State Closes Sam Houston High School (HISD)

Citing the poor academic record of Sam Houston High School, which has received an AEIS rating of “Unacceptable” for the sixth straight year, the Texas Education Agency has ordered this North Houston school’s doors closed and 75% of its teachers were told that they would not have jobs there next year.

The school will be reopened in August, possibly with a new name, definitely with some new teachers, and, it is said, with “new programs.”

Now looking at the school’s AEIS report on the TEA website I concede the point that the school has had some academic hard knocks. Scoring below the Texas average in all areas, with a dismal 36% of students passing all TAKS tests, yes I can see their point. And a 12% dropout rate, yes I can see their point (it’s probably much higher than that – they usually are no matter what school we are talking about).

Obviously things are broken at Houston’s Sam Houston High School. This is a real shame. This is one of Texas’ oldest continuous secondary schools having been organized in 1878 and having had several name changes and locations since then. The last time the name changed, from Central High School to Sam Houston, was 1955, so I guess it is time for a new name.

But here are the questions I have. Are we going to see a 75% turnover in teachers because they were a) failures at teaching these students enough to pass the TAKS test, or b) not the kind of teachers they will need next year when they reopen the school with “new programs.” Or maybe some combination of the two?

This is getting back to a very sore subject with me. The rating of the worth of teachers, or their skills as teachers, based on their students’ test scores. Based on the culture and economic composition of the community.

It’s like rating the performance of a dentist based on the oral health of their patients. That sounds reasonable but what if you rate dentists from rural areas whose patients do not have dental insurance and make appointments only when there’s something wrong, versus rating dentists in an urban area whose insured clientele comes in twice a year for a cleaning and examination?

Clearly there is more to this than poorly performing teachers.

Now from what I can glean, which is precious little, these "new programs" should by all rights more properly address the needs of the community. It’s obvious that there is very little community buy-in to the state’s academic curriculum by community members. Community members who are parents of failing students.

I think that is reasonable.

However, if HISD emplaces “new programs” and this no more serves the community than the state academic curriculum, I have to ask when are we finally going to realize that we have in this state students who don’t want to learn, who have parents who are unconcerned with their children’s academic failures?

Bottom line: A child’s failure to learn is not necessarily the effect of their teacher’s failure to teach. It can and does, in many cases, reflect back on the students or their parents.

I wonder what will happen at that point. What will the state finally do if it discovers that there are no “new programs” that will cater to that special community that doesn’t value education of any kind?

My best guess is absolutely nothing. It’s better (and I might add, cheaper) just to stick your head in the sand and ignore the problem. Or if not nothing, then school vouchers will rear its ugly head once again. Give school vouchers to these families so they can find better schools for their children to attend, because the problem lies with the schools, not the students, parents or community. And therein lies the rub. Give vouchers, and only those who are concerned about their education will take the time and trouble to find better schools. For the rest it will be business as usual.

Only now, instead of having 36% pass all TAKS tests, none of them will. Because those students in that 36% category will all be attending other schools.

James Leininger All Set to Kick 2000 Kids Out Into the Streets

No, I didn’t say it, he did. Texas millionaire James Leininger has told the Texas legislature that they need to take over his project – a 10-year, $50 million commitment funding a program for students in San Antonio's Edgewood school district - which is set to expire next year.

If they don’t act, Leininger says, the 2,000 students that attend a private school under his personally bankrolled school voucher program will be "out on the street".

Man, that’s a little cold.

And a little wrong.

First, I assume that these students who have been, up to now, the beneficiaries of a private school education will have no trouble getting themselves enrolled in a publicly funded school system. Unlike private schools, public schools cannot boot kids out into the streets (although, speaking as a public school educator, you sometimes wish . . . ). Public schools are, by law, obligated to admit anyone under the age of 19.5 years and give them an education.

Here is what Kathy Miller of the anti-voucher Texas Freedom Network said about Leininger’s plans:

"Private schools may be willing to put those kids out on the street, but the great thing about our neighborhood public schools is that they would never do that."

Not only wouldn’t but couldn’t.

Texas Education Code Title 1 Chapter 1§ 1.002:

EQUAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES OR OPPORTUNITIES. (a) An educational institution undertaking to provide education, services, or activities to any individual within the jurisdiction or geographical boundaries of the educational institution shall provide equal opportunities to all individuals within its jurisdiction or geographical boundaries pursuant to this code.

Leininger’s private schools don’t have that rule to live by. How nice.

I think it’s time for James Leininger to take stock of his grand plan. He has fewer supporters in the legislature in this session than last, and the vote just isn’t there. Besides that, he has just illustrated for us one of the less obvious reasons why school voucher programs are a bad idea. What if someone pulls the plug on the voucher system, like Leininger plans to do with his program? Private schools will turn out their voucher students by the thousands, leaving them no choice but to go back to the public schools, which will have no choice but to admit them. These will be schools that will have been underfunded for years because the voucher system redirected funds from public schools to private schools.

And another reason to rethink school vouchers? No one wants them.

School Vouchers: an Unholy Attack on Texas Public Schools

Actually, I need to be slapped around from time to time. Carole Keeton Strayhorn did not invent school vouchers, she merely supported them so she could get elected. Imagine that, an ex-teacher stumping for school vouchers.

Dr. James Leininger practically invented school vouchers – in Texas anyway.

A far right religious conservative, Dr. Leininger is often cast as a person who wants taxpayer money to be diverted from public schools to private (and preferably Christian) schools. He wants tax dollars to be spent by the state to fund religious schools so children can “Come to Jesus”. But I am not sure that is his entire motivation. According to Debbie Nathan of the Austin Chronicle in an excellent compendium of articles on James Leininger, James Leininger was born to a family with deep ties to a branch of the Lutheran church that had a few strident beliefs. However, back in the 70’s there was a unanimous "turn-away" from the Lutheran Church on the parts of Leininger and his siblings. His subsequent return to the fold and his religious-ness has been labeled by Nathan, as “Sun Belt Entrepreneurship”.

Leininger made his bones in hospital beds. You know, the health industry. That they sometimes malfunction and maim or poison their occasional occupants probably has no relationship to Leininger’s other vital interest in torte reform. But I digress.

Take a look at the statistics summarized on a bar graph showing the total yearly outlay of the state of Texas from 1985 to 2005. THE two largest capital outlays are education and health and human services. Nothing else even comes close. Both have gone up nearly every year, but notice the rate of expansion of health and human services? Far greater than education. Capital outlays have expanded year by year such that over the last 3 years Health and Human Services outlays have actually exceeded that of Education.

Now we all know about the rise in medical expenses, but look at that graph. Can the bubble pop? How will we be able to accommodate that continual upward gradient? Easy. It costs the state, on average, about $4500 to educate a child in public school. Private secular schools are even a little more pricey. But private sectarian schools are dirt cheap.Why? You get what you pay for:

Nearly all teachers in Texas traditional public schools are certified, yet slightly over half of charter school teachers are certified. Few to no private school in Texas requires all of their teachers to have classroom teacher certification. That makes teacher pay negotiable. Private school teachers are among the most poorly paid teachers in the education community. In any school system the greatest expenditure is employee salary – just as it is for any given business. Lower employee salaries mean lower overhead and that means lower tuition fees.

So Leininger et al. want people to take state school vouchers, put their kids in sectarian private schools, the state saves money that it can now spend on getting more hospital beds. And everybody’s happy, right? Well, except for one small thing:

School vouchers is a stupendously bad idea. No one wants them.

Voucher schools are not accountable to taxpayers and legislators. At the same time the Texas Legislature and President Bush are imposing stringent accountability mandates on public schools and barring promotion and diplomas to children who do not attain mastery on all TAKS tests. On the other hand, increasing accountability would rankle the sensibilities of sectarian educators.

The best way to assist all low-performing students is by strengthening their public school and addressing individual learning problems directly. Vouchers could take away tax dollars from the public schools where children have the greatest needs.

Right wing arguments against vouchers are a little paranoid, but still carry some validity (they’re only misguided, not stupid). They argue that putting taxpayer dollars into private education would allow the government to make demands on content and accountability.

So everyone is happy but the children. Like government construction jobs, they want to award our children’s education to the lowest bidder.

Dr. James Leininger’s claims that he only wants to “help poor kids in San Antonio who can't get out of a bad school”. This is disingenuous snake oil. Like Hal Holbrook’s character, “Deep Throat” said in the movie “All the President’s Men”, all you have to do is “follow the money”.