Texas Ed Spectator

In general, I don’t think “starting off” at a community college to get a four year degree is a good idea for most people. This isn’t necessarily a criticism of the education quality at community colleges but rather a recognition that unless a student is especially focused and motivated, his or her chances for graduation are slim. However, a recent story in the Express-News reminded me that for many, the community college may be the only viable option.

Nonetheless, San Antonio College only has a 11.7% graduation rate for a four year degree in six years. If you find yourself at SAC for financial reasons (and the tuition is significantly lower than that of four year institutions) take advantage of the Presidential Honors Program.

Presidential Honors Program

A limited number of students are selected for this program every fall and spring semester. High school applicants are evaluated on the basis of high school GPA and class rank, SAT and/or ACT test scores, teacher recommendations and weight of academic load (number of math, science, social science, and humanities courses). Selected students are given a full scholarship (tuition and books). Those entering the program then take a mix of honors courses, contract courses, and regular courses to fulfill the requirements of the Honors program and of the students’ major. Graduates of the program can enter degree programs at universities in any field. The Honors program also helps place its students in universities and often can help students gain scholarship continuations into the Junior and Senior year.

Such a program is one way to get the attention and support you need to make it to the four year college. Some community colleges actually have agreements with other colleges where students in their honors programs can directly transfer into the four year university’s program. And given the graduation rate at some four year colleges, the honors programs is another way to prevent falling through the cracks.

The University of Texas at San Antonio’s six year graduation rate is only 30.2% compared to 75.1% for the University of Texas at Austin. Surely, however, the students in UTSA’s honors programs must have a higher graduation rate? Furthermore, the eligibility requirements for UTSA’s Honros College aren’t exactly daunting: graduation in the top 20%, ACT of 24, SAT (M+V) 1100.

I suppose this comes across as a back-handed compliment to the programs. Don’t get me wrong, I firmly believe that you can get a great education at either of these schools. But you would certainly be maximizing your resources if you pursued the honors options available at less selective schools.

Unfortunately, these programs can be hard to find. The honors program link shows up after the second click on the UT Austin website. It takes four clicks on the UTSA page and that’s only if you know to click on “Student Information Bulletin” and then “Admission to Colleges and Special Programs.” As for the program at SAC, so far I’ve only found it by doing a search on the website. I don’t know what links into it. Maybe it’s the administration’s way of keeping down enrollment.

In any case, for all those students who aren’t likely to get into UT Austin because of the top ten percent rule, there are probably some excellent honor programs which would serve them just as well.

Study finds inequality in Texas education funding - Houston Business Journal:

High schools also tended to receive 18 percent more funding than elementary or middle schools, as did schools with more senior teachers.

So what do you think accounts for the 18% difference? A need to pay teachers more for teaching advanced subjects like physics and calculus? Are there really that many calculus teachers in high schools or are they really paid that much more than other teachers?

Where is that 18% going? Now I’m going to guess that it’s going to improve the “quality” of the high school experience by providing a variety of enrichment activities. Yeah, I think a lot more is being spent on high school athletics than any one cares to admit.

And until the districts and TEA are willing to show otherwise, I think I’m probably on the right track, at least in terms that the TEA and school districts aren’t anxious to reveal their funding breakdown. What in the world am I talking about?

You can go to the TEA website and generate AEIS Reports for Texas school districts. If you look up the Bexar County Northside district, you will find a breakdown of “Actual Expenditures by Function” and “Actual Program Expenditure Information.” The functions include “Cocurricular activities” and the program information includes “Athletics/Related Activities.” These items constitute only 2% or less of the budget, pretty small potatoes. But then why doesn’t the report list the number of students enrolled in Athletics/Related Activities when it does so for a select number of other programs?

Furthermore, when you get to the campus level, these categories go missing completely along with the functions “Student Transportation” and “Food Services” among others. Is this the start of the 18% increase in spending in high schools? We certainly can’t tell from the data since the date aren’t provided.

So why aren’t the categories listed at the campus level? Could it be because the disparities would be that obvious?

Technorati Tags: Texas, Education funding, per pupil funding, inequity, Texas Education Agency, Northside ISD, Center for Reinventing Public Education

Unbelievable.

MySA.com: State Government

Higher education cuts included a $6 million veto for a San Antonio Life Sciences Institute. The University of Texas at San Antonio and the University of Texas Health Science Center had jointly asked for it, saying it would stimulate growth of the city’s biomedical and biotechnology industries and spur commercialization of research products.

UTSA and UTHSC officials couldn’t be reached for comment, but Perry said he doesn’t want to create more top research institutions before a new commission on higher education and global competitiveness drafts a long-term plan for efficient use of taxpayer dollars.

Texas A&M University-International in Laredo lost $5 million from Perry’s vetoes that had been earmarked for “student success” initiatives to expand doctoral degree programs in business and outreach in math and science.

There may or may not have been good reason to line item veto some of the “pork” in the higher education funding bills. However, Perry’s argument that he “doesn’t want to create more top research institutions” is absolutely mind boggling.

Excuse me, did he miss the entire Top 10% Rule controversy this past session? How there simply wasn’t enough room at UT Austin to accommodate all the students who were qualified to attend? How many of these students would rather go out of state rather than attend another college in Texas?

He wants to wait before creating another top research institution because we might create more than we need? And just out of curiosity, since he only cut $35.9 million out $123 million in higher education earmarks, what was so special about the $87 million he didn’t cut?

MySA.com: Metro | State

AUSTIN — A proposal touted by Gov. Rick Perry to boost university funding based on graduation rates is getting a new push from some leaders who worry he may veto a big swath of the higher education budget unless he gets some reforms he wants.

And people complain about how unfair NCLB is. Do you think UTSA’s graduation rates would come close to UT Austin’s if they received as much money from the state per student as UT Austin and could restrict admissions as does UT Austin? UTSA has to get approval from the UT System before changing it’s admissions policies. So is Perry going to punish UTSA for not graduating a higher percentage of students while the state also requires them to admit virtually all high school graduates regardless of qualifications?

I really think Perry doesn’t want to go there. Imagine the controversy it will generate when the inequitable funding of higher education is brought into the spotlight.