claimed the bill would do just the opposite, which would allay the fears of Texans that “the roads they drive on this year will not have toll booths on them next year.”

Not true, says TURF, or Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom. a non-profit organization whose mission is to educate the public on Texas’s new shift to tolling. TURF is one of the organizations that stood up and educated the public on the evils of the Trans Texas Corridor, a project that has since been killed by an almost universal public loathing from folks of any political stripe.

From TURF’s website:

“SB 220 authored by Senator Robert Nichols actually opens a NEW loophole that would allow existing highway lanes to be tolled and the free lanes to be subsequently downgraded to access roads. This bill would legalize the conversions of at least three highways: 281 N and 1604 in Bexar County and 290 E in Travis County. SB 220 passed the Senate 31-0 despite citizen concerns, TURF testimony, and our action alert notifying EVERY single senator of this problem.”

“‘It's an outrage that the author of this bill, Senator Nichols, is out there touting that he's ended the tolling of existing highways, and he knows his bill does just the opposite! He's an ex-Transportation Commissioner who not only was involved in writing the first bill to address tolls on existing highways that had the original loopholes back in 2005 (SB 2702), but also he was present when Governor Perry signed the contract with Cintra for the Trans Texas Corridor, and he has plenty of ties to and funding from the highway lobby. He knows exactly what he's doing. The leopard is showing his spots,’ explains Terri Hall TURF Founder.”

So all 31 state senators swallowed Nichols’s story hook, line and sinker and voted for it after having considered it for all of 2 minutes.

And you thought the scammers were all on Wall Street.

Texas Senate Passes Voter ID Bill

We have Bob Sargent to thank for putting this whole voter ID thing in perspective.

So surprise, surprise, the Senate voted to pass the bill, SB 362, by a vote of 20 to 12.

That's one more vote than usual because when the Senate meets as a "committee of the whole" the Lt. Governor gets to vote, too.

This vote, then, goes down as the Senate equivalent of a runaway girl's basketball game score.

Who is Testifying at the Senate Hearing on the Voter ID Bill - - - and Who Is Not.

The call out to the public to come to Austin today to give testimony before the Texas Senate on the Voter ID bill, SB 362, currently being considered, was a rousing success. At last count, 120 individuals signed up to address the Senate. At 3 minutes allocated for each, that is 480 minutes of individual testimony.

That’s eight hours.

Minimum (will more speakers sign up yet?).

Plus the minutes spent between speakers.

So the public, intensely interested in this veiled attempt at voter suppression in Texas, in a state that threatens to turn over the majority to Democrats for the first time since 2003, has reacted with the righteous indignation that the bill deserves.

Contrast that to two individuals who will not be showing up to give testimony in this upcoming debate: Texas Attorney General Gregg Abbott, and Texas Secretary of State Hope Andrade.

Abbott says testimony represents a conflict as he will be having to defend the law in court when it gets challenged.

Andrade is out of town on a previous commitment.

I guess no one told Hope Andrade that this bill, if enacted into law, will have a singular effect on her office, and her ability to carry out her responsibilities in running the state’s elections. It will be people at the bottom of the Elections tree that will be having to enforce the restrictive Voter ID rules. It will be her people who will turn voters away from casting their votes at the polls.

But Andrade had a previous engagement.

Abbott, I can understand. This sleight of hand that he proffers, that he cannot comment on a bill that he is all set to support in the courts, gives one pause. Does this mean that he doesn’t really support the bill and cannot comment on it because he must do so in court? That would make more sense.

Fact is, Abbott not only supports the bill, he provides the paltry ammunition that is the bill’s reason for being: there is voter fraud in Texas and this bill will prevent that.

Fact is, if he shows his face in the Senate, he will be open to questions from Democrats who will ask what results came of his $1.4 million investigation in voter fraud in Texas. The answer, I hear, is truly embarrassing.

The point is, 120 (or so) private citizens thought it important enough to make their views heard, and probably went out of their way to do so. Getting time off on a workday is not an easy thing to do.

Abbott and Andrade would have been paid to testify.

But, those are the priorities.

Obvious, isn’t it, that there is no chance for this legislation to be defeated in the Senate, huh? Republicans are just biding their time

And ducking their responsibilities.

Nothing new under the sun.

Voter ID Debate Set to Begin Tomorrow

All year it has been like an approaching maelstrom. The Voter ID Bill, also known as SB 362 authored by Republican State Senator Troy Fraser (R – Horseshoe Bay) is set to be debated, and individuals who want to give testimony against this bill are being solicited to appear tomorrow and be heard.

The first thunderclap was a rule change in the state senate. The usual 2/3ds rule, where a bill cannot be considered in the state senate without a 2/3 majority vote, was waived on the second day of the 81^st Legislature. Now, and for this matter only, this will require only a simple majority in the Senate for the bill to be brought to the floor.

It will be remembered that during the last legislative session, a similar voter ID bill was turned aside in the senate by a single vote, that of State Senator Carlos Uresti, who took a gamble with his very life and had his hospital bed trundled into the senate to cast his vital “No” vote to prevent the bill from being debated in the Senate.

Senator Uresti was recovering from a very recent liver transplant operation.

So the bill is a shoe-in in the state senate, with a 19-12 Republican majority.

The state house, though, is a whole different animal.

With a very tight 76-74 majority in the House, Republicans are less assured of a victory there.

Especially given the past performance of two returning Republican State Reps, Rep. Delwin Jones (R – Lubbock), and Rep. Tommy Merritt (R - Longview). Both Jones and Merritt voted against the 2007 Voter ID bill.

This article in the Austin American-Statesman reveals that while neither of them will say how they will vote in the upcoming foecal storm, saying that they are going to wait and see what happens in the Senate, Jones has said in the past that poll workers would be harder to recruit if they were required to ask for the proper photo ID from voters, adding “I haven't seen any strong evidence of illegal voting.”

By the same token, Senator Merritt seems to be equally lukewarm to the notion of having a voter ID law in Texas: “The party is not focused on what's important to the people.” Of greater interest to his constituents, claims Merritt, are “economic woes, the decline in their 401K funds and how to survive in retirement”

And it is true that there is no evidence of voter fraud in Texas, the condition that SB 362 seeks to remedy. Despite the excessive efforts of Texas AG Gregg Abbott, who has, according to reports, spent $1.4 million investigating alleged voter fraud cases throughout the state, he has yet to come up with a single voter fraud case. Abbott has not seen one successful prosecution, only a bunch of harried senior citizens of the minority persuasion.

That and a set of suspect documents from South Texas. Documents suspected to be doctored.

Whatever the outcome, tomorrow will be a display of vintage Texas Politics, the politics that make you cringe when the Legislature comes in session, and the politics that make you wish for a real legislature made up of people who spend all of their time in public service.

And are paid a living wage for the service.

Texas House and Senate Switch Roles

Well it’s official. Partisanship again will be the rule and not the exception in the 81^st Texas Legislature. Now you would have thought that the Republican lunkheads in the Senate might have paid attention to the voting trends from last November elections. Even here in Red Texas Democrats made inroads in nearly every county except for that pocket way up there in the northeast – the tail end of what I have come to call America’s “Cracker Belt.” But yesterday the Texas Senate ensured a continuation of the political angst that so defined the 80^th Legislature.

Senate Republicans voted to do away with the 2/3rds rule. The rule that allows bills to come to the Senate floor for debate only after an aye vote from 21 of the 31 Senators. The rule was a good one that kept disorder, that was so prevalent in the Texas House in the last session, from intruding in the Senate. From The Chron:

“The so-called two-thirds rule is designed to foster consensus on issues, as opposed to the Texas House, where the party in control can pass bills without support from the minority party.”

But now, with near parity in the House, Republicans may well find that they have to play nice with House Democrats rather than ram through divisive partisan legislation, as they did in 2007. Legislation that then died in the Senate because of the two-thirds rule.

The one lone Republican hold-out in the Senate, Senator John Carona of Dallas, explained his “no” vote, that it “sends a terrible message” to the voters in light of what has happened in the House, and how voters are crying out for a bipartisan legislature.

Carona, it should be noted, is from Dallas which flipped in its demographics in the past few years, and these days send only Democrats to positions in government. Indeed, Carona was re-elected to his seat by a comfortable 64% to 34% in 2002, but that lead shrunk to 56% to 41% in 2008. At that rate, Democrats should be at parity in SD 16 by 2014.

So the Texas House and Senate have switched roles. Now we will have a bipartisan spirit in the House reject the uber-partisanship of the new Texas minority – the Bible belt neocons, and a newly polarized right wing Senate that will lead the way to the vile agenda of the Dark Side.

Chairman Boyd Richie: Vote Now! Vote Bell!

I was going to make one more final post on the SD 17 special election with a reiteration of the essential information, but now I find that Boyd Richie has done my work for me. Here is what I found in my email inbox from TDP Chairman Richie

Dear fellow Democrats,

Election Day for the Senate District 17 runoff between Chris Bell and his Republican opponent is TOMORROW, Tuesday, December 16th. Chris and his supporters have been working tirelessly by knocking on doors, making phone calls and talking to voters across the district. Chris can win this race, and we can return responsible leadership to Senate District 17, but only if we get each and every one of Chris's supporters gets to the polls on Election Day. Below is information about voting in the runoff election.

Election Day for the District 17 runoff is Tuesday, Dec. 16.

Where to Vote
Click on your county to find a list of polling places, by precinct and by Zip Code:
Brazoria
Fort Bend
Galveston
Harris
Jefferson

When to Vote
On Election Day, Dec. 16, polling places are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

Problems?
Report problems immediately at (713) 667-8990

Need A Ride?
Call (713) 667-8990 or Email lindsay@chrisbell.com

Have a Ride to Share?
If you would like to volunteer or help get people to their voting place, call (713) 667-8990 or Email lindsay@chrisbell.com

For more information visit the Chris Bell Website or call (713) 667-8990

Let's help Chris finish strong. Working together, we can overcome Republican cronyism and take back this State Senate seat. Thank you for your continued support, and thank you for being a Texas Democrat.

Your friend and fellow Democrat,

Boyd L. Richie

Chairman

Texas Democratic Party

At the Chris Bell for Texas Senate Headquarters Grand Opening

In the build-up to his SD 17 special election runoff race that will end in just 3 weeks, Chris Bell is opening up campaign headquarters all over the senate district, which gerrymanders its way along the Gulf Coast from the Texas-Louisiana border, takes a right after passing Freeport and hooks through Brazoria County up to Fort Bend County.

Today a Grand Opening celebration took place at his Fort Bend County headquarters.

A small but dedicated group of supporters helped him celebrate the opening along with nearly all of the Democrats who hold office in and around Fort Bend County.

I took photos.

I took video.

Here is video number one. I apologize in advance for the shaky picture. I was not in the best place to take the shots that I took, and even had to hold the camera over my head at times. Richard Morrison, appointed the master of ceremonies for the afternoon because, he said, of his recent election into county office, introduced Fort Bend County Constable Ruben Davis, and Congressman Al Green.

Then Chris Bell spoke.



Nick Lampson was running late, but finally showed up just as Chris Bell was winding down his speech. Here is Nick Lampson showing support, finding out about when Election Day was, and recalling his own runoff race in December 1996 against Republican Steve Stockman.

One thing I am going to miss about Nick Lampson, other than the fact that sometimes I had my congressman vote my way, is that thing that he does with his voice. That thing that got Howard Dean in so much trouble several years back.

Nick does it just right.

Congressman Al Green: Vote Chris Bell, Then Vote Democratic

It has been over a week since the Fort Bend Democrats held their election kickoff Labor Day barbecue in Sugar Land, but I have yet to put up all the video that I took at the event.

Al Green had lots to say and I got him saying a few of those things before my camera’s memory card filled up. It seems my math isn’t up to snuff. I can’t divide 4.096 times ten to the ninth by 1.048 times ten to the six. Not in my head, anyway. It comes out to a little more than 4, which is the size of the memory card. 4 gigs.

Anyway, some of the things that Al Green had to say were some rather nice things about Chris Bell, who had just left the event to attend another function.

Here is what he said.

Chris Bell: Why I Am Running For Texas Senate - Part 1

First let me say this one more time. People who say that Chris Bell is too bland for their political tastes don’t take the time to listen, really listen, to one of his speeches. Sure he is not king of the sound bite, and if sound bites are your thing, then maybe Chris Bell is not.

What Chris Bell is, is the king of the most subtle form of humor known to man or woman. His humor is one that builds. He takes punches at himself as well. See if you agree with me by clicking on the You Tube embedded video below.

The video was shot by yours truly at the Fort Bend Democrats’ Labor Day campaign kickoff in Sugar Land only yesterday. He spoke for about 11 minutes, which is 1 minute over YouTube’s 10 minute time limit. So I found a place roughly halfway through his speech and cut it at a transition. So this is Part 1 of 2. Look for Part 2 tomorrow.

Hey, don’t blame me, this takes a lot of time.



By the way, The Houston Chronicle this morning reported that a total of 6 people were in the SD 17 special election. There was a rumor circulating that the Republicans were recruiting a “Democrat” to split the Democratic vote and force a run-off. Well that seems to have happened. Whoever this person is, isn’t a resident of Fort Bend County.

I checked.

Chris Bell Going for Texas Senate District 17?

It has been awhile since we’ve heard anything about a Democrat stepping up to run in the Texas SD 17 special election to replace Kyle Janek, who resigned from his seat after serving only 2 years of his 6-year term.

But now, today, on the 4th of July, I find in my email inbox an invitation to attend a reception at the Galveston Yacht Club that will honor Joe Jaworski, - who we all know is running against incumbent Mike Jackson for the SD 11 seat – AND Chris Bell who, it seems, has “Texas Senate District 17” under his name on the invitation.

My guess is, since I have seen nothing about this in the news or on the blogs, this is Chris Bell’s way of letting the cat out of the bag.

An interesting day to announce this. July 4th. Friday.

Oh, by the way, if you want to attend this reception, here are the particulars:

When: Thursday, July 24th, 2008, 5:30 – 7::00 PM
Where: Galveston Yacht Club, 601 Holiday Dr. Galveston [map]

My guess is that this is for high rollers only. At 150 miles round trip, that’s 21 dollars in gas alone.

UPDATE:

Apparently Chris Bell is willing to have his name placed on the invitation for a reception in which he will appear, as a potential candidate, but not necessarily as a confirmed candidate in the SD 17 special election. He says that he will make a decision to go or to not go 4 days before the filing deadline.

Pfffffttttt!

What a way to begin.

Sound Mind, Sound Body, Sound Profits

When Republicans get together to help the children, in Texas at least, you have to follow the money.

Why would state Sen. Jane Nelson (R-Lewisville) author a bill (SB 530) to mandate 30 minutes per day of exercise for middle and junior high school students? Is there a genuine concern for their health? Are middle schoolers getting too fat? That’s what Nelson, an ex-teacher ex-state school board member says.

"Anyone who has taught public school knows the old adage of 'sound body, sound mind' really is true. This generation of young people will live shorter lives than their parents unless we change the status quo. We've got to do this”

That sounds completely reasonable, doesn’t it?

Another quote from Nelson from the same article. Follow the money:

"By implementing these requirements and having a tool to measure how increased fitness levels affect learning, Texas is at the forefront of addressing the issue of childhood obesity."

There it is, “having a tool to measure . . .”. The tool, in this case is a piece of software written by one Kenneth Cooper, a Dallas-based “exercise researcher” called Fitnessgram. The program is in use in Austin schools, and is likely to be the program of choice for middle and junior high schools statewide. Why? Jeff Kloster, who is the Health and Safety commissioner at the TEA says “it will probably be chosen because it is the most widely used in Texas and one of the most highly recognized fitness assessment tools nationwide.”

Nelson’s bill provides no funding to purchase a site license for the software at every middle and junior high school in the state. Another one of those “we mandate it you fund it bills” that the legislature likes to foist on already strapped school district budgets.

While Cooper says he is willing to forgo any profits for his software ($260 per site license), he is also working on arranging for grants to pay the balance. Arranging for grants to line his pockets.

According to TEA records there are 1268 middle and junior high schools in Texas’ total of 9083 schools. That means a cool $329,680.00 in gross sales, with a net profit of $291,640.00. That’s not a bad combined return on investment.

Return on investment? Oh, did I mention that Cooper contributed a total of $12,000.00 to the campaigns of Nelson and Rick Perry? So this calculates out to a profit to investment ratio of 24.3. Oil wells are drilled with lower P/I ratios. This is a goldmine.

Crash and Burn: Shapiro’s SB 101 Turned Away

When the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Texas’ affirmative action law in regard to admission to its premier state university (and awarding the complainants, a dollar each, as I recall), the Texas legislature responded and adopted “the 10% rule”. The rule guaranteed admission to these premier schools, of the top 10% of each graduating class of every high school in the Texas public schools system.

It was eminently fair. It leveled the playing field. Rural schools with fewer resources had just as much chance of having their top 10% high school graduates admitted to Texas' premier universities as urban elite schools.

Florence Shapiro, for some reason, decided to cut that number in half. Why? It became clear that as student populations increased and classroom capacity did not increase, that those lower performing students were being sent elsewhere. That is, a student in the 11th percentile at an elite school where the competition was fierce, was being turned away in favor of a student from a more rural school with lower competition for the top ten percent. Students "legacies" (children of UT graduates), students with sports scholarships most certainly had difficulty finding admission.

So Florence Shapiro’s SB 101 sought to cap the top 10% to 50 percent of those within the top 10% (she later upped it to 60%).

The problem was that classrooms were full. Enrollment did not allow anyone but to 10 percenters to enter Texas’ top universities.

Shapiro’s bill sought to solve the problem by stemming the flow of students. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Shapiro should instead have filed a bill to provide additional funds to hire additional professors to teach additional classes that takes advantage of the fact that classrooms can be occupied during evening hours as well as daylight hours.

Accommodating all of these students.

But what I am thinking is that Shapiro had no desire to keep the playing field level. She wanted to throw enrollment open to less deserving lower ability children of moneyed parents.

No, Florence, we have a solution already in place there, as well.

It's called Baylor University.

The bill failed after emotional speeches by one pro-education member after another.

Yea: 69 Nay: 75

Well done members.

SB 1031 To The Governor’s Desk

It’s not the budget, but at least we will have new testing parameters for all students in the state of Texas to graduate from high school. And if you thought that SB 1031 was all about testing, TAKS to EOC exams, you’d almost be right.

Almost.

I compared the Introduced version of SB 1031, one that I expounded on in this post, to the enrolled version that is going to the governor’s desk to be signed.

The introduced version is 22 pages long. The enrolled version is 36 pages long. That’s a 63% rate of expansion.

So what is new here? Primarily it has to do with an oversight committee that was added.

It’s all in the description

Introduced:

“relating to the administration of certain assessment instruments in public schools; providing a criminal penalty.”

Enrolled:

“relating to public school accountability and the administration of certain assessment instruments in public schools; providing a criminal penalty”

More accountability.

The oversight committee will be a 15 member committee with, among others, members chosen by the governor, lieutenant governor, and House Speaker. Their charge is “to conduct a comprehensive review of the public school accountability system.”

Mainly it relates to the new “assessment instruments” but it goes beyond that, mandating that they rate the accountability system vis-à-vis the NCLB requirements. They will conduct hearings and get feedback from the public (aka whining from the parents).

The only good thing about this section of the bill is that the committee goes away on January 13th 2009.

Other changes made:

An actual fix to a problem that I saw immediately. If the EOC exam will count for 15% of a student’s final grade in the course, how does that work if the student retakes the exam? Well, how it works is this: the original EOC grade stays with the student’s course grade, but the final EOC grade is included in the student’s “cumulative grade”.

EOCs will be administered 2 weeks later than TAKS were – early May

EOC scores go on the student’s permanent record.

EOC may be an existing test, and not one developed specifically by the state as in TAKS.

Added to the Introduced bill in the section where bill required that EOC tests contain optional questions that will rate a student’s college readiness, addition of optional questions to assess a student’s likelihood of succeeding in an AP class.

This one is a little weird. Why this? It isn’t like the questions are binding or anything, as the section includes language that states that students cannot be turned away from taking an AP class because of their performance on these test questions.

I smell the College Board’s hand in this. They’re auditing AP classes nationwide right now to cull out courses that do not meet their minimum standards. Yep, this is from the College Board.

EOC cumulative score rules are given some very odd rules in addition to the odd rules that existed in the Introduced version.

Kept: Cumulative scores of all EOCs must average a 70 in order for the student to graduate. There are other rules here, but they apply to graduation plans and I won’t go into that for now.

Also kept: the individual scores on EOCs can be below 70, just as long as the average of all scores is 70 or above.

New in the Enrolled version: A student who scores below a 60 cannot have their test included in the cumulative score. That is, you can’t score a 50 on an Algebra II EOC, and a 90 on a World Geography EOC, and have that 50 count toward a 70 average score.

If the student doesn’t score at least 60, they must retake the test.

And a new score rule added to SB 1031 that is positively draconian. Senior students who are deemed “unlikely to achieve the minimum EOC cumulative score” in a subject area must enroll in a class in the deficient subject area during their senior year and pass the EOC, but on a scale of 40 – a curved score. A very nicely curved score.

They pushed back full implementation of the EOCs to ninth graders entering high school in the 2011-2012 school year. I suppose this has something to do with the 15-member committee on accountability filing its report in January 2009.

And lastly, where the Introduced version required that all 10th grade students take the NMSQT (National Merit Test) – fully funded by the state – the Enrolled version does not specify which test, just that it be national and norm-referenced.

Like the NMSQT. Or do we have others who are coming out with tests?

There are a few other changes, but these are what I consider to be the major changes. I thought that I’d share them with you.

But has anyone else other than I realized that between now and full implementation of this new testing system, we will have the 81st and 82nd Legislatures to redeal with this?

Oh, and all that stuff that Shapiro included on punishing teachers in the Introduced version?

They kept all of that

Tempête de Merde in the Texas Senate Today

I’ve often wondered why women accompany each other to the restroom when maybe only one of them needs to go there for some reason.

You’ve seen it a hundred times.

“Please excuse me, I need to powder my nose, want to come with me?”

”OK”.

Well, Texas State Senator Leticia Van de Putte (D-San Antonio) gave new meaning to this foible that afflicts most women I know. Now when she has to go to the restroom, she says that she will take a Republican with her.

The vote to bring that heinous voter ID bill to the Senate floor today was well-timed on the part of the Republicans and Lt. Governor Dewhurst. In a singular sleight of hand, somehow the Senate Secretary missed Senator Whitmire's Nay vote that he cast, and then exited the floor. His name was repeatedly called at the end of the roll call vote as Senator Whitmire was taking care of business in the restroom. With Senator Uresti being bedridden, the vote to suspend the rules and bring HB 218 to the floor passed 19-9. Ten votes are needed to block the bill from being heard, and one of them was in his sickbed, and the other one was draining the main vein.

Whitmire, upon hearing that they had missed his vote, started pounding his table. Van de Putte threatened to filibuster the bill. Numerous stalls occurred as Senator Uresti climbed out of his sickbed and rushed into the Senate chamber. Dewhurst, perhaps seeing the tempête de merde build to heights that would most certainly come back to haunt him, allowed the vote to be retaken, and the bill was blocked by a vote of 20-11.

Yes, it’s either do as Van de Putte suggests, take a Republican colleague to the restroom with you, or it’s NASA’s solution. Or if that seems to be a little messy, then perhaps at least the male members can get trained in self-catheterization.

Florence Shapiro Lays Another Egg

Texas State Senator Florence Shapiro is having a field day with Texas public school teachers this session. Her SB 1643 is a particularly menacing bill that links student progress on standardized tests to whether the teacher should be fired.

I kid you not.

Here’s how it works.

First, Shapiro’s bill redefines what will go into a teacher’s annual professional evaluation. In Texas it is called a PDAS or Professional Development and Appraisal System.

Here, in addition to what is already included in an appraisal, is what Shapiro wants Texas teachers to be evaluated on:

The recommended appraisal process must provide that consideration of criteria relating to student performance under Subsection (a)(2) constitutes a majority of a teacher's appraisal. Additionally, the recommended appraisal process must provide that the portion of a teacher's appraisal that concerns student performance is conducted in accordance with the following guidelines:
(1) at least 25 percent of that portion of the appraisal must be based on objective, quantifiable measures of the achievement and progress of the teacher's students, such as state assessment instruments, local benchmarking systems, portfolio assessments, and value-added assessments;
(2) at least 10 percent of that portion of the appraisal must be based on the overall performance or progress of students enrolled at the teacher's campus;
(3) measures of student progress must be used whenever possible; and
(4) observable measures of student performance may be used when appropriate.

This is the ultimate in adding professional insult to injury. Now we have a State Senator who wants to rate a teacher’s effectiveness based not only on their own students’ test scores but also on the test scores of every other teachers’ students in the school.

Now this ordinarily would bring stretches and yawns to veteran teachers. PDAS evaluations are a joke. They offer no incentive to be highly rated, and are typically not used to get rid of a teacher.

Not this time.

Reading further down we find this in the bill:

Sec. 21.3531. TEACHER PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PLAN;
CONSEQUENCES OF UNSATISFACTORY APPRAISAL
(d) If a teacher receives an unsatisfactory appraisal for three consecutive years, a school district shall decline to renew the teacher's contract in the manner provided by this chapter.

Did you see that? “Shall” not “may”. The district must fire a teacher if after three years their students are still doing poorly on state mandated standardized tests.

That makes the bill unfriendly.

Want to hear some consequences if this bill becomes law?

(1) No teacher will want to teach low ability students. Teaching low ability students will spell a death sentence for a teacher. I personally know teachers who request nothing but students with low learning ability because they feel they are most effective with these kids. Effective enough to get them to pass TAKS? Not always. There are other things to teach these kids – things that they can use.

Imagine teaching a class full of students with sub-100 IQs, dyslexia, Turret’s, Limited English Proficiency, and out and out sociopaths, all of this mixed in with “G/T Gangstas” who are too busy writing computer programs to do their chemistry homework. It’s a zoo.

And it’s a zoo that no one will want to teach anymore if it means that they will be fired in 3 years.

(2) In the public school system, as opposed to private school, all students are welcomed. Private schools have screening tests and “cherry pick” their student body. But if a teacher’s job depends on student performance, doesn’t it become the right of an individual teacher to refuse to teach someone? I am reaching a little here, but not much. I think the US Constitution's 14th Amendment is applicable:

“…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.

If it means being fired, then I think this means teachers have the right to say “No” to teaching a student.

(3) Given that (2) above is ignored, what would stop an administrator or a counselor from loading an unwanted or unpopular teacher with classfulls of low performance students? It can be done, you know. Easily. After 3 years the state ties their hands and the teacher has to go.

All I could come up with, for now, are three horrific outcomes. With outcomes like this, who in their right mind would want to teach in Texas public schools? Who does Ms. Shapiro think will step up to the plate to teach Texas youth when all that gets pitched at them are beanballs?

If I think of other outcomes, I will post updates to this.

Dan Patrick Looking Out For His Good Buddy Tom DeLay

Oh my.

I must have been looking the other way when Danny Boy slipped this little nugget in.

Conservative talk show host cum State Senator Dan Patrick recently introduced into the Senate a package of bills that he dubbed “reform bills”

Among them are a bill and a joint resolution. HB 630 and SJR 26. SJR 26 is a joint resolution calling for Texas voters to vote on a constitutional amendment in November. What constitutional amendment would that be? Read it and weep.

“A. Article IV, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 22a to read as follows:
Sec. 22a. To the extent provided by general law, the attorney general may represent the state in the district and inferior courts in the prosecution of criminal and civil offenses classified by law as offenses against public administration, including ethics offenses, or as offenses involving insurance fraud.”

It’s a little insidious if you look at the companion bill that Patrick has filed. HB 630.

Scroll on down to line 26 to 27. You will see that HB 630 takes away the purview of the Travis County District Attorney, currently Ronnie Earle, to oversee criminal prosecutions of state officials, and gives it to a new “public integrity unit” that functions under the state Attorney General.

It’s like putting the wolf in charge of the hen house.

This is clearly an ill-disguised way to take prosecutorial power away from one of the most liberal counties in Red Texas, and place it in the hands of one of the most pliant and obsequious offices in the state. Greg Abbott prosecutes Tom DeLay for money laundering? Greg Abbot brings Tom DeLay to trial for conspiring to turn $190,000 of TRMPAC money over to the campaign funds of state representatives and senators?

Don’t be ridiculous.

And finally, to top the whole thing off, to call for a constitutional amendment vote in an odd-numbered year is to request for voters to vote in a bad amendment that works against the interest of the people. Remember Proposition 2 in 2005? It was a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as “the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

I remember standing in a long line to vote on that day. Everyone, and I mean everyone in line knew each other.

They all went to the same church.

It varies by state, but in general the percentage of people who are in favor of (or just don’t care about) gay marriage to those who oppose it is generally a 50:50 split. In Texas, I suspect it’s more like 40:60. Do you wonder what the statewide vote tally was on Proposition 2? From the Secretary of State's election results website:

Prop. 2 Same sex marriage denied legal status

IN FAVOR 1,723,782 76.25%
AGAINST 536,913 23.74%

So let’s get another bad amendment voted for in an off-year election in numbers that do not reflect in any way, shape or form, the consensus of Texas voter opinion.

It’s Democracy with a capital T.