Lessons Learned from West: Public Schools are Important

Connally ISD supportes West ISD

West  Independent School District (ISD) and its community are special to me. While attending Baylor University, I did my first semester of student teaching at West Middle School. Growing up in Waco, I played basketball in their gym. I have attended WestFest numerous times, and like many Texans, stopping for  kolaches at the Czech Stop is a ritual. So it was with heavy heart that I watched the terrible fertilizer plant explosion that rocked their entire community. Three of the four school buildings of West ISD were heavily damaged. The West Middle School that I taught at was destroyed.

But in the midst of that horrible tragedy, West’s strong sense of community prevailed. I saw people supporting their public schools – from within the community and around the state. School districts from across Texas immediately responded to help the students and educators of West ISD. A few of the acts of support included:

This doesn’t begin to include the other support received from churches, private organizations, local businesses, community members, and donors from across the state. The outpouring of support for the citizens of West and West ISD was so great that superintendent Marty Crawford “asked to be kept in thoughts and prayers, as he said the district was “swamped with school supplies.” Because of that outpouring from the community and all Texans, West ISD was able to resume classes within less than a week of that devastating blast.

No one talked about curriculum or testing. No one talked about inadequate funding, vouchers, or taxpayer savings grants.  No one talked about bond elections or TREs.  No one talked about parent triggers or shutting down the school and selling off its existing buildings to charters for $1. No one talked about common core or C-Scope.  All that mattered was getting the children of West, Texas, back to their public schools to help them regain a sense of normalcy and comfort after a tragedy.

And with that re-opening, the community was strengthened. Re-opening those schools was important because local public schools are the heart of Texas communities. They are the bedrock of our neighborhoods. Public schools are important. The people of West know that.

I always say, “If it’s important, you show up for it.”  West ISD is important, and the people showed up for it. I hope the legislature watched and learned as Texans supported their public schools. Maybe one day they’ll choose to do the same.

Related articles

PTA Mom Stunned: Texas Children Run Laps for Curriculum, State Representative Unmoved

By Kim Burkett, PTA Mom

I should be asleep. It’s 5 a.m. on a Saturday and I’m wide awake. My week has been full with visits to the pediatrician, solving the mystery of the lost library book, nearly missing my deadline for the PTA newsletter, and helping my son make an insect with appropriate anatomical pieces out of play-doh.  I’m tired; so why am I awake before dawn on a Saturday morning? Because yesterday I witnessed the most shocking display of willful ignorance and callous disinterest that I think I’ve ever seen, and I can’t stop thinking about it.

Yesterday began with a fun run fundraiser at my kindergarten son’s elementary school, one of the many fundraising and giving opportunities presented to us by the school this year. If you haven’t been a part of this before (or been hit up for pledge money), here’s how it works: the children collect pledges from their family and friends in support of their run.  For every lap the kids run, for instance, Grandma donates $1. The kids win various chotskies based upon the number of pledges they collect and the money goes to benefit the cause. My son absolutely loved it, and my guess is the other children did too. Especially nice is the school selected a fundraiser that encourages fitness instead of leaving me with a refrigerator full of cookie dough!

I remember fundraisers when I was a kid – they were often used to support a school dance, maybe buy a trophy case, or perhaps to replace aging sports equipment. What was my son’s school raising money for? My son’s fundraiser wasn’t for a cool trip to Disney World. It wasn’t even to purchase uniforms for the basketball club. Instead my child and his schoolmates were raising funds so their school can purchase curriculum materials and technology. Yep, my five-year-old just ran 48 laps for curriculum.

When this fundraiser was announced I was dismayed, but not surprised. I’m well aware of the plight Texas school districts face after $5.4 billion in funding cuts last year. My son’s school of more than 900 students has eight kindergarten classes and seven first grade classes. All of those kindergarteners and first graders were not funded by the state in 2011. Due to faulty revenue projections by the state comptroller, the Texas legislature did not fund enrollment growth for the first time in the state’s modern history.  So our school is running with probably more than one third of its students un-funded by the state.

The result – my neighborhood school only has library books for half of its population (which is why solving the mystery of the lost library book was so critical this week!). I’ve watched the PTA give money to the school to support a writing curriculum in the past. They’ve been working all year to purchase new technology. I know they’re struggling and I appreciate their tenacity in searching for every way possible to get the resources our kids need. I wish they didn’t have to work that hard to purchase something as fundamental as materials for curriculum, but kudos to the school for keeping up the fight.

So, what does a PTA Mom do when her child runs laps for curriculum? She takes her son – wearing his fun run t-shirt – to her state representative’s town hall meeting, of course! Representative Giovanni Capriglione (HD-98) happened to hold a town hall meeting on the same day as the fun run. I wanted to speak with Representative Capriglione about restoring last session’s budget cuts to education. While the state of Texas has a budget surplus right now, in addition to a rainy day fund that’s expected to hit $12 billion by the next biennium, the drafted budget under consideration in the legislature only restores about half of the funding to public education.

The meeting was held in the idyllic Town Hall in Southlake, Texas. It’s a, beautiful place – very much like something out of a Norman Rockwell painting or perhaps the movie Pleasantville. The hall was standing room only – something incredibly commendable for a Friday evening political meeting. Many in the audience identified themselves as members of local tea party organizations. Capriglione was well supported by these conservative groups during his election in 2012 and they were proud to make their presence known.

I waited my turn while the crowd celebrated Representative Capriglione’s legislative efforts for various important problems I didn’t know we faced, like bringing home Texas’ gold reserves  and ensuring college students take comprehensive American or Texas history classes rather than other more specialized history courses . (By the way, that legislation is pretty controversial and many say akin to a radical Arizona law. It will be protested by many groups that feel it will micromanage universities and limit student access to historical studies of women and ethnic groups. State Representative Capriglione’s response to the would-be protestors? “Whatever. Bring it.”)

When it was my turn I introduced my son and explained to my representative that he attended kindergarten in district 98. My son, sadly a veteran of town hall and other political meetings, sat uninterested playing Brain Pop on an iPad. I pointed to his fun run t-shirt where teachers had marked off each of the 48 laps he ran that day. I asked Representative Capriglione why he would support a budget that didn’t fully restore education funding when there are children like mine running laps to purchase curriculum. I reminded Capriglione that the state has a budget surplus and growing rainy day fund. I also reminded him that a bipartisan poll last month indicated 79% of Texans (including 61% of Republican primary voters like many of those sitting in that meeting room) supported fully restoring funding. I concluded by asking why he wouldn’t support public education?

While Capriglione has represented himself in the past as someone that supports public education (his children attend Texas public schools and he has been active in his local education foundation), his response was fairly typical for somebody more concerned in protecting the rating on their tea party report card than supporting the needs of Texans. He admitted that Texas was in a strong financial position with unexpected revenue. Then came the laundry list of excuses:

  • He talked to me about the fact that the state faces a $5 billion Medicaid bill. He failed to mention it was left over from last session because of the “balanced” budget shenanigans and smoke and mirrors of his legislative predecessors.
  • He talked to me about the constitutional spending cap limit. He failed to mention that the limit was selected by his conservative legislative colleagues and represented one of the most restrictive spending limits available to them, even though they knew of the previously-mentioned Medicaid bill and underfunding of education.
  • He talked about the consequences of busting the cap. He didn’t mention that can be done with a simple vote.
  • He talked about the dangers of using the rainy day fund – last tapped to support education in 2007. He failed to mention that tapping the rainy day fund can be accomplished with a two-thirds or possibly three-fifths majority vote and will likely be done to fund water projects and/or infrastructure, as suggested by Governor Perry.

What he also failed to mention was that each of these excuses were legislative-made and solvable for those with the political will to do so. And, frankly, these self-imposed impediments are not the problem of Texas children. They should be solved by the grown-ups that created them instead of punishing students. The Representative quickly thanked me for my question before I could follow-up to tell him that he hadn’t answered it. (Many in the crowd approached me after the meeting to point out his non-answer as well.)

At the end of his monologue citing all of the debatable fiscal reasons why he supported continuing the defunding of Texas public education, he was applauded by the members of the local tea party organizations. They applauded the fact that my child and 160,000 other Texas children were left unfunded by needless cuts. They applauded the fact that my representative had absolutely no desire nor will to do anything about it. They applauded the fact that my child ran laps for curriculum materials today.  I sat down next to my five-year-old with the realization that I was one of the few people in that room that gave a damn about his education. I will never forget that moment. I shook my head in disbelief. Representative Capriglione quickly moved on to other topics from the crowd like defeating Obamacare’s state exchanges and preventing “illegals” from accessing resources. It was surreal.

Although shell shocked by the crowd’s lack of empathy for Texas public school children, the most striking part of Capriglione’s message was not lost on me. In his rambling thoughts about spending limits, revenue projections, and rainy day funds he never mentioned the words “children” or “education.” Not once. Those words didn’t pass his lips. How does a person “answer” a question about public education without mentioning public education? Or students? It was incredibly telling.

Representative Capriglione didn’t glance at the unfunded child sitting next to me. He wouldn’t look at him. One of the hundreds of thousands of children the state of Texas chose to ignore in its funding of public education in 2011 was again ignored – this time by our state representative standing in the same room. I guess it’s difficult to look at the young faces of those you sacrifice for political gain.

He didn’t mention the fun run t-shirt my son sported proudly. The t-shirt that to me represents something sick and perverse – where we accept the fact that our schools are forced to hold their hands out to the community like Dickensian beggars to scrape together enough pennies to buy something as basic as materials for curriculum.  Something that should be easily paid for by school funds – if we actually funded our schools.

In their abandonment of public schools, politicians apparently now find it acceptable that our children run laps to raise money for their curriculum. When did this become acceptable? Is this the new normal? Where is the outrage?

For those who hadn’t realized it before, this simple exchange at a town hall meeting exemplifies that for many politicians the battle over public education has absolutely nothing to do with children – and this battle rages nationwide. Sure, some Texas politicians have been known to cry crocodile tears for the “poor children,” but they put on that performance as they continue to defund their public schools, force privatized, corporate-driven reform measures upon them, and kowtow to the testing-for-dollars industry. Texas children have been sold out and ignored. My child was sold out and ignored. Representative Capriglione’s own children were sold out and ignored.

And the tea party applauded.

So, given the realization that politicians like Capriglione will put fiscal excuses before the needs of children; given the fact that the politics of local tea party extremism trump the needs of Texas’ future workforce; given the fact that it is now considered de rigueur for five-year-olds to run for curriculum, what does a PTA Mom do?

She dusts herself off and vows to fight harder.

She fights for the children the state ignores, won’t acknowledge, and disregards. She gives up calling her legislators every other week, and instead speed dials them weekly moving forward. She reminds her neighbors that it’s inappropriate for children to run for curriculum and lets them know only their angry voices will stop it. She helps other PTA Moms and Dads and Grandparents and community supporters cut through the rhetoric and excuses disingenuous politicians present.

And she hugs her son tight on the way home and tells him that she’ll continue to fight every day for his education. Because unlike politicians, PTA Moms are in it for the children.

And then she wakes up at 5 a.m. the next day and begins the fight again.

Related articles

Falling Down the Voucher Rabbit Hole What you Need to Know About Texas’ School Voucher Scheme

6a00d8341ca6f253ef010535fec21b970bBy Dr. Jerry Burkett

Senator Dan Patrick (R-Houston) really wants to see a voucher program in Texas. Patrick recently filed two new voucher bills in Texas’ lawmakers continuing quest to saddle Texas with an ill-conceived voucher scheme. Senate Bill 1410 and SB23 co-sponsored by Senator Ken Paxton (R-McKinney) seek to create a voucher program offering private school vouchers for at-risk students, with a priority for kids in low-rated schools. Two other voucher bills have followed Patrick’s, Senator Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels) filed SB 1575 (also co-sponsored by Paxton) and House Bill 3497 was filed by Representative Scott Turner (R-Frisco).

The legislators who have filed these bills were very careful not to refer to them as “voucher” programs. Instead they have adopted the more fiscally friendly term “tax payer saving grants” or “equal opportunity scholarship” programs. However, despite the politically correct language used to describe these so-called “reform” measures, “tax payers” (you and me) save nothing and these “scholarships” are not designed for poor families. Patrick proposes that the family income cutoff to qualify for the voucher will be about $71,000 for a family of three, which is twice the federal free and reduced lunch program limit.

In previewing his voucher scheme late last year, Patrick touted his plan as a way to save Texas money by reducing the amount of general revenue expenditures into public education by reducing enrollment – those schools that are still reeling from $5.4 billion in budget cuts from last session. Patrick has maintained that the plan does not pull money from public schools, yet his bill offers participating companies a credit toward their business franchise tax. The franchise tax is the under-performing education funding source that has created much of the revenue shortfall for public education. In fact, businesses could take up to 15 percent of what they’d pay in franchise taxes, and donate it to the new scholarship fund instead. So not only does this boondoggle shift student funding from public schools to private interests, it further depletes the franchise tax revenue that was originally proposed to replace the hole left in the education budget from the 2006 structural tax deficit. To claim this scheme does not impact public schools financially is an exercise in delusion.

Despite little evidence of success (see the lackluster performance of long-running voucher programs in Cleveland and Milwaukee), there are pushes for similar voucher schemes nationwide – Indiana’s voucher program was just upheld as constitutional while Louisiana’s program was recently declared unconstitutional There are pushes to expand the program in Florida and Tennessee. Efforts recently passed in Arizona and Alabama. Vouchers are the holy grail of those seeking to privatize public education. Pro-corporation lobbying groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) even provide model legislation to privatization-friendly lawmakers to further their causes to privatize public education through vouchers, charter schools, and efforts to generally undermine the public education system. With profiteering lobbyists driving the voucher discussion, we’ll continue to see it around the nation. So, what exactly does a voucher scheme entail:

What is a Tax-Credit Scholarship?
The term “tax-credit scholarship” or “taxpayer scholarship” is not new term in the realm of school finance. The “tax credit” is issued to companies, business, or private entities in exchange for financing private education for students. Instead of paying your tax dollars directly to the general revenue, you pay part of the tuition for a student to attend private school in exchange for having your tax liability reduced. The first “tax credit scholarship” was established in Arizona in 1997 and similar programs have been expanded into Georgia, Virginia, and Florida.

As of September 2012, 14 tuition tax credit programs exist in 11 states (NCSL). In 2008, Georgia’s tax credit plan was challenged in a report by the Southern Education Foundation claiming a lack of transparency and the use of accounting gimmicks. In 2011, Arizona’s program was challenged and upheld in the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Supporters of tuition tax credits say they save the state money because annual tuition at a private school is typically less than the per-pupil cost at public schools. This is shown through a nonpartisan analysis of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program. It reported for every $1 spent on the tax credit program, Florida taxpayers saved an estimated $1.49”.

However, despite the reported taxpayer savings both the report on the Florida program and the 2008 analysis of the Georgia program agree that saving is based significantly on student participation in the program that must balance with the proposed tax credit cap that is placed on the program.

Opponents of tax-credit or taxpayer scholarships have described the plans as complicated school voucher plans since the purpose of the scholarship is to pay for tuition and fees to private schools through manipulation or diversion of tax revenue dollars. Supporters maintain that these programs allow for more students to participate, save the state money, and are an alternative to traditional school voucher programs.

Brief History of School Vouchers
A school voucher program is an arrangement whereby public funds are made available to qualified parents to cover some or all of the expenses associated with enrolling their child in a participating private school of their choosing. School voucher programs have been introduced by legislatures since 1869. Vermont was the first state to implement a voucher program issuing a “town tuitioning” program that was designed to allow students in rural areas, without access to a public school, the opportunity to attend a nearby private school. Few voucher programs came into existence after 1869 in the United States but gained popularity in the 1990’s when 3 voucher programs were established in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida.

The programs established in the 1990 have had similar aspects seeking to provide school choice alternatives for low-income students using a publicly funded voucher. However, the constitutionality of the voucher program in Ohio was challenged in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. The voucher program enacted in the Cleveland school district gave qualified families the option of sending their children to a participating public school, a private sectarian school, or a private non-sectarian school. As a result of the program, in the 1999-2000 school year, 96 percent of the students receiving vouchers were enrolled in religiously affiliated schools. The US Supreme Court upheld the Ohio voucher law establishing that the program does not violate the Establishment Clause.

Since the Zelman decision, there has been a rise in the number of school voucher programs enacted through legislation throughout the United States. Six states including Washington, D.C. established voucher programs each seeking to serve low-socioeconomic, disabled, or foster students from 2002-2007 (Wolf, 418). In Utah, a voucher plan was passed by the state legislature but later struck down by voters. Indiana and Louisiana have most recently passed voucher legislation seeking to provide students with universal access to school vouchers (citations).

Researcher Patrick Wolf examined the voucher issue stating that when voucher programs are enacted, the students who apply for and use vouchers tend to be educationally disadvantaged because of the logic of parental choice. Previous research has established that private schooling tends to have larger positive achievement effects on disadvantaged students than on advantaged students which may have led to the initial push from state legislations to enact programs for economically disadvantaged and foster students.

Do Taxpayer Scholarship Programs Save Money?
Senator Patrick’s “tax-credit scholarship” program is supposedly designed to give at-risk or low-income students first access to the voucher instead of allowing all students access to the scholarship as was proposed in Georgia. Research has not been conducted on universal voucher access programs to determine if these programs save tax money.

However, despite the lack of scholarly research, various aspects of taxpayer scholarship programs have been examined and evidence has been presented that should be taken in consideration for future legislation that is in development for these types of grants.

The most significant report on taxpayer grants was written by the Southern Education Foundation, which found a variety of flaws in Georgia’s plan. Through analysis of a variety of state and local data, the SEF found that the state of Georgia actually diverted more taxpayer dollars to the program than originally intended. Scholarships in 2009 cost the state government $11,803 per student and the state government incurred an additional cost of $7,510 in financing a partial scholarship in a private school above and beyond what it would have paid in 2009 for the education of the same student in a public school.

The report also cited an August 2009 article from the Atlanta Journal‐Constitution that reported that parents and students attending private schools were showing up at public schools “to fill out paperwork to enroll their kids in public schools solely to qualify” for the tax‐funded scholarships—“with no intention of actually attending classes in the public school.” Largely, parents who are accepting the scholarship dollars are from households with children (between the ages of six and 16) and had essentially twice the median income of those households where children attended public schools in 2007.

Testifying in support of taxpayer scholarships for Texas in 2011, both the Heritage Institute and the Texas Public Policy Foundation released reports stating that Texas would save $2 billion for the 2012-13 biennium or $3,429 dollars per participating student. To support the potential for student participation in the Texas program, the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the Heritage Institute both cite data from a voucher program enacted in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The TPPF used student enrollment data from Milwaukee to project Texas taxpayer savings at $2.3 billion.

Steve West, writing for the Texas Association of School Business Officials, stated that the data from the Heartland Institute was flawed as it consisted of all school district spending per student part of which includes “funds that are prohibited or are not available for use for general maintenance and operations spending.” When recalculated to include eligible funds, the potential savings is reduced to $1 billion.

The National Education Association points out that moving students from public to private schools harms school districts because they cannot reduce their fixed facilities and transportation costs in proportion to the number of students who leave (citation).

Do Taxpayer Scholarships Improve Student Learning?
Supporters for taxpayer scholarships often point, specifically, to data collected by Harvard University researchers on the Milwaukee and Cleveland voucher programs. Although there was a jump in the testing performance for voucher students, when these students were compared to non-voucher students, there was not difference in their scores.

Other research studies conducted on the Milwaukee program have found no significant voucher impacts on test scores until students had used them for at least three years, generated math gains of 1.5 to 2.3 percentiles per year but no statistically significant reading gains, and a one-year snapshot of the 2006-07 school year, students’ state test scores were about the same on average in Milwaukee regardless of whether they used vouchers or attended public schools.

Who can receive a voucher?
The provisions of Texas’ current voucher bills state that any private school that is a member of Texas Private School Accreditation Commission (TEPSAC) is eligible for the program. When people think of private schools, many think of the large, expensive and established schools like Ursuline, The Hockaday School, or Fort Worth Country Day; however these schools are just three of 1,187 schools listed with TEPSAC. Many of the schools listed with TEPSAC are smaller private schools that are managed by churches or daycare providers like Primrose Academy, KidsRKids, or franchise schools like The Goddard School.  If these schools can provide evidence (to whom has not yet been established) that they give a nationally norm-referenced assessment to students (basically any test that provides a percentile rank for a child) they are eligible for the scholarship dollars.

Clearly, more research is necessary to determine the fiscal and academic effectiveness of universal school voucher programs like the tax-credit scholarship plan suggested by Patrick. It is clear that in the development of a program, it must include a variety of elements that other states have either included or lack in their current programs.

In addition, consideration of such a program should not occur until the state of Texas has resolved pending law suits related to school funding adequacy and equity and has increased current per students funding allotments for public schools. According to the National Education Association, Texas ranks 49th in per student funding at $8,400 per student which is a figure that is nearly $3000 below the national average. It is negligent of the state of Texas, when determined to be inadequately funding education in violation of the state constitution, to chase such a boondoggle. Texas needs to fund its constitutional obligations to a system of free public schools before falling down the school voucher rabbit hole.

Related articles

Texas’ School Voucher Scheme: Yet Another Blow Against Public Education

By Dr. Jerry R. Burkett

As millions of students returned to Texas public schools last week, state senators re-visited implementing school vouchers and expanding charter schools. Senator Dan Patrick (R-Houston), who is expected to become the next chairperson of the Senate Education Committee, and Governor Rick Perry have been floating the state’s next attempt at school vouchers, declaring that vouchers will be the voter ID issue of the next legislative session. In other words it will be the red-meat thrown out to pacify their base while distracting voters and lawmakers from the state’s real problems.

So how does this voucher funding scheme work? While supposedly the legislation hasn’t been drafted yet, Joseph Bast, president of conservative think tank the Heartland Institute, spoke before Patrick’s meeting describing the failed 2011 Texas voucher legislation that would have likely resulted in 6% of Texas’ five million students taking vouchers. Under that legislation, the state would have funded voucher students at 40% less than the current average per student state funding. (In other words, to cash in that voucher at your local private school, in the eyes of Texas lawmakers, your child is only worth somewhere around $5,200.) Instead of providing taxpayer funding to public schools with state- and federal-mandated accountability requirements and a locally elected school board to provide oversight, vouchers will allow tax money to instead be funneled to for-profit or parochial private schools or potentially charter schools that are held to little to no state oversight from financial or academic perspectives. At a time when “accountability” and “fiscal responsibility” are the mantras Texas’ conservative legislators, why would conservative leaders float a plan that instead reduces oversight of taxpayer funds and requires less accountability from educators?

Savings for Whom?
Senator Patrick indicated that this program would save the state more than $2 billion dollars in education funding. What Senator Patrick doesn’t mention is this will cut another $2 billion from public schools, which are still reeling from $5.4 billion in cuts in the last legislative session. The re-emergence of vouchers indicates the conservative-led legislature has no intention of restoring funding to the public education system, which ranks 46th in the nation in per student funding and ranks third in student growth. The question for the senator is where will that $2 billion in savings actually go?

Will the bill Patrick drafts put those “savings” back into public schools to help restore funding cut by the 82nd legislature or will these so-called savings be used to fund other boondoggles like Formula One racing, the next Trans Texas Corridor, or to pad the coffers of Rick Perry’s technology investment/crony slush fund? I am sure many education advocates are familiar with the Texas Lottery funding scheme that “funded” education.

But Louisiana Is Doing It…
Vouchers have been pushed by Texas conservatives for decades. In fact, the program has been supported by Governor Rick Perry since he was lieutenant governor in 1999. Despite years of unsuccessful attempts, Texas has renewed its interest in vouchers this year in part due to model legislation that is making the rounds in state houses nationwide. The state of Louisiana recently passed legislation for a full scale voucher program earlier this year. When implemented, it will be the nation’s largest voucher program.

Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal came under fire from religious leaders, teachers groups, and education advocates over his aggressive voucher push. The Louisiana program has been mired in controversy due to a lax screening process for schools eligible to receive funding (more than 90% of schools that applied for voucher eligibility were accepted to the program). The eligible schools originally included institutions that were housed in church gymnasiums and utilized DVDs instead of teachers, Other schools use creation theory-based textbooks that teach the Loch Ness monster is real.

In addition, Louisiana state representatives were shocked to find that opening taxpayer funding to religious institutions actually meant all religions. Louisiana Representative Valarie Hodges, (R-Watson), nearly pulled her support of the bill when she found out the funding could be used to support Muslim schools (although the Muslim schools that originally applied have since removed their applications – this year). Representative Hodges mistakenly believed that the term “religious” only meant “Christian.”

The Devil Is In the Details
Then why, despite years of conservative backing, adoption of similar programs in other states, and revamping the negative connotations of “vouchers” with new focus group-vetted code terms like “school choice” and “taxpayer savings grants,” hasn’t Texas’ legislature been able to adopt the program? Because it presents a variety of challenges:

  • Financially, this plan doesn’t work for families in the real world. Voucher students will only be worth 60% of what public school students are worth. Parents will be expected to make up the tuition difference in private schools, few of which require only $5,200 in tuition annually. For example, of the most expensive private school in the Dallas area according to a list published by The Dallas Business Journal, The Episcopal School of Dallas, costs $25,570 per year. Even if your child was one of the 26% of students lucky enough to be accepted, you would have to cover the additional $20,370 per year in tuition costs in addition to other costs (i.e. books, supplies, etc.).
  • Voucher programs are a non-starter outside of Texas’ cities. If you live in rural areas, you likely don’t have a go-to charter or private school option in your town. Instead of addressing the needs of public education for rural Texans, voucher legislation will simply shrug off their needs. But, Senator Patrick would be wise to realize that the last legislator to float a voucher scheme was Representative Sid Miller from Stephenville, a town that has very few charter or private school options. In 2011 Miller showed his disregard for public education by pushing a voucher bill. In 2012 Miller lost his seat. Rural Texans seemingly don’t embrace coupons for education in lieu of the state actually funding public schools as constitutionally required.
  • Vouchers don’t solve education underfunding. With vouchers or without vouchers, Texas schools remain underfunded. As parents take vouchers in the name of school choice, the loss of per student revenue will be even more problematic for public schools with growing student populations. Since the 82nd legislature did not fund the 160,000 new students to Texas over the past two years, creating a state-funded voucher system will create an even larger deficit for public schools creating two systems of education in our state with already limited funding.
  • Your taxes will continue to go up. Parents who take vouchers will continue to pay property taxes to their local school system. Schools are already in a precarious situation from last biennium’s defunding. In addition, the cost of education is rising due to increased requirements from No Child Left Behind, as well as unfunded mandates placed on school districts by the state. To combat these costs, districts will likely seek to raise local funding through bond and tax rate elections. So, the voucher parents that are only receiving 60% of state funding and making up the additional funding required to pay private tuition, will likely face increased property taxes to finance the underfunded public school system. Additionally, those that remain in the public system will likely see increased campus fund-raisers, the need for additional school supplies from parents, or cutting programs like music, art, and gifted and talented.

    • This is Their Answer?
    Rather than fixing what they’ve broken through years of under-funding, broken funding formulas, and mountains of mandates, Patrick and Perry are doubling down on their attempts to destroy Texas’ public education system. Unfortunately, this voucher scheme masquerading as the elixir that will fix all that ails Texas’ education system only proves that the state has abandoned its constitutional responsibility to public schools. Instead of acknowledging the increased educational costs
    associated with the third largest level of student enrollment growth in the nation, as well as the increased requirements of No Child Left Behind and the new rigors of STARR, Texas’ solution is to further de-fund a public system that adds an unfunded 80,000 students per year while shouldering funding cuts of more than 11% since 2008.

    Rather than working with school districts and parents to fund and enhance the public school system, the 83rd legislature will ignore it and focus their attention and funding on profit-based models with little accountability or oversight. They will expand the already cumbersome 1,000+ district education system, essentially adding the bureaucracy of a new ISD for every private school or charter school funded by taxpayers, at a time when Texas should actually consider consolidation to achieve the oft-repeated but rarely sought fiscal responsibility that legislators and policy wonks like to pontificate about. They will not address public education funding and will instead allow Texas property owners and parents to shoulder more and more ofthe growing burden. And they will do so at a time when the state courts are trying to determine the adequacy of the state’s education funding systems, which seems especially brazen.

    Senator Patrick and Governor Perry, if you want to push a voucher scheme, go ahead and push it. Since there are few pragmatists and non-idealogues left in the legislature, this should pass in 2013. But do not pretend – even for a minute – that this has anything to do with the interests of education or students or parents. This is about your interests – be it using taxpayer funding for parochial-based education, allowing for-profit education institutions and charters a shot at taxpayer funding trough, or dismantling the public education system. Please have enough integrity to not hide behind school children and pretend to have their interests at heart. If you had the interests of school children at heart, all of their schools would be funded.

    So this is their best solution? Patrick and Perry have heard the cries from students, educators, school districts, parents, and advocates and this is their answer? Privatize education and let the public system wither and die. The real needs of Texas families and students be damned. The needs of rural Texans be damned. The future of Texas’ economic prosperity and ability to educate future workforces be damned.

    A radio disc jockey and career politician seem to know better than educators, parents, and students.

    Only in Texas.

    Related articles

Do we need another Sputnik? — What the Greatest Generation did to ensure American success and how the Tea Party is trying to destroy it

English: Sputnik 1 Македонски: Спутник 1

English: Sputnik 1 Македонски: Спутник 1 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On October 4, 1957 Russia launched Sputnik 1, the world’s first satellite.  It was a significant moment in Cold War, space, and human histories. Even more significant was the response from the United States government, which viewed the event as a crisis. Until the success of Sputnik 1 and Sputnik 2 (launched a month later), the United States had viewed itself as the technological giant of the world.  We had long carried the mantle of American Exceptionalism with pride. We were the nation that created the atomic bomb, the light bulb, mass production, and human flight – our technological superiority had never been questioned and was viewed as secure.

However, as writer Roger D. Launius stated, “the Soviet success with Sputnik 1 raised in a very fundamental way the question of American technological virtuosity, and questioned American capability in so many other areas already underway that setbacks in this one was all the more damaging to the American persona.” Politicians worked together to address the crisis. President Dwight D. Eisenhower and then Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon B. Johnson, commissioned investigations of the government’s funding of and commitment to exploring space and improving our national defense.  These investigations led to the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and increased funding to our nation’s education system.

In 1958 the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) was signed, which authorized four years of funding for U.S. schools. The breakthrough legislation was designed to increase the number of students learning applied sciences and mathematics in public schools and universities.  The government was seeking to cultivate the next generation of students to create, innovate, and develop the technology that would shape our nation. The NDEA was designed to educate and develop the nation’s defense-oriented personnel by providing federal help to foreign language scholars, area study centers, and engineering students. It also provided financial assistance for thousands of students who would be part of the growing numbers enrolling at colleges and universities in the 1960s. Congress would also authorize significant increased funding for the National Science Foundation. The United States had a clear understanding in the late 1950s of the importance of education not only to our world standing and future, but also to our national defense.

Ultimately, the program was a success. By 1960, college enrollments had increased to 3.6 million students. In 1969, the United States won the space race by successfully launching Project Apollo and the first manned flight to the moon. By 1970, 7.5 million students (40% of college-aged youths) were attending the nation’s colleges. It was a golden age for education and innovation. It was a golden age for the United States.

So what ever happened to those NDEA students that benefitted from the same public education effort that helped put a man on the moon? Today 46% of those that identify themselves as Tea Party supporters are between the ages of 45 and 64. The majority of the Tea Party faithful were the children of the NDEA. They enjoyed the greatest strategic focus on public education this nation has ever seen.  That commitment to education directly impacted the future Tea Party in a profound way and (although some choose not to acknowledge it) contributed to their future opportunities and successes.  One would like to believe that this great educational push of the last century would have created a generation that would embrace and promote the nation’s commitment to education. That has not happened. Rather, there are many who would prefer to reverse the course.

Today many of the politically active members of the NDEA generation/Tea Party are vehemently opposed to government growth – the very growth they were beneficiaries of as children.  They often oppose the expansion of public education in our country, even calling for closing the Department of Education. In many communities, local Tea Parties work against tax increases to benefit school districts and have successfully sought reductions in education funding at state levels. In 2012 37 U.S. states funded students at a lower level than in the previous year. The Texas Republican Party furthered the disdain for education in their 2012 platform, turning against teaching critical thinking skills in schools.  In fact, the Tea Party has even opposed the expansion of education for students in the United States calling for the dismantling of “all the sophistries and gimmicks introduced by progressive educators in the last 100 years, for example, Sight-Words, New Math/Reform Math, Constructivism, Self-Esteem, Multiculturalism, Fuzziness of any kind, Group Learning, etc. Instead, there must be a renewed emphasis on foundational knowledge and basic skills, with mastery of both.”

Despite these coordinated and careless efforts to defund and scale back public education, I would submit to you, and to the members of the Tea Party, that our crisis of competitive disadvantage and need for educational focus is no different today than it was in 1957. Tea Party supporters, when you were young students, you benefited from an increased national investment in education in response to a global necessity – competition.  In the spirit of that competition, our government provided funding, training, and the ability to experiment in order to succeed in a changing global environment. Today our crisis is rooted in our nation’s ability to produce educated individuals to fill jobs in the global market. In the 21st century is our public education system equipped to provide our students the skill sets and knowledge they need to fill the jobs of tomorrow? Sadly, without the threat of the Russians and the glamour and mystery of space exploration, it seems that the commitment to education has not received the same fanfare or urgency today as it did in the 1950s.

Perhaps it’s time for a new Sputnik or evil axis boogeyman? Consider that by 2030, China alone will account for 30% of the world’s new college-educated workers. In comparison, the United States will account for only 5%. China is also churning out far more science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduates.  Chinese spending on education has grown by 20% per year since 1999. By comparison, U.S. spending in education has increased an average of 3% per year.

Flag of the Chinese Communist Party 贛語: 中國共產黨黨...

Flag of the Chinese Communist Party (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This increased investment in education has placed China in a strong position to lead the world in technological advancements through the next several decades. If we are not diligent in our support of education, without the political rhetoric of efficiency and the new-found interest in debt reduction, we will be looking to China to engineer our bridges, raise our skyscrapers, and design our iPhones.  But with expanded investment in and a renewed commitment to education, we can instead look to our own talented Americans to fill these critical roles. If provided the same benefits of education that we provided to the previous generation, these young Americans are more than capable of being the next generation of creators rather than limited to assemblers.

Understanding the crisis before us, President Obama’s administration unveiled a plan this week to establish a national Master Teacher Corps. The billion dollar program would recruit an elite cadre of advanced math and science teachers to ensure the United States maintains its place as a world leader in science, technology, and math. According to Education Secretary Arne Duncan, “We’re not just fighting for better education here. We’re fighting for our country. If we want to keep good jobs in this country, we know we need a much better educated workforce…”

So how will the United States answer this call? Will our political leaders, like the generation before them, work together to address the nation’s need for better educational opportunities? Or will they instead refuse compromise and choose the selfish and dangerous road of partisan politics – a zero sum game that will never return this nation to greatness? Will the Tea Party faithful recall their days as students and the opportunities a strong public education system laid at their feet? Or will they retreat to the narrow-visioned and politically-motivated calls for fiscal efficiency and espouse a scorched earth policy to reach those goals? Will they show true concern for their grandchildren and fund their future, or will they instead turn their backs to uphold the pinky swears they’ve made with anti-tax crusaders.  (Interestingly, Americans for Tax Reform zealot Grover Norquist, who graduated from public education in the early 1970s, also benefitted from the NDEA educational focus.)

What has happened to our pride, nationalism, and belief in American exceptionalism? Are these so-called Tea Party patriots willing to accept, and even advocate, allowing the United States to trail behind the world in innovation, education, and technological advancements? Their continued attack on public education will certainly take us there. Frankly, what could be more treasonous than self-proclaimed patriots defunding and dismantling the very education system that helped make this country great? What could be more selfish than benefitting from educational advancement and investment as students and then turning a cold shoulder to the next generation? Surely the Founding Fathers the Tea Party fervent love to point to, including Thomas Jefferson who founded a university and donated his private library to Congress after his death (later becoming the Library of Congress), would not approve of this destruction of public education.

In their zombie-like quest to reduce government spending at all costs, the Tea Party has proven themselves to be anything but patriots. Rather, they have proven themselves to be short-sighted and self-centered. They got theirs, America, so let the future of the nation and their grandchildrens’ generations be damned.  Shame on you Tea Party! The Greatest Generation that provided you the educational foundation for your successes would be sorely disappointed in what you’ve become. Instead of dressing in quirky historical costumes, I urge you to read and understand history. I urge you to look at this nation’s greatest moments and how they were achieved. Learn from our past. Dream for our future. I urge you to do the right thing for this country and future generations – it’s time to earn the title of “patriot.”

Related articles

PTA Mom’s Budgeting Advice for Texas Legislators: Being a Deadbeat isn’t Good for Education

By Kim Burkett, PTA Mom

Like many PTA moms, I also serve as the chief financial officer for my household. Now, if you’d ever seen my SAT math scores, you might question why my husband and I made that decision. Yet under my watchful budgeting eye, we earn more than we spend, developed a healthy savings account, and maintain an enviable credit score. In short, I’m pretty good at this budgeting thing if I do say so myself.

As for the Texas legislature, I’m sorry to say that despite their suggestions to the contrary, as well as a constitutional balanced budget requirement; they don’t come close to sharing my budgetary savvy. Let me tell you why.

In 2011, the Texas comptroller drastically under-estimated state revenue. Based on faulty projections, school funding was cut by $5.4 billion in the last session. Fast forward to 2013 – it turns out the comptroller was way off and Texas actually had enough revenue to fully fund education two years ago. It turns out the Texas economy is healthy and in addition to strong revenue receipts, we’re sitting on a rainy day fund somewhere in the neighborhood of $12 billion. Economic times are good at the state level, yet the Texas legislature has proposed to restore only between $1.4 and $1.5 billion – a mere 28% of the funding it cut needlessly two years ago.

So, as Burkett Family CFO, allow me to compare what Texas is doing to my kitchen table budgeting. Imagine that my husband was laid off from his job. (Since 12,000 educators lost their jobs since 2011, this isn’t really a stretch, but fortunately didn’t actually happen. Nevertheless…) In anticipation of our reduced income, I call my bank and tell them that I need a mortgage reduction due to financial hardship. Together we work out a hardship program that drastically reduces my typical monthly mortgage payment.

Good news! In this hypothetical continuing drama my husband gets a new job within a year. This time he leaves education for a job in private industry making 50% more than he did as an educator. I call my bank and let them know that our income has been restored, but I suggest that I can’t return to my full mortgage payment. Instead, I’m only going to send an additional 28% on top of the reduced hardship mortgage amount I was paying.

Once the banker stops laughing at me, he points out that my income has been restored and I am required to pay my full mortgage payment. I tell him I have other competing priorities, so an additional 28% is as high as I can go. The banker reminds me that I have a contractual responsibility to pay my full mortgage amount. I contend that I have constraints and choose not to pay my full obligation despite the fact that I have the money. The banker marks my mortgage as at risk for foreclosure, calls me a deadbeat, and hangs up on me.

Would you ever suggest such a brazenly asinine plan? Your Texas legislature has. If a banker won’t accept such financial irresponsibility, why should Texans accept such financial irresponsibility from their elected officials?

I’m sorry, legislators, your budget proposal makes you a bunch of deadbeats. You have a constitutional responsibility to adequately fund public education. According to the ruling in the Texas school finance trial this winter, you have not. While sitting on healthy revenue receipts and an obscenely large rainy day fund, you claim you can’t restore funding to education? Shame on you!

The deadbeat legislature offers many excuses, yet few real solutions for public education. Let’s look at their excuses:

Truth: There is a lean spending cap that was self-imposed when the legislators, on a political whim, chose the second lowest spending cap presented to them. They chose that cap despite the fact that they were fully aware at the time that they had many unpaid bills from last session to pay. By the way, that cap can be suspended with a simple majority vote (last done in 2007), but politicians like Dan Patrick prefer to uphold bizarre ideological pledges rather than Texas’ constitutional responsibilities and refuse to take that vote.

Truth: The rainy day fund is an economic stabilization fund that was developed for exactly this purpose – to help Texas fulfill its budgetary responsibilities while riding out turbulent economies. The $12 billion rainy day fund can restore education cuts with a two-thirds vote. While the fund has been tapped regularly (in 12 of the last 22 years), political pledges and ideology again trump the needs of Texas’ schools as few conservative lawmakers will entertain using the taxpayers’ own savings to fund taxpayer needs.

  • Deadbeat legislature says: “We’re going to wait for the ruling in the school finance trial to force us to do the right thing.”

Truth: Aside from being spineless, the Texas Supreme Court’s anticipated ruling on the school finance suit is irrelevant to this year’s budget. While most legislators are fully aware that a total re-write of school finance formulas and mechanisms is in their future if the lower court’s ruling is upheld, there is absolutely nothing that prohibits them from restoring the funding they cut now.

Pretending they need to adopt a-wait-and-see approach is actually the most pathetic excuse offered, forcing educators and students to endure the needless cuts for years. My kindergarten son will likely be entering fourth grade before funding is restored under this approach – and that’s unacceptable. Remember, restoring education funding to 2010 levels in this year’s budget is completely unrelated to next year’s ruling. Frankly, if the lower court’s ruling is upheld, they’re going to have to dig a lot deeper than $5.4 billion next session, so PTA Mom CFO recommends the legislature begin preparing the budget for that expectation now!

Sorry, legislature, but I expect more. As a Texan, I expect you to uphold your constitutional responsibility to our children. As a Texan, I expect you to be embarrassed that despite the state’s great economic growth and development, you’ve fallen to #49 in the nation in education funding. As a Texan, I expect you to do your job instead of digging up deadbeat excuses to avoid fulfilling your obligations to public education.

I expect more and my child deserves more.

If you, like the majority of Texans polled, support restoring the full $5.4 billion to education this session, contact your legislator immediately. Joint budget proposals are expected to be negotiated next month and your representative needs to know that you don’t approve of Texas’ deadbeat ways. Contact your legislator today!

Related articles

Simple Math for Texas Legislators – What Can You Buy with $1.5 Billion?

maths

maths (Photo credit: Sean MacEntee)

By Dr. Jerry R. Burkett

What can you buy with $1.5 billion? It certainly sounds like a lot of money. When the Texas Senate Finance Committee voted to put $1.5 billion back into public education last week, many people probably rejoiced, believing the budget disaster of 2011 was behind us. But, simple math shows that what the legislature is considering amounts to little more than saving face and throwing a bone to Texas school children.

Let’s take a hypothetical look at what $1.5 billion could actually mean to Texas school districts.

1)     The 82nd Texas Legislature cut $5.4 billion from education in 2011.

$5.4 billion
- $1.5 billion
__________
$3.9 billion—this is the amount still owed to public education

2)     Of the $1.5 billion that the senate recommended, $40 million is designated for pre-K programs, $20 million for the state’s Virtual School Network, and $4 million for Teach for America.

$5.4 billion
- $40 million to pre-K programs
- $20 million to Virtual School Network
- $ 4 million to Teach for America
__________
$1.436 billion—amount remaining for school district operations

3)     In Texas, there are 1,024 public school districts serving five million students.

$1.436 billion remaining for school district operations
÷ 1,024 school districts
__________
$1.4 million—additional funding provided to each school district using the assumption that each school district would receive the same amount of money (which they won’t because of the erratic state funding formulas, but let’s keep it simple and assume that they will.)

4)     School districts spend their money on a variety of necessities including payroll, curriculum, transportation, heating and cooling, maintenance, and administration. After funding these necessities, how much of the $1.4 million could a school district use to make important changes that could impact students, like hiring more teachers?

$1.4 million
x .49% (average percentage of a school district budget required for standard operations excluding instructional personnel)
__________
$686,000 – amount remaining to fund additional instructional personnel

5)     How many teachers could be hired with $686,000?

$686,000
÷ $60,000 (average teacher salary plus benefits)
__________
11.43 - additional teachers per school district that can be afforded with the additional funding.

Now, think about your local school district and the number of schools it operates.  Is 11.43 teachers enough to fill the holes that were left when 12,000 teachers loss their jobs in 2011?  In my district, 11.43 would provide one new teacher in only one third of the schools in the district.

In other words, it’s not enough.

In 2011, the Texas legislature cut $5.4 billion from education based upon low-balled revenue projections. It turns out those projections missed the mark so much that legislators actually had the money to fully fund education (and Medicaid) but weren’t able to act based upon the data they were provided. This year, tax collections and revenue are exceeding estimates, with an anticipated budget surplus of nearly $10 billion and a healthy rainy day fund of $8 billion and growing.

This time around, the state has the opportunity to fully restore those needless funding cuts from last session, yet they choose not to do so. Even after a school funding lawsuit that established that our public schools are inadequately underfunded, federal sequestration that will impact Texas education to the tune of $517 million this year, and increased standardized testing requirements, the Texas legislature is only considering throwing Texas students a $1.5 billion bone.

It’s not enough.

Instead, state legislators like Senator Dan Patrick offer a variety of excuses for why they can’t restore the funding – excuses like bumping up against the state constitutional spending limit, the need to fund the bills they didn’t pay last session, the rising costs of Medicaid, and the impact of Obamacare. Each of those excuses is based upon the actions or inactions of politicians with poor planning skills tainted by political ideology. And they expect Texas school children to pay the price for their bad choices.

Texas school children deserve an explanation as to why our legislature left unpaid bills, underfunded schools, and refused to fund new Texas students for the first time in modern history. They deserve to know why members of the Legislative Budget Board (including Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, House Speaker Joe Strauss, and other senators and representatives) voted for the second most restrictive spending cap offered to them with full knowledge and understanding of the unpaid obligations waiting for them at the beginning of the 83rd session. The spending cap selected was their choice Further, these elected officials could vote to exceed the spending cap (it takes a simple majority vote and was last done in 2007), but Senator Patrick gleefully said “not in my world.” Again – the spending cap excuse is a choice made by our legislature.

There are complaints about pressures on the budget due to Obamacare and associated costs. Obamacare was signed into law three years ago and it was the responsibility of our state legislators to plan accordingly. Many school districts planned accordingly for the budget cuts they knew would come in 2011 because of the structural tax deficit the legislature created in 2006. Their planning softened the blow for some districts – perhaps the legislature could reach out to school districts to learn a few things about proper budgetary planning. Regardless, it is not the fault of Texas school children that the legislature let political ideology drive their budgetary planning. School children should not suffer for a short-sighted and politically obstinate legislature.

Perhaps the members of the state legislature should explain to Texas school children why they refuse to tap the rainy day fund (which has grown about 40%) to restore the unnecessary education cuts of 2011.To be clear, the rainy day fund is an economic stabilization fund designed to offset fluctuations in the budget due to unforeseen economic conditions. It is not similar to a school district reserve fund, which is used for cash flow and accounting purposes. And it does not belong to the legislature. By definition, that fund should have been tapped to offset the impact of the recession (or so we thought) in 2011. But, again, the legislature will choose to not entertain that funding source. Perhaps legislators can explain to Texas students why politics is more important than their futures.

Perhaps the state legislature can also explain why the focus this session isn’t on its constitutional requirement to fund Texas public schools, but rather on boondoggles such as creating new government boards to expand charters, school voucher schemes, and selling off public school buildings for $1 (although Senator Patrick had to walk this folly back after pushback on both sides of the aisle – now charters can mount their land grab for market value only). Lawmakers have chosen to concentrate on these fiscally questionable pursuits rather than restoring funding to our public school obligations. Perhaps they can explain that despite the fact that they can fully restore funding without raising taxes by a single cent, they choose not to do so.

Apparently everything is bigger in Texas – including its legislative failures. Texas has fallen to 49th in the United States in education spending per student (outspent by the District of Columbia and all states except Arizona and Nevada). Texas students deserve a world-class, college and career ready, and competitive education system that meet the demands of the 21st century. Members of our state legislature choose not to make that a reality.

While the $1.5 billion is a step in the right direction, it does not come near covering these requirements and expectations. Not even close.

Related articles

PTA Mom Marches on Austin – A Tale of Two Education Rallies

By Kim Burkett, PTA Mom

Student rallyOn Saturday my family and I gave up our usual weekend routine of pee wee basketball games and swim lessons to march on Austin as part of the Save Texas Schools rally in support of public education. Many of my fellow PTA moms even prolonged their Texas PTA Rally Day at the Capitol stay to attend the rally on Saturday, which focused on restoring funding cuts to public schools and ending the standardized testing madness. Interestingly there were dueling education events at the capitol that morning. On the other side of the capitol building there was a school choice event going on as well.

The differences between the Save Texas Schools rally and school choice event were profoundly striking, painting a distinct picture of the differing viewpoints and attitudes these groups have toward public education and Texas students. While the Save Texas Schools rally drew thousands of participants (parents, students, educators, and community members) from all over the state, the school choice event drew somewhere around 30 folks – mostly lobbyists and their followers pleading their case for yet another voucher scheme to a handful of gathered media.

The school choice event was attended by long-time lobbyists and D.C. insiders like Peggy Venable of the Texas chapter of Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and her fellow voucher-pushing pals from Texas AFP’s “Red Apple project.” Members of Empower Texans/Texans for Fiscal Responsibility (on-again, off-again registered lobbyists and lackeys funded by West Texas oil money) were there as well. Attendees also included paid employees of Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), the conservative think tank with the stated mission to “promote and defend liberty, personal responsibility, and free enterprise in Texas.” (Always remember that free enterprise is part of their mission, but nowhere does it say they’re committed to what’s best for Texas families and their children. That pro-business bent is important to keep in mind as you hear their message of “school choice” and opinions of public education.) There were even a few lobbyists who had recently moved from Washington, D.C., leaving their employment at Freedom Works (a Tea Party-associated conservative group with very close ties to D.C. lobbyists) behind to join the astro-turf efforts to push vouchers into Texas’ school system.

While these groups that have long pushed their own anti-public education agendas, encouraged cuts to public education (despite the fact that education is one of the most pressing concerns facing Texans according to recent polling), and promoted propaganda against public education using questionable statistics met in the shadows of the capitol’s north steps, the pro-public education rally met on the sunny side of the capitol’s south steps. I stood on those south steps with parents and children. I stood with educators (retired and active) and concerned citizens. I listened to high school bands and performers. I learned about the importance of public education in a community and what happens when the state ignores its constitutional responsibility to public schools.

Some of the business suit-clad school choice lobbyists apparently made their way to the other side of the capitol building to visit the Save Texas Schools rally. While they had the opportunity to hear business people, religious leaders, superintendents, politicians, educators, school board members, and community members talk about the importance of public education, the need to restore the $5.4 billion needlessly cut during the last legislative session, and the impact Texas’ testing frenzy has had on students and schools, the school choice lobbyists didn’t seem to be listening. Based upon their social media barrage, the lobbyists only walked away with amazement that the socialist party was there!

Rather than contrasting the merits of their plan with those of public education proponents, the lobbyists were busy tweeting photos and faux outrage that members of the socialist political party attended the public rally. Yes, they were there. So were some members of the Occupy movement, Move On, LULAC, and various professional educator organizations (lobbyists like to call them “unions,” even though they’re well aware that Texas is a right-to-work state where educators can’t bargain or strike). What the lobbyists don’t seem to understand is when you have a real, legitimate grass-roots community rally, you’re likely to get diverse members of the entire community in attendance (rather than just a bunch of policy wonks, lobbyists, and their paid henchmen). And sometimes those community members just might include groups that lobbyists find “sensational” enough to use as shiny distractors from the real message.

Since they failed to mention it, though, let me tell you about the groups that the lobbyists didn’t tweet pictures of. The groups I saw as I marched through downtown to the capitol included church groups, veteran groups, college students, PTA members, moms pushing strollers, elderly ladies pushing walkers, families, and students waving Texas flags. I saw artist groups concerned about cuts to fine arts programs. I saw educators representing ISDs from across the state concerned about over-crowded classrooms and teaching to the test. I saw superintendents wondering how they’ll make it through another budget cycle reeling from cuts, unfunded growth, and increased standards and requirements.

These are the groups the lobbyists should have seen and heard. If they had only been paying attention, they would have heard that Texas didn’t fund enrollment growth in 2011, leaving new students (all 160,000 of them) unfunded for the first time in modern history. They would have heard that Texas has fallen to #49 nationally in per student funding – an embarrassing statistic for a state that boasts such a strong economic miracle. They would have heard that education is sometimes the only answer for those trying to escape poverty (and 25% of Texas children live in poverty). They would have heard that taking money from the public school system that is required by the state constitution is not the answer to fixing public education. They also would have heard that our schools are not “failing,” but run the very real risk of doing so if they continue to be defunded, ignored, and undermined by corporate interests.

It’s such a shame that the lobbyists weren’t listening. Instead, they were busy pushing the same tired voucher scheme (now re-branded to a term that must poll better, “taxpayer scholarships.” Who doesn’t like a scholarship, right?). The same old scheme that Texas and many other states have refused time and time again. The same voucher scheme that has never shown real proven results (other than to the bottom line of private interests and corporations), although it’s been kicking around since the 1990s. The same voucher scheme that claims to be aimed at low socio-economic kids who need a better opportunity, but only subsidizes a portion of the tuition leaving the family to pick up a tab they can’t afford. The scheme that chooses funneling taxpayer dollars to private entities rather than fixing the public education system in place that they claim to be broken.

This brand of “education reform” they’re peddling is the type of corporate-driven reform that has brought us the testing cash cow that pays United Kingdom-based Pearson a half a billion of Texas taxpayer dollars. Despite their supposed roles as taxpayer watch dogs and claims of fiscal conservatism, they were pushing for unaccountable uses of Texans’ tax dollars and more tax breaks for business. This isn’t about broken schools or low socio-economic students. Just follow the money – and the lobbyists.

So on Saturday I chose to attend the rally of the real families, educators, and students rather than the contrived gathering of the lobbyists and their paid employees. I marched behind my kindergarten son and two high school students with bright futures. I marched behind them, and mostly importantly, I marched for them. I marched for those kids because they deserve better than what Texas has provided them. I marched for those kids because they are owed the same level and quality of education that I received so many years ago. I marched for the kids the state chose to ignore when they defunded education last session. I marched for the kids who have seen sports programs defunded, bussing halted, and who sit on the floors and counter tops of overcrowded classrooms. I marched for all of the kids who deserve a strong education and the opportunities that will afford them. Unlike the astro-turf school choice event, I know exactly who I rallied for on the steps of the capitol. And I did so proudly.

Related articles

At Capitol Education Rally, Tough Words For Legislature

Jackson MarchingAt Capitol Education Rally, Tough Words For Legislature
by Morgan Smith

Public education advocates accused lawmakers of strangling public schools with out-of-control high-stakes testing and funding cuts at a rally at the Capitol on Saturday.

“There are five million kids in Texas waiting for this legislature to keep our forefather’s promises,” said John Kuhn, the superintendent of Perrin Whitt Consolidated Independent School District, in North Texas. “And to those who want to take away that promise, I’m with the moms and the trustees and local business people who will say what brave Texans have said before, come and take it. Just try to kill that promise of our Constitution.”

Educators, parents, and students gathered at the event organized by Save Texas Schools, a statewide coalition formed during the 2011 legislative session to fight funding cuts. According to their crowd count, about 3,500 people attended.

While 2011 might have the Alamo for Texas public schools, said Kuhn, whose rural district of about 400 students is located northwest of Fort Worth, “this year is our San Jacinto.”

Several lawmakers attended the rally, including Sen. Kirk Watson and Reps. Elliott Naishtat, Mark Strama, Lon Burnam, and Donna Howard. Rep. James White, from Hillister, was the lone Republican.

“The verdict is in, and it says the Texas school system is inadequate, unfair, and isn’t even constitutional,” said Watson, referring a district court judge’s recent ruling in a lawsuit brought by school districts against the state.

Instead of moving restore funding in light of that decision now, he said, “the Legislature is sitting around like a litigious deadbeat dad waiting from a ruling from a higher court.”

Many speakers — including Diane Ravitch, a Houston native and former assistant secretary of education to President George H.W. Bush who is now an outspoken opponent of vouchers and high-stakes testing — called out Senate Education Committee chairman Dan Patrick by name.

The Houston Republican has made creating a scholarship program for students to attend private schools a priority during the ongoing legislative session. He also has introduced a bill, Senate Bill 2, that would dramatically expand the state’s charter school system.

Among Ravitch’s concerns was the senator’s attempt to pass a “parent-trigger” law in which local school boards could vote to convert to a charter school.  It would more aptly be called a “parent tricker” law, she said.

She urged members of the crowd to support efforts to roll back student testing in the state. “The testing vampire started here,” she said, referring to the Texas origins of the federal No Child Left Behind Act. “Kill it.”

Former Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott also spoke at the rally. Scott, who stepped down from the agency in July, made national headlines last year when he told an annual gathering of 3,000 public school administrators that the state’s testing and accountability system had gone too far.

On Saturday, he said the state’s $90 million a year test-development contract was influencing the “totatilty” of public schools.

“Now, some of you may look at that and see that as the tail wagging the dog a little bit, wouldn’t you? I don’t,” he said, “I look at it as the flea at the end of the tail of the dog trying to wag the dog.”

He said that realization was part of his decision last year to speak out against the direction of state education policy.

“I had to turn in my reformer card because I looked at it as a flea circus,” he said, “They are selling two ideas and two ideas only: No. 1, your schools are failing and No. 2, if you give us billions of dollars we can convince you [of] the first thing we just told you.”

Prior to the rally, a handful of school choice advocates gathered on the north steps of the Capitol at a media conference organized by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, an Austin-based conservative think-tank.

They emphasized the need for a scholarship program that would give public school students to the option to attend private schools of their choice, saying that such a program would provide competition that would improve public schools and also give parents the ability to choose the best educational choice for their children.

“They are advocating for more money, but they always do, they always will, and the focus needs to be on the student and the education they’re getting, and this is what we’re talking about — giving parents choices to be sure that they can send their children to schools where they’ll be educated,” said Talmadge Heflin, a former state lawmaker who is the director of the TPPF’s Center for Fiscal Policy.

In addition to TPPF officials, attendees included Peggy Veneable, the president of the Texas Branch of Americans for Prosperity, and representatives from Americans for Tax Reform and Texans For Fiscal Responsibility.
This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at http://www.texastribune.org/2013/02/23/capitol-education-rally-tough-words-legislature/.